Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Patrick O’Hanlon and Goran Stojsavljevic of Berkeley Square Solicitors, acted as Defence Junior on these complex multi-handed charges, where 8 Defendants faced charges of human trafficking of sex workers, conspiracy to control prostitution for gain, and money laundering of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The case concerned an established escort agency in London (run by a related Co-Defendant and former sex worker). Operation Vansfare (the Metropolitan Police investigation) involved Undercover Officers (UCOs), and hundreds of thousands of pages of telephone and financial evidence. As part of a detailed legal argument on the interpretation of “control” in a sex work context, the Crown argued that it was made out by the agency allocating work (for the payment of a commission on bookings), a minimum hourly rate of pay, provision of a driver / personal guard for sex workers, and a recommended smart dress code for call-outs. Sex workers with the agency had full and free choice as to whether or not to see a client, what services were performed, and whether to leave a booking at any time. The Crown acknowledged there was no evidence of violence, force, threats, or coercion, and abandoned the human trafficking charges (potentially attracting life imprisonment) prior to jury empanelment, with the jury returning acquittals on all remaining counts at trial. Ms Hodgetts represented D1 in Trial 1, who only became D3 after Co-Defendants were extradited. This case had 3 trials. The first trial (2022) was abandoned due to inadequate Prosecution disclosure. The first retrial (2024) had the jury discharged after a third party inadvertently adduced inadmissible material. In the second retrial, or third trial (2025), the jury acquitted on all counts at trial.

Dr Felicity Gerry KC appears as counsel assisting the Westminster inquiry into joint enterprise. The first hearing on 6 February began the collection of evidence from CPS, academics and practitioners on the controversial approach to complicity that allows multiple people to be prosecuted and punished for the same crime. The Westminster Commission for Joint Enterprise was launched by the newly-formed All-Parliamentary Group on Miscarriages of Justice headed by the Labour MP Kim Johnson MP as the new chair last year (here). The call for evidence for future sessions is here https://www.thejusticegap.com/29805-2/

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Jeremy Newell, Ms Patricia Wangui, and Mr Charlie Hutchins of Criminal Defence Solicitors, secured the Crown Prosecution Service’s offer of no evidence against a prisoner accused of assaulting a Prison Officer. This matter was originally being dealt with under internal prison disciplinary procedures, before this was paused for it to be prosecuted as an assault on an emergency worker. The incident, captured on CCTV, involved the Prison Officer alleging the Client had spat at him following a disagreement. The Client, a devout Christian, maintained that he was refused permission to leave his cell to attend Church for Sunday worship (and subsequently was not even allowed out to empty his bin). The Body Worn Video of another Officer, initially also marked by the Prosecution as “Not Disclosable” on the basis of there being “no material of relevance” therein, featured its wearer confirming that he had not unlocked the Client for the Chapel – and another telling him he ought to have done so. There then followed some discussion as to whether the Client, who is Autistic, should have been unlocked “for meds.” Later on, the Complainant Officer could be heard on the recording to make an inappropriate remark about the Client. This footage was incorrectly marked as “Not Disclosable” on the basis of there being “no material of relevance” therein – but the inappropriate comment was edited out from the version relied upon by the Crown. Upon the Client being interviewed, even the Interviewing Officer observed that that footage was not particularly clear, and that he could not see clearly what had happened. Furthermore, the Police Occurrence Report (from the Unused Material) included the observation that the CCTV was not conclusive and did not show any spitting. The file also confirmed there were no forensics in this case. Counsel for the Prosecution confirmed at court that, after reviewing the case, it was no longer in the public interest to prosecute, and formally offered no evidence – and a Not Guilty verdict was recorded.

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.

Caroline Goodwin KC was instructed by Farleys Solicitors senior partner Paul Schofield, to act for a principal defendant, who was a company director and trustee. The charge was conspiracy to defraud, along with 8 other defendants. The allegation centred around a complex large-scale pension fraud in excess of £5m. The fraud was said to include the alleged unlawful liberation of pension funds via a series of sham loans and payments from overseas accounts. The investigation took five years, with many aspects of financial and HMRC regulatory provision needing to be considered. After a 9-month trial at Newcastle Crown Court, and 20 days of jury deliberation, Farleys’ Client was acquitted. Paul Schofield of Farleys commented: “There is one person who got the result. Caroline has been exceptional and a pleasure to work with.”

Abdul Iqbal KC, leading Gerald Hendron, has successfully represented KS in the Court of Appeal, resulting in the quashing of a serious conviction for causing or allowing a vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm within a household. The judgment, handed down in R v Sheikh [2025] EWCA Crim 38, declared the conviction unsafe. This intricate case required the careful analysis of extensive medical and expert evidence, as well as the precise legal interpretation of section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The successful appeal highlights critical legal principles surrounding the scope of criminal allegations relating to the harm or death of children or vulnerable adults. The case initially attracted widespread national media attention due to its sensitive and high-profile nature. Its implications are significant for future cases involving similar charges, emphasising the importance of thorough legal and evidential scrutiny. Abdul Iqbal KC is a highly experienced barrister specialising in serious crime, including homicide, terrorism, and serious fraud, as well as regulatory law, including professional discipline and sports law. The judgment of the Court of Appeal can be found here  

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Paul Schofield and Mr Garry Leaver of Farleys Solicitors, secured a Not Guilty verdict, with the Prosecution offering no evidence against an Anglesey man charged with stalking involving fear of violence – an offence which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. The Defendant’s laptop had been seized by Police – and, despite several court appearances in the case, with the Police not obtaining expert analysis, a Judge noting it was “unlikely that any material on [the laptop] will delay or derail the trial,” the laptop charger being lost, and the password being forgotten, the Defence persisted in seeking adjournment for Defence expert examination of the laptop. The laptop was then subjected to Defence expert analysis, which gave rise to crucial new evidence. This was subsequently corroborated by Prosecution disclosure of the contents of Police analysis of the Defendant’s seized mobile phone, which was then found to support the Defence position. The Defence analysis of the laptop, undertaken on Ms Hodgetts’ advice, revealed new evidence which had not been found by Police. This evidence ultimately led to the Client’s acquittal. After Ms Hodgetts’ repeated applications to adjourn the trial to obtain the disclosure of the Defendant’s laptop for further analysis succeeded, and this new material was obtained, the case was brought back before the court by the Prosecution (after having previously been relisted for trial). The Crown offered no evidence, and a formal Not Guilty verdict was confirmed. The Prosecution did not pursue any application for a Restraining Order on acquittal (so none was imposed), and a Defence Costs Order was granted to cover the Defendant’s travel expenses incurred in having been prosecuted then subsequently acquitted.

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Simon Natas of ITN Solicitors, secures a suspended sentence for a Just Stop Oil (JSO) M25 protester before HHJ Francis Sheridan DL. Climate protester Mr Nicholas Onley was charged with public nuisance, following the JSO M25 protests in November 2022, which involved protesters climbing the gantries of the M25 motorway. He was sentenced at Aylesbury Crown Court. This protest occurred as part of the JSO “M25 blockade” week in November 2022 – a week which also gave rise to the case of R v Hallam (Roger), for a different M25 protest that same week, in which protesters (including the JSO co-founder and the “Whole Truth Five”) received sentences of up to 5 years immediate custody at Southwark Crown Court. After considering Ms Hodgetts’ representations in mitigation, HHJ Sheridan sentenced Mr Onley to a 12 month Suspended Sentence Order (SSO), suspended for 24 months, adding, in sentencing remarks: “Ms Hodgetts’ conduct in this case shows the Criminal Bar is still alive, even though it is broken.” HHJ Sheridan emphasised that Mr Onley’s sentence was based upon his unique and exceptional circumstances in mitigation, and did not bind any other sentences in protest cases generally.