£20k case for theft of 25p banana
Thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent trying to prosecute a man for stealing a 25p banana, the Express & Star can reveal today.
James Gallagher, pictured, was accused of stealing the fruit from Del Villagio in Birmingham's Bullring. But after a trial costing £20,000 at Birmingham Crown Court jurors found the 23-year-old not guilty.
They took less than 30 minutes yesterday to clear him of a charge of burglary and a lesser charge of theft.
Recorder Mr Shamim Qureshi told the jury before they delivered their verdict: "It is easy sometimes to think 'what is this case doing at the crown court?'
"Today is day two, this theoretically has cost £20,000. The allegation is one which is burglary and that is always a serious allegation no matter what is alleged to have been stolen.
"It is fairly easy to make lots of jokes, but do remember it is a serious allegation that the defendant faces."
Speaking after the verdict Mr Gallagher, who lives in Linwood Road, Handsworth, Birmingham, said he was relieved and had chosen a crown court trial because he expected magistrates would have found him guilty. He said: "It's shocking, it's just a waste of taxpayers money."
It was said Mr Gallagher had entered the Italian restaurant with 22-year-old Christopher Ogelsby at 8.45am on March 13 when it was not due to open until 10am, and stolen a banana.
The jury heard the shutters at Del Villagio were half-up and after seeing a member of staff in the store, Mr Gallagher and Ogelsby went underneath them into the store and picked up bananas.
They were already being viewed by security and were apprehended almost immediately.
Ogelsby pleaded guilty to burglary at Birmingham Magistrates Court on March 14 and was given a 12 month conditional discharge. Martin Lindop, district crown prosecutor for Birmingham Crown Prosecution Service, said: "We recommended this matter was suitable to be dealt with in the magistrates' court. However, Mr James Gallagher elected trial by jury, as is his right, so the case was heard in the crown court.
"It is not the cost of the item that determines whether we proceed with a prosecution, but whether there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest.
"In this case, we felt that there was sufficient evidence and it was in the public interest for the prosecution to proceed."
