Background
The five defendants were charged after an alleged aggravated burglary at Stone Farm near Canterbury in March 2024. About 10 men allegedly entered the property seeking cash and cannabis; two were armed with what appeared to be a handgun and a machete. Four defendants were stopped soon afterward in a Ford Focus, while Osemwegie was linked to a BMW that the prosecution said had travelled from London in convoy with the Ford.
The Crown Court dismissed the charges in July 2024 because the evidence then presented did not establish a prima facie case. The prosecution later obtained additional material, including evidence that uncommon glass fragments on Lee-Walton’s shoes matched glass from the broken doors and telephone data connecting Riviere and Joof to the farm’s postcode and location. In December 2025, the prosecution applied to the High Court for a Voluntary Bill of Indictment to reinstitute aggravated-burglary proceedings, with burglary pleaded alternatively.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Hilliard granted the application for all five defendants. Considering the new forensic and telephone evidence alongside the vehicle, cell-site and ANPR evidence, the court found a prima facie case that the defendants had joined a group that went to Stone Farm and at least encouraged or assisted the principal offenders. The prosecution did not need to show that each defendant entered the house or personally carried a weapon.
The court strongly criticised the prosecution’s failure to obtain and disclose the evidence promptly and its further delay in seeking the Voluntary Bill. Nevertheless, the delay did not make a fair trial impossible and did not amount to the exceptional abuse of process that would justify preventing a trial. No defendant identified specific prejudice caused by the delay, and the court concluded that trying the serious allegations remained in the interests of justice.
Key Takeaways
- Fresh forensic and digital evidence may justify a Voluntary Bill after charges have been dismissed, but the controlling question remains whether granting it is in the interests of justice.
- A secondary participant may be guilty of aggravated burglary without entering the premises if the evidence shows that the person encouraged or assisted the principal offenders.
- Serious prosecution delay and disclosure failures do not automatically bar renewed proceedings where a fair trial remains possible and the conduct does not require a stay to protect the integrity of justice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the High Court balances prosecutorial failures against the public interest in trying serious offences. A Voluntary Bill remains exceptional, but significant evidence obtained after dismissal can support renewed proceedings even when the prosecution could and should have acted more efficiently.
The judgment also underscores that delay may be addressed through trial management, bail decisions or sentencing rather than by terminating proceedings, unless the delay prevents a fair trial or makes prosecution inconsistent with justice and propriety.