R v H (Manchester)
H accused of initially sexual assault, but later common assault whilst on an aircraft travelling from the USA to London. Negotiated with the prosecution in relation to the fact that they were not seeking to increase the allegation to one of sexual assault and then agreed, subject to Court approval that the matter should be contained in the lowest sentencing category.
The matter was eventually concluded in that way, despite the Crown seeking to resile from their initial position as regards the sentencing category and the client received a conditional discharge.
R v D (Wales)
Accused found not guilty of sexual touching in various ways with complaints made by various Defendants in an historic sexual abuse case relating to a former care home in Wales. D was acquitted on all Counts before the jury on a unanimous basis.
R v Mr C (Snaresbrook)
Accused by niece of sexual wrongdoing. Acquitted unanimously by a jury.
R v Mr E (Birmingham)
Mr E gave extra-curricular teaching assistance and ran a boy’s club. Accused by many and various boys of sexual wrongdoing. Main complainant’s case withdrawn before trial and after production of a Defence Statement. Mr E unanimously acquitted by a jury in relation to all other counts.
R v Mr O (Stafford)
Mr O accused of “making” indecent images of children. Defence of innocent recipient accepted by the Crown and case withdrawn before matter going before a jury, and following the production of a Defence Statement.
R v Mr K (Warwick)
Accused of sexual misfeasance with foster child. Police failed to obtain CCTV footage of Mr K’s journeys to and from work, which could have proved when he was at work and when he was not, and also failed to obtain information from his employer as to clocking in and out times. Unanimously acquitted by a jury.
R v Mr C (Wood Green)
Accused of sexual misfeasance by his niece. Forensic work in relation to diaries, photographs, family meetings and so on. All placed before a jury and acquitted unanimously thereafter.
R v Mr R (Stoke)
Mr R accused by two complainants. One of rape (prosecution withdrew case following complainant giving no evidence) and one of indecent assault. Trial stopped at this stage and re-trial in relation to the sexual assault yet to be concluded.
R v Mr R (Snaresbrook)
Accused of sexual misfeasance by his former stepdaughter. Gathered lots of third party evidence in relation to the stepdaughter’s family and background. Presented to the jury and acquitted unanimously.
R v Mr P (Manchester)
Mr P faced six counts of making extreme images and indecent images of children. One count dropped by the prosecution prior to the case starting and the other five counts were run on the basis of “innocent recipient”. Unanimously acquitted by a jury.
R v Mr R (Chester)
Accused of historical sexual misfeasance against his niece. Gathered a great deal of evidence in relation to the niece and her family to show reason why she would want to make up allegations against Mr R. Unanimously acquitted before a jury.
Crown v W (Lancashire)
Obtained detailed instructions in relation to a multi-count indictment concerning sexual misfeasance with a girl under the age of 16. Many and various witness statements were taken, as well as documentary evidence, such as cards and letters sent by the complainant to W, obtained. An extensive Defence Statement was drafted and lodged, resulting in the Crown offering no evidence and the judge formally passing not guilty verdicts to W.
Crown v C (Woolwich)
Representation of a young man accused, and subsequently acquitted after a one-week trial, of sexual misfeasance in relation to two underage girls. An extensive Defence Statement was drafted following a full forensic examination of the evidence, detailed editing of the complainant’s evidence for the Crown to consider (and accept), taking of extensive instructions, attending and photographing the site of one of the alleged crimes, drawing plans of the area and obtaining site maps and evidence from third party material.
Crown v F (Surrey)
Successful defence of a multi-count sexual offence indictment in relation to one girl. Having obtained extensive instructions, a forensic examination of the evidence was conducted, as well as the taking of photographs and drafting of floor plans relevant to the location of the alleged incident. Further information was obtained from F in relation to birthday cards and other documentation passed by the complainant to F. A detailed Defence Statement was drafted, requesting extensive third-party disclosure in relation to the complainant. After a one-week trial, F was acquitted on all counts.
Crown v M (Bedfordshire)
A multi-count indictment in relation to sexual misfeasance with an underage girl, followed by additional counts in relation to the complainant’s sister, was successfully defended resulting in the acquittal of M following a one-week trial. Prior to the Defence Statement being served, a forensic analysis of the evidence was conducted, various witness statements, photographs and floor plan of the premises where the incident allegedly took place were obtained. Many and various witness statements from friends and former friends of the initial complainant were taken, as well as requests made for extensive third-party material.
Crown v S (West Yorkshire)
Following a one-week trial of accusations of sexual misfeasance in relation to the main complainant and assault in relation to her friend, S was acquitted. We conducted a forensic analysis of the evidence, took lengthy and detailed instructions and obtained copies of documentation sent by the complainant to S. A detailed Defence Statement was drafted and filed, and requests for disclosure of extensive third-party material in relation to the main complainant sought.
R v J (London)
D was found not guilty of sexual touching in various ways over many years. At the first trial, the jury couldn’t reach a decision on any of eight counts. At the retrial, D was found not guilty of the first four counts at the end of the prosecution evidence, following an application of no case to answer on the evidence. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict on the remaining four counts. The Crown did not want to proceed to a third trial and offered no evidence. The judge formally entered not guilty verdicts.