R v F. Murder. Litigator where a client faced a re-trial following a court decision that she was responsible for the death of her two children. This was a complex case involving the now discredited Dr Meadows and Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. Having secured bail for the client, the crown were persuaded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue a re-trial and proceedings were stayed.
R v J. and Others. Court of Appeal. Advocate at a successful appeal to overturn a 1986 conviction for wounding with intent. The court held that applying modern standards of fairness, a conviction from 1986 for grievous bodily harm with intent was unsafe where the appellant had been denied access to a solicitor and contemporaneous records of police interviews had not been made.
R v T. and another. Aggravated Burglary. Advocate where a client faced an allegation that he and a friend had forced entry with a weapon into the home of a man in his 60s. The starting point upon conviction would have been at least 10 years. Careful analysis of additional material and cross examination of the complainant discredited his account and the client was found not guilty.
R v P. Money Laundering. Advocate where the client was a woman of good character who faced allegations that she had sent money, knowing it to be the proceeds of crime, out of the country at the request of her husband. A careful examination in chief and speech meant that the jury was not long in finding her not guilty.
R v H. Death by Dangerous Driving. Advocate where client was said to have driven a van (new to him) at excessive speed in wet conditions on roads that were not known to him, whilst drinking vodka and sniffing cocaine. Following the collision, in which others were seriously injured, he fled the scene seeking to blame the deceased for the accident. Successful negotiation of a favourable basis of plea led to a sentence of 3 years.
R v K. Affray. Advocate representing the only client to seek a trial in relation to a serious public order incident involving a member of the public being assaulted and his car seriously damaged by a group of youths. The client was found not guilty after the identification procedures adopted by the officer in the case were discredited through cross-examination.
R v L. Threats to Kill. Advocate representing client at trial for a serious allegation in a domestic setting. Thorough preparation relating to phone and social media evidence combined with appropriate cross-examination discredited the account put forward by the complainant and the client was acquitted.
R v J. Exposure. Advocate representing repeat offender at trial for exposure to his probation officer.
R v S. Perverting the Course of Justice. Advocate in case where client found not guilty of destroying evidence in ‘cash for crash’ conspiracy. Read more here.
R v L. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. Advocate in case where client found not guilty of assaulting a teenager by hitting them over the head with a length of wood. Read more here.
R v M. Confiscation. Successful opposition to review of available amount in POCA case.
R v S. Rape and S18. Advocate in case where Crown persuaded to offer no evidence resulting in not guilty verdicts. Reliability of the witness challenged early in the case.
R v D. Paedophile hunter prosecution. Advocate in case where prosecution stayed as an abuse of process owing to disclosure failures. More here.
R v M. Paedophile hunter prosecution. Advocate in case where early request for disclosure of technical evidence led to prosecution offering no evidence and not guilty verdicts. More here.
R v F. Supply Class A drugs. Advocate securing a suspended sentence for adult client who pleaded guilty to allegations of supply of both Class A and Class B drugs.
R v R. Sexual Assault. Trial advocate where jury found client not guilty of two sexual assaults and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
R v N. Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs. Trial advocate for client accused of being part of a large scale conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Not guilty following three days of jury deliberation.
R v M. Murder. Junior advocate during Covid lockdown at Peterborough Crown Court involving death of client’s husband at the hands of client and lodger. Led by Chris Henley KC of Mountford Chambers.
R v J. Supply Class A drugs and Fraud. Client exploited by father to commit offences on the dark web, father taking advantage of our client’s mental frailties. Reports obtained and Crown persuaded not to proceed as it was not in the public interest despite the serious nature of the offending. Our client would have successfully availed himself of the Modern Slavery statutory defence.
R v P. Conspiracy to Supply Class B drugs. Not guilty verdicts in a multi-handed trial alleging supply of cannabis and money laundering offences. Vacuum sealed bags of cannabis found in a cupboard in client’s flat. Defence was lack of knowledge.
R v M. Rape. Not guilty verdict after trial of allegation of rape at a house party. Evidence of 17 witnesses at the party agreed that tended to show that the evidence of the complainant could not be relied upon. The client did not give evidence.
R v S. Murder. Junior Advocate for client accused of joint enterprise murder led by Vanessa Marshall KC of 7 Bedford Row. Not guilty verdict, re-trial ordered on manslaughter.
R v B. Murder. Junior advocate in high profile case involving deaths of partner and three children. Led by Vanessa Marshall KC of 7 Bedford Row.
R v B. Murder. Junior advocate in a case involving the deaths of a mother and her two young children. Led by Chris Henley KC of Mountford Chambers.
R v W. Sexual offences. Client found not guilty after trial of sexually assaulting his stepson over a period of years. Careful cross-examination demonstrated to the jury that the complainant was an untruthful witness.
R v N. Production of Cannabis. Vietnamese national found not guilty after trial having accepted producing cannabis at a house in Nottingham but relying on the statutory Modern Slavery defence.
Education Law
Case of B. Future infant class size appeal. Successfully argued that a child ought to be admitted to the parents primary school of choice despite local authority opposition. Case arose from application of unlawful admissions criteria.
Case of L. Infant class size appeal. Case arising from here. decision to change admissions criteria by local authority. Pupil admitted to the school despite strong opposition from the local authority.
