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.
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.