October 10, 2025
Client Accused of Assaulting Wife During an Argument Over Dogs Wins His Appeal
Back to News & Blog
Cashpoint Robbery Case Ends in Not Guilty Verdict for Hill Twine Client
Riccardo Pagano secures an acquittal for a client accused of a cashpoint robbery at night. This case involved legal arguments over identification evidence and whether the prosecution could rely on guilty plea of a co-defendant who put our client at the scene. Read on to learn how this case ended in an acquittal.
What Was This Robbery Case About?
Our client, DW, was accused with others of robbing a man using a cashpoint late at night in Bournemouth Town Centre. The prosecution evidence included CCTV footage which showed three individuals surrounding the man and demanding cash to be handed over. Additional footage showed a man seriously assaulting one of the co-defendants a few minutes away from the incident. The prosecution’s case what that our client was the man doing the assaulting.
Throughout the proceedings, DW denied being involved in the robbery. His defence was that he was not present at the scene.
One of our client’s co-defendants initially blamed the robbery on DW. This is known as running a “cut-throat” defence. That same co-defendant later pleaded ‘guilty’ to the offence. However, his version of events (known as his ‘basis of plea’) implicated DW in a post-incident assault. This clearly conflicted with DW’s defence.
What Was the Identification Evidence in the Case?
The prosecution was required to prove that DW was involved in the robbery and so the identification evidence in the case was important.
One of our client’s co-defendants initially blamed the robbery on DW. This is known as running a “cut-throat” defence.
The Officer in the Case (i.e. the police officer in charge of the investigation) questioned DW about his alleged involvement in a police interview under caution in 2024. However, some months later the same officer reviewed the CCTV footage and purported to “recognise” DW in it, stating that he relied upon “jawline, nose and mannerisms” as the basis for this identification. This identification conflicted with the evidence from the man who was robbed (the ‘complainant). The complainant’s physical description of the suspect materially contradicted DW’s actual appearance. He described the suspect as a “male with tattoo” under his eye – DW has no tattoo under his eye! The complainant also failed to mention that DW has no teeth, an obvious and distinctive feature!
How Did Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers Secure an Acquittal for DW in the Robbery Case?
DW was represented at trial in the Crown Court by our Riccardo Pagano. Riccardo has a reputation for fighting for our clients and being incredibly knowledgeable and professional (have a look at what our clients say about him here). In short, the perfect advocate for DW.
The police and prosecution have to follow rules when dealing with identification evidence. These rules are set out with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice, known as the PACE Codes. Riccardo made a successful application to exclude the purported identification evidence under section 78 of PACE, arguing that its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the Court ought not to admit it. The identification was not the result of any formal or structured process and failed to comply with Code D of PACE 1984, despite DW’s early denial of involvement.
The success for our client relied entirely on Riccardo’s knowledge of the law, and his ability to construct legal arguments and present them persuasively to a Crown Court Judge
The prosecution also applied to admit evidence of the co-defendant’s guilty plea under section 74 of PACE. The prosecution wanted to be able to rely on this because the co-defendant placed DW at the scene. This was successfully opposed by the defence and the prosecution were not able to rely on this evidence.
Faced with these evidential weaknesses, the prosecution ultimately offered no evidence on all counts. This meant that they could not prove the case against DW because of a lack of evidence against him. DW was formally acquitted.
This was an unusually complex case, with the Crown relying on a combination of circumstantial CCTV evidence, flawed identification in a cut-throat scenario, and seeking to rely on a co-defendant’s plea. The success for our client relied entirely on Riccardo’s knowledge of the law, and his ability to construct legal arguments and present them persuasively to a Crown Court Judge. This was definitely a case that came down to the quality of legal representation. Achieving an acquittal in these circumstances is a rare and significant result!
If you are accused of a crime and would like to know how Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers can help you, please contact us now.
If you have any questions or need advice