Darren Snow, instructed by Zach Jones of the Royal College of Nursing Legal Team, defended a nurse before the NMC Fitness to Practice Panel in respect of multiple allegations of sexual assault against a patient and colleague. The allegations spanned between 2012 and 2017. Darren’s client had been initially cleared in a 2012 hospital investigation and then acquitted of all charges in a crown court trial. The Nursing & Midwifery Council then instigated fitness to practice proceedings culminating in a hearing in May 2024, by which time the allegations were all very old and the NMC case relied upon witnesses who had already given evidence in the crown court trial where the jury had found the nurse not guilty. The defence team were able to use transcripts from the crown court trial as well as documents from the original hospital investigation to demonstrate the unreliability of the evidence, inconsistencies in the witness accounts and secure the exclusion of significant hearsay material on grounds of unfairness. All charges were dismissed by the Fitness to Practice Panel hearing the case.

Nina Grahame KC submitted that a breach of the police promise to offer a conditional caution as an alternative to prosecution constituted a clear abuse of process in this case. Several relevant authorities highlighted a fundamental principle : “The fact that a promise had been made by an officer of the State, namely the police officer who was in charge at that stage deciding whether or not to prosecute, is something that there is a clear public interest in upholding” (H v Guildford Youth Court [2008] EWHC 506 (Admin)) Nina’s lay client B, a male in his 60s of positive good character, had been arrested for making/possession of indecent images of children. The small number of images and the fact that none were classified as Category A led the investigating officer to obtain an Inspector’s approval to offer a conditional caution to B should he admit the offences. B proceeded to make full admissions in interview. Preparation of the formalities regarding the conditions and notification requirements meant that the conditional caution could not be issued that day. Some 6 months later, B received a Notice of Intended Prosecution. A detailed application to stay the subsequent crown court proceedings was lodged prior to the PTPH. In summary, Nina submitted: That B had been unequivocally told prior to making admissions that a conditional caution “would” be offered. That offer had been properly made, in full compliance with the statutory provisions (CJA 2003 ss.22 & 23), the SoS Code of Practice and the DPP Guidance (Conditional Cautioning: Adults). That the subsequent CPS decision to prosecute constituted a breach of promise, susceptible to an application to stay where both ‘limbs’ of abuse applied, namely where it would not be possible for a defendant to have a fair trial; it would be unfair for the defendant to be tried in the particular circumstances of the case. That the decision to prosecute had been taken in breach of the mandatory requirements of the DPP Guidance, Annex D : Procedure and the Code for Crown Prosecutors; That B had been prejudiced in several respects – he had waived his Article 6 right not to incriminate himself in relation to a criminal charge and his right to advance a positive case in relation to some or all of the images as part of a fairly obtained interview account. Further, he was now unable to give detailed consideration to potential (statutory) defences that might be advanced and had also voluntarily disclosed highly confidential personal details and agreed to these being explored and checked by the police. That no safeguards provided by the trial process (e.g. exclusion of the interview PACE s.76) could adequately remedy the prejudice. The prosecution agreed to review their position prior to oral argument on the application, resulting in the issue of a conditional caution and a successful, unopposed defence application to dismiss the crown court proceedings. Nina was instructed by James Macauley of ABR Solicitors, Leeds, whose excellent and careful work at the police station enabled this application to be successfully pursued.

In a significant legal victory at York Crown Court, barrister Jonathan Page successfully defended a client accused of historical sexual offences. The jury acquitted the defendant on all 22 counts relating to allegations made by two separate complainants. These allegations, dating back over a decade and a half, led to the defendant’s arrest at Heathrow Airport. Remarkably, the arrest came 16 years after the initial accusations surfaced in 2007, shortly after which the defendant had left the UK. Jonathan Page, instructed by Kam Varaitch from IBB Solicitors, skillfully navigated the complexities of this case, which involved extensive historical evidence and delicate jury deliberations. His expertise in handling sensitive and high-stakes cases was crucial in securing a favourable outcome for his client, emphasizing the importance of meticulous legal representation in achieving justice. This case underscores the challenges and nuances of defending long-standing allegations, highlighting the pivotal role of experienced legal counsel in such critical situations.   If you would like to talk to us about instructing Jonathan then please get in touch with our Clerking team today

Syam’s client was said to have been the driver of a vehicle involved in a dangerous police pursuit in residential areas, during which significant damage was caused. One of the pursuing officers had attempted to remove the keys from the ignition, whereupon the defendant was said to have made off, thereby dragging the officer with the vehicle. Giving evidence, the officer described how he had feared the imminent risk of death. Through rigorous cross-examination, Syam demonstrated the weakness of the identification evidence, and surrounding investigative failures, by the police. The prosecution therefore offered no evidence against Syam’s client at ‘half time’, whose good character was preserved. Syam was instructed and assisted by Sara Khan of Central Chambers Law Solicitors

Fatima Laher recently represented a defendant charged with 1 count of possessing a bladed article, contrary to s.139 Criminal Justice Act 1988. Fatima Laher, made a successful submission of no case to answer, whereby the charge was dismissed and the defendant was acquitted. The defendant was stopped and searched by police and found in possession of a lock knife, an offence for which the defendant could have received up to 4 years imprisonment. A further aggravating feature in the case was that the defendant had been recently convicted of a similar type of offence. There were two issues in this case. Firstly, whether a lock knife is categorised as a ‘bladed article’ which the act states is ‘any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, except a folding pocket knife’, s.139 (2) or under s.139 (3) a ‘folding pocket knife, if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.’  A folding pocketknife does not fall to be liable within the legislation. Following rigorous cross-examination of the OIC, it could not be said with confidence that the blade did exceed 3 inches.  The officer provided a very limited description, the photographs were unreliable and no physical exhibit was provided during the trial to demonstrate that (a) the blade exceeded 3 inches, (b) a folding mechanism existed, or (c) that it was capable of being locked in position. Therefore, it was not a prohibition in which s.139 applies. During the submission, the court was referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in R v Deegan (1998) 2 Cr.App.R.121 CA where it was ruled that a ‘lock knife’ does not fall within the category of a ‘folding pocket knife’ because it is not immediately foldable at all times. Fatima further relied on the authorities of Sharma v DPP [2018] EWHC 3330 which sets out the definition of a folding knife and Godwin v DPP [1993] 96 Cr App R 244, to demonstrate that the defendant had a good reason for possessing the knife. Fatima was instructed by Chris Finnegan, Drummonds Solicitors.

Fatima Laher represented a defendant who was accused of and pleaded guilty to committing acts tending to pervert the course of justice. Although the crown placed the offence at its highest, following extensive mitigation, Fatima persuaded the court to impose a suspended period of imprisonment with rehabilitation activity requirement days and an unpaid work requirement. This was despite the CoA ruling in R v Abdulwahab (2018) where ‘a case of perverting the course of justice almost invariably calls for a custodial sentence. Suspended sentences are, in this context, very unusual.’ Fatima was instructed by Sadia Ali, The Johnson Partnership.  

Following a 4 day trial at Burnley Crown Court, Fatima Laher secured an acquittal for AM who was charged with 1 count of exposure, under s.66 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution case against Fatima’s client was put on the basis that he had allegedly exposed his genitals to an 83-year-old lady who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease with dementia and an associated adjustment disorder. The trial involved conscientious assessments of credibility and detailed cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, who were admitted as hearsay evidence. Fatima was instructed by Gary McAnulty of Fylde Law.

Gary Bell KC, leading Syam Soni, represented the defendant in these multi-defendant, multi-million Pound, complex fraud and money laundering proceedings involving 6 KCs and tens of thousands of pages of evidence arising from the industrial-scale supply of drugs in and around Cardiff over numerous years. During trial, the defence had instructed a graphology expert to support their client’s contention concerning the forgery of significant documents. The trial also involved navigating a complex ‘web’ of evidence wherein certain defendants ran a ‘cut-throat’ defence. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the offending, Gary and Syam successfully persuaded the trial Judge to impose a suspended sentence on their client. The underlying proceedings received national media coverage due to the scale of the operation: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5334551/Drug-dealing-gangsters-jailed-total-116-years.html https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2018-01-26/drugs-gang-jailed-for-more-than-116-years-after-police-find-rucksack-full-of-cocaine-in-cardiff-street Gary & Syam were instructed and assisted by Nadeem Majid & Anthony Abraham of M&M Solicitors, Cardiff.