OPERATION MONOXIDE KILO: PROSECUTION OFFER NO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL 

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Rashid Majid of Khans Solicitors, secured the Crown Prosecution Service’s offer of no evidence against the Client, on the day of trial, following two days of legal argument, in this complex multi-handed case at Sheffield Crown Court. Operation Monoxide Kilo was an investigation into a violent disorder involving a group of young men in Sheffield City Centre in 2022. The incident was captured on CCTV.

After considering Ms Hodgetts’ written application to exclude all identification evidence, based on the failure to properly differentiate between her Client and a doppelgänger (and amplified by the disclosure failings identified when the unserved, missing, 2022 statement was found to exist, in 2025, at court), the Prosecution offered no evidence – before HHJ had even ruled on the Defence s.78 application.

After taking on the case close to the trial date, Ms Hodgetts found a Police Digital Media Investigator’s statement contained a link to a Facebook photo which looked remarkably like the Client (but who was not him). This individual, effectively a doppelgänger for her Client’s Custody photograph, was identified as being “Male 4” by this Officer. The doppelgänger’s name had also arisen in some of the phone evidence, but the Officer who found the Facebook image was apparently unaware of this. There was no other evidence at all on the case file referring to a “Male 4” – but nor was there any statement actually identifying Ms Hodgetts’ Client – despite Police purportedly labelling his name across all the CCTV (despite his denial that it was him). Ms Hodgetts found that, unlike the doppelgänger, there appeared to be no evidence on the case file that her Client had ever been positively identified by anyone at all. HHJ directed the Crown take urgent steps overnight to look into how the Client had even come to be involved in the investigation and trial in the first place.

At court, the Crown produced a statement from the former OIC, made in 2022. It had never been served at all, in error. The OIC had sought the South Yorkshire Police Digital Media Investigator undertake analysis of social media to try to identify 4 male suspects (of which “Male 4” was one). The Digital Media Investigator’s statement identified the doppelgänger using the Facebook link. Despite this apparent identification of the doppelgänger, the former OIC accidentally received personal details of Ms Hodgetts’ Client, due to a systems error. The former OIC then sought a copy of the Client’s ID card administratively, and decided that she was certain that the Client was “Male 4” – despite the image on the ID card looking very different to Male 4 on CCTV – and disregarding the other Officer’s previous identification of the doppelgänger. Ms Hodgetts highlighted to the court that the former OIC’s statement from 2022 had never been served until it was found to exist overnight, the ID card image (also on the CPS file) was never served at all, and there was no evidence at all to suggest the Police had taken any further steps to differentiate between her Client and the doppelgänger before charge.

The Judge gave the Crown time to consider their position, and, after contact with a Reviewing Lawyer, they received written confirmation of a decision to offer no evidence (which was communicated to the Defence). However, as parties assembled in court to formalise this, a Police Officer entered, with the news that the former OIC (now a gardener in the USA) had been contacted by telephone, and could assist the Prosecution. was told of this, and Ms Hodgetts made representations that the decision to offer no evidence was irreversible. After further legal arguments as to the Defence requiring this witness, the Crown offered no evidence. A Not Guilty verdict was entered, with a Defence Costs Order. The trial against Co-Defendants, including Ms Hodgetts’ Client’s brother, continued.

As former Director of the Bangor University Innocence Casework Unit, Ms Hodgetts previously spent several years working on the preparation of the submission to the CCRC, seeking to challenge conviction, in the well-known case of Jordan Cunliffe. She is experienced in cases involving identification evidence and procedure, and public disorder.