Recent case outcome
Not-guilty verdicts have been entered for two defendants accused of conduct said to amount to antisemitism. Approximately a year after they were charged and shortly before their listed Crown Court trial in the Hull area, the prosecution concluded that it was no longer in a position to prove the case. The prosecution offered no evidence and the Crown Court judge formally entered not-guilty verdicts. The outcome followed sustained defence requests for disclosure of relevant material.
Charged and awaiting trial
The proceedings arose from a police investigation following allegations made by a prominent senior politician. The two defendants faced the continuing pressure of criminal charges and preparation for a contested trial.
Allegations described as antisemitic are serious and sensitive. They may attract publicity and reputational damage long before the evidence has been tested in court. A charge is not proof of guilt, and every defendant remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Prosecution offers no evidence and not-guilty verdicts are entered
Approximately a year after the defendants were charged, and before the listed trial began, the prosecution decided that the case no longer merited a trial because it was not in a position to prove the allegations. The prosecution therefore offered no evidence.
The Crown Court judge formally entered not-guilty verdicts for both defendants. No jury was required to determine the allegations and neither defendant was convicted.
Persistent requests for disclosure
The outcome followed considerable defence work seeking disclosure of material relevant to the issues in the case. Disclosure is not a technical formality. Prosecutors and investigators must consider unused material that might reasonably undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence.
Focused disclosure requests can identify missing evidence, clarify the real issues and require the prosecution to review whether the evidential test continues to be met. The CPS confirms that disclosure remains under continuing review and that prosecutors should respond to properly reasoned requests supported by the defence case.
Read the official CPS guidance on defence disclosure ↗ and applications for further disclosure ↗.
Defending antisemitism, hate-speech and public-order allegations
Cases involving allegations of antisemitism, racial or religious hatred, political speech, protest activity or social-media communications require careful analysis of the precise words or conduct alleged, the surrounding context, attribution, intention and the statutory ingredients of any offence.
Political prominence or public controversy does not replace evidence. The defence must test the allegation fairly and firmly while recognising the seriousness of hatred directed towards Jewish people or any other community.
Ghafar Khan provides representation in sensitive police investigations and court proceedings throughout England and Wales, including cases involving counter-terrorism units, allegations of stirring up racial or religious hatred, protest activity and digital evidence.
Frequently asked questions
Can a criminal case be discontinued after charge?+
Yes. The prosecution must keep the evidence under review. If the applicable prosecution test is no longer met, proceedings may be discontinued or the prosecution may offer no evidence, depending on the procedure and stage reached.
Why is disclosure important before trial?+
Unused material may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence. Properly focused requests can ensure relevant material is reviewed and disclosed in accordance with the law.
Contact Ghafar Khan about a sensitive investigation or prosecution.
Criminal Defence Solicitor and High Court Advocate, acting throughout England and Wales.
The defendants are not identified on this page. This account records the procedural outcome and does not reproduce the underlying allegations. General information only; past outcomes do not guarantee future results.