EncroChat Evidence Challenged - Acquittal Secured
Our client was charged in relation to allegations that relied heavily on material recovered from encrypted EncroChat devices and associated digital examinations. The prosecution’s case depended on the interpretation and linkage of digital messages to the defendant.
Key Challenge
The prosecution’s primary evidence came from complex, encrypted device extractions and third-party forensic reports.
There were uncertainties about chain of custody, how messages were attributed to the defendant, and whether procedural safeguards had been followed during seizure and forensic processing.
The material risked being treated as definitive by the jury unless its reliability and lawfulness were robustly tested.
Our Approach
Early forensic review: We instructed an independent digital forensics expert to review the extraction methods, chain of custody, and metadata analysis used by the prosecution.
Procedural and disclosure challenges: We scrutinised the police and prosecuting authority’s disclosure, identifying gaps and failures to provide full forensic documentation and contemporaneous notes.
Admissibility and reliability focus: In written submissions and at hearing, we challenged the weight and admissibility of the EncroChat material — asking for proof of provenance, author attribution, and lawful acquisition.
Forensic cross-examination: At trial, we cross-examined prosecution expert witnesses on methodology, the limits of device attribution, and alternative explanations for the material.
Client-centred preparation: We worked closely with the client to construct credible alternative narratives and to prepare mitigating/contextual evidence, ensuring the jury had reason to doubt the prosecution’s untested assumptions.
Key Legal Takeaways
Digital material is powerful — but not infallible.
Device extractions and message logs require careful validation of provenance and attribution.
Early specialist instruction matters.
Independent digital forensics at the outset can expose weaknesses and shape a robust
defence.
Disclosure and procedural compliance can be
a decisive battleground. Failure to document forensic steps or to maintain chain of custody can render material unsafe for jury reliance.
Client-focused narrative and structured cross-examination can shift the balance even in technically complex prosecutions.
Result
Following careful challenge and cross-examination of the forensic case, the prosecution’s reliance on the EncroChat material was significantly weakened. The case against our client did not meet the criminal standard of proof; the jury returned a verdict of not guilty (acquittal).
Client Feedback
“My case was handled very well. James was very professional and explained what was happening really well, so I could understand.
Brilliant law firm.
Would definitely use LLM again if needed (but hopefully not).”
Our Case Analysis
“Digital evidence can be compelling — but only when its provenance and handling are beyond doubt.
By drilling into the forensic process and pressing for full disclosure, we gave the jury reason to doubt the prosecution’s story and secured the result our client deserved.”
Make an Enquiry:
How to reach us:
Address:
Unit 8, One Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 9QR
Office number:
0151 218 7660
Email:
enquiries@llmlaw.co.uk
Directions:
Google Maps
What3Words: Legs.Urgent.Sprint