In a lengthy multi-defendant prosecution at Preston Crown Court, Mr Khan’s client was the only defendant to secure the dismissal of her case at an early stage of the Crown Court proceedings.
The prosecution alleged that fraudulent arrangements had been created to help individuals obtain immigration status through false employment arrangements and documentation. After detailed consideration of the evidence, an appropriate application was made on behalf of Mr Khan’s client before the jury trial against her progressed. The court dismissed her case.
Other defendants continued to trial. Those who were convicted received substantial custodial sentences. The different outcomes demonstrate why the evidence against every defendant must be analysed individually, even in a large case built around an alleged common scheme.
Why an early application to dismiss can matter
Where a defendant has been sent to the Crown Court for trial, the law permits an application to dismiss a charge in appropriate circumstances. Under Schedule 3 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Crown Court must dismiss a charge if the evidence would not be sufficient for the defendant to be properly convicted.
The application is governed by strict procedural and timing requirements. It is therefore important for the defence to review the prosecution evidence promptly and identify any fundamental weakness before the opportunity is lost. The current procedure is addressed in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025.
Careful analysis in a multi-defendant fraud case
Large immigration and fraud prosecutions can generate extensive evidence, including employment records, immigration applications, financial transactions, messages, telephone data and material concerning numerous individuals. The existence of an alleged overall scheme does not establish the guilt of every person named in the case.
Early preparation should consider:
- what conduct is attributed specifically to the individual defendant;
- whether the evidence proves knowledge or dishonesty;
- whether documents and communications are properly attributed;
- whether the prosecution case relies on assumption rather than admissible evidence; and
- whether a dismissal application or another preliminary legal argument is available.
Avoiding an unnecessary jury trial
A jury trial always carries uncertainty. Where the evidence is legally insufficient, the defence should identify that issue and make the appropriate application at the correct stage rather than expose a defendant unnecessarily to a lengthy trial.
In this case, the early dismissal brought the proceedings against Mr Khan’s client to an end while the prosecution continued against others. The outcome highlights the value of individual case analysis, decisive preparation and timely legal argument.
Facing an immigration fraud or document-fraud prosecution?
Contact Ghafar Khan for advice on serious fraud, immigration-related criminal allegations and multi-defendant conspiracy proceedings. Mr Khan is a Criminal Defence Solicitor and High Court Advocate acting throughout England and Wales.
24/7 mobile: 07500 556587
Telephone: 03330 110 210
Email: notguilty@ghafarkhan.com
#CALLGFA
This anonymised case summary is provided for general information. Every case depends on its own facts and evidence, and a previous result does not guarantee a future outcome.