A teenage gang member accused of being a drug dealer has had his case dismissed after prosecutors failed to provide any evidence.

The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been due to stand trial today (Friday) accused of being in possession of 15 wraps of heroin with the intent to supply it.

But North Hampshire Youth Court was told this morning that the police had been unable to provide the prosecutor with evidence that the substance seized was in fact heroin.

Rachel Bailey had made an application for the proceedings to be adjourned, saying that it was a "serious case and it is in the public interests of justice" to wait for the evidence to be provided.

However, the 17-year-old's barrister, Ed Stott, said that the defendant, who had been remanded into a secure youth detention facility since his arrest in May, had a right for the trial to go ahead promptly.

District Judge Timothy Pattinson ruled that the defence acted "entirely properly" in raising the issue of identifying the drugs at an early stage and said "it would not be right" for the case to be adjourned again.

The boy, from Basingstoke, will now be released. He was warned by the judge that he must stick to the terms of a gang injunction, banning him from contacting several other members of the 'Basingstoke Street Gang', put in place against him and nine others earlier this year.

'Covid lab delays' see case dropped

The case, which had been before the courts on several occasions over the last two months, boiled down to a question of whether the substance seized by police when the defendant was arrested was heroin or not, according to Mr Stott.

A form, known as an SFR 1, was served on the defence yesterday, which showed that preliminary tests suggested it could have been heroin, a Class A controlled drug, the court was told.

But this form has no legal weight in court when challenged and the police laboratory had not been able to provide an SFR 2, which is an interpretation of the test which does hold weight, Ms Bailey said.

She told the court that this was due to lab delays, "exacerbated" by Covid-19 pressures and a backlog of cases.

But District Judge Pattinson decided that the trial had to go ahead today, citing the fact that defendants have a right to expect a prompt trial that goes ahead on a day agreed by the Crown Prosecution Service.

He said: "It would not be right to adjourn the case, even if the adjournment was to be on bail.

"Any defendant, and I think particularly any youth, is entitled to expect that their case is concluded promptly.

"I do feel that the defence have acted entirely properly in this case."

As a result of his ruling that the trial must go ahead, the prosecutor offered no evidence to court and the case was dismissed.