Murray Hughman’s client, SB, was acquitted by a jury at Wood Green Crown Court on serious firearms conspiracy allegations following an extended multi-handed Crown Court trial. The case required sustained preparation, careful case management and robust advocacy over many months.
Emma Lambie acted for SB in a complex, high-profile multi-defendant Crown Court prosecution at Wood Green Crown Court. Following an extended trial lasting approximately six weeks, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on the substantive firearms counts against SB in July 2026. The case involved eight defendants in total and raised serious and contested issues of joint enterprise, surveillance evidence, cell-site analysis and firearms legislation.
The Allegations
SB was one of eight defendants charged in connection with a police operation on 2 July 2025. On that date, officers stopped two vehicles that were travelling together in Queens Avenue, in the London Borough of Haringey. The vehicles — a car and a van — each contained four occupants. SB was a rear passenger in the van.
Following searches at the scene, two loaded handguns were recovered from the car. The prosecution alleged that all eight defendants had been party to a joint enterprise involving those firearms. The indictment charged SB and the seven co-defendants with:
Count 1 — Conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 and section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977; and
Count 2 — Possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968.
It is emphasised that these were allegations only. SB denied the firearms offences throughout and was represented on a not guilty basis.
The Crown Court Trial
Over the course of the Trial the Prosecution called extensive evidence, by way of undercover officers, expert witnesses and documentary exhibits. Experts dealing with firearms, cell site and forensics all featured. A half-time submission of ‘no case to answer’ made on behalf of SB, however was unsuccessful.
In July 2026, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on the principal firearms counts. In respect of SB, the jury found him not guilty on Count 1 (Conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life) and not guilty on Count 2 (Possession of a prohibited firearm). Not guilty verdicts were returned on all the substantive firearms and related counts on which SB stood charged.
It should be noted that, separately, SB was found guilty of one count of handling stolen goods — a charge arising from the circumstances of the van in which he had been travelling. He was sentenced to 10 weeks’ custody in respect of that matter, with credit given for the period he had already spent on remand.
The acquittals on the firearms conspiracy and prohibited firearms counts represent the central focus of this case, given the gravity of those allegations and the significant custodial sentences that a conviction would have attracted.
Defence Preparation and Advocacy
Cases of this nature — multi-handed Crown Court trials involving serious firearms allegations, extensive surveillance evidence and complex communications data — demand a sustained and methodical approach from the defence team from the earliest stage. Throughout the proceedings, Murray Hughman worked closely with counsel at Ruth Zentler-Munro 15 New Bridge Street Chambers to ensure that all disclosure obligations were pursued, that the prosecution evidence was rigorously scrutinised, and that SB’s position was clearly and effectively advanced.
The case required careful navigation of a substantial volume of material over a lengthy period, including active engagement at each case management stage and thorough preparation for what proved to be an extended Crown Court trial. It also unusually featured defence opening speeches, rarely used in Criminal Trials. However, the Judge required an initial address to the Jury from each Defence counsel, owing to the subtle and complex nature of the alleged conspiracy. The jury’s not guilty verdicts on the firearms counts reflect the strength of the defence advanced on SB’s behalf. Who was ultimately eligible for immediate release from custody at the conclusion of the Trial.
