Notable Criminal Cases – 2024
Talisha Mathurin, a Senior Consultant Caseworker of this firm assisted on a high-profile case with the allegation of Attempted Murder and ABH x2. The Crown’s case was that the client used her vehicle as a weapon having been involved in a physical altercation with the complainants’ moments before. The Crown relied on the injuries of the complainants, to include broken teeth, dash cam evidence from another vehicle that captured the immediate aftermath of the incident and 2 eyewitnesses. Following robust cross-examination of the victim, the prosecutor was forced to withdraw from the trial and the jury was discharged. The client has been released on bail and trial has now been re-listed with the Crown having to review their position.
R V SH HARROW CROWN COURT – CONCERN IN THE SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION OF CLASS A
Talisha Mathurin, a Senior Consultant Caseworker of this assisted on a concern and production of over 2 kilos of class A drugs case. Officers found a large tub of crystal methamphetamine (meth) in the kitchen, meth residue in the oven, meth samples from the tub around various places, off white crystal meth in the cupboard, a quantity of snap bags, yellow liquid stored in jars in the kitchen, acetone solution, pink snap bags of crystal meth, over £20,000 cash plus more to include, phones, scales and a tick list at the client’s home. The Crown also linked the client to a storage unit containing over £40,000. Despite the Crown also serving thousands of pages of telephone evidence, we argued the case at trial. On day 2, the Crown offered no evidence on the production of Class A drugs. Instead of looking at double figures, the client was to be released in just several months.
R V TH – SNARESBROOK CROWN COURT – GBH SECTION 18, BURGLARY
The client was charged with Burglary and Section 18 GBH (with intent) with another. The Crown’s case was that the client had gone through the neighbour’s house, damaging the front door on the way in before assaulting the complainant causing a dislocated shoulder. The complainant provided a witness statement identifying our client as the attacker and provided the address. The Crown also relied on 2 eyewitnesses, both friends of the complainant. After robust cross-examination at trial, the client was acquitted of all charges.
R V AS – WOOLWICH CROWN COURT –GBH SECTION
The client was charged with GBH Section 18 with intent and possession of an offensive weapon, the weapon being a Machete. The victim was stabbed twice with the Machete. The Crown relied on CCTV that showed the attack together with the evidence of a police officer positively identifying the client from the footage. After careful consideration we argued the regulations surrounding the positive identification by the officer and undermined the Crown’s case. As a result, we successfully argued that all counts be dismissed. Assisted by Senior Consultant Caseworker Talisha Mathurin of SVS Solicitors.
R V N ATTEMPTED MUDER X 2, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT GBH S18 X 2, POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH INTENT TO ENDANGER LIFE AND POSSESSION OF A FIREARM-CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
This was an 8-week trial at the Central Criminal Court involving 8 defendants charged with attempted murder x2, conspiracy to commit GBH S18, GBH S18, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of a firearm. It was the Crown’s case that our client stored and handed over a Nike holdall containing a firearm that was used within hours to carry out 3 separate shootings on the same date. The Crown relied on CCTV footage of our client exiting their address with the Nike holdall before handed to defendant 1. It was the Crown’s case that this was a conspiracy between all defendants, travelling from Kings College Hospital where their associate had been stabbed the evening before, to collecting the firearm before proceeding to carry out the shootings. The Crown relied on cell-site evidence, messages and calls between all defendants, to include the arrangement of the collection of the Nike holdall. Before trial, our client was successfully removed from the conspiracy to commit GBH S18 count, left facing possession of a firearm. We proceeded with the trial without the defendant giving evidence. Counsel June Warwick from Rose Court Chambers gave a record breaking 12-minute closing speech to the Jury. Our client was the only one to be acquitted entirely. Assisted by Senior Consultant Caseworker Talisha Mathurin of SVS Solicitors.
R V DN WOOLWICH CROWN COURT-POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH ITNENT TO ENDANGER LIFE, POSSESSION OF A PROHIBITED FIREARM AND POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION
Our client was charged with the above offences. Police had received intelligence that a firearm was being stored within a vehicle. Whilst viewing the vehicle, officers noticed a male sat watching. The vehicle was searched, and a loaded firearm was recovered under the seat. The Crown forensically examined the firearm and our client’s DNA was found inside the barrel of the firearm. The Crown was able to establish through call data, that our client was the male officers saw watching the vehicle. Our client provided an explanation for his DNA being on the firearm which was that it had been placed into his mouth when he was threatened by a group of males who he owed a debt to. Prior to trial, the Crown offered no evidence having considered our defence statement and expert report. The Crown stated that they were unable to prove that our client was in possession of the firearm.
R V T-ISLEWORTH CROWN COURT-CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLY CLASS A, POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SUPPLY CLASS A, POSSESSION OF CRIMINAL PROPERTY, POSSESSION OF A BLADED ARTICLE
Our client was charged with the above offences. The police were able to prove that our client was part of multiple group chats on Signal, discussing the movement of packages, containing what the Crown believed to be 10KG worth of cocaine. All other defendants pleaded guilty to this conspiracy as a result of these messages. Upon the arrest of our client, the police found over 1KG of cocaine in his bedroom. Large amounts of cash were also seen to be deposited into our client’s bank account. Our client accepted moving packages for an unnamed drug dealer but stated that he was a victim who had been threatened and exploited by the same drug dealer. We instructed a Modern-day slavery expert, who gave evidence at trial. Following a 10-day trial, our client was acquitted of all four charges.
R V A – POSSSESSION OF A FIREARM AND AMMUNITION WITH INTENT TO ENDAGER LIFE-KINGSTON CROWN COURT
Our client was charged with the above offences. Cell-site and ANPR evidence placed our client at the scene of a shooting in April 2023. Our client denied being the individual shown on CCTV firing the handgun.
We instructed a CCTV expert to analyse the footage, and our client was acquitted of the firearm charges following trial.
R V Y-POSSESSION OF AN IMMITATION FIREARM WITH INTENT TO CAUSE FEAR OF VIOLENCE, INTENTIONAL STRANGULATION AND COMMON ASSAULT-WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT
Our client was charged with the above offences. Extensive cross-examination of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses during trial led to their accounts being discredited. Our client was found not guilty of all of the above at the conclusion of his trial.
R V L – SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT – GBH S18, GBH S20, PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Our client was acquitted of the above offences following a 9-day trial at Southwark Crown Court. Our client was accused of stabbing the complainant at her home address and then offering her money to drop the charges against him.
After the defence expertly highlighted the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, as well as the forensic evidence supporting our client, he was promptly acquitted.
R V F – CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT-MURDER
This case was an allegation involving a serious incident in which 4 defendants on 2 mopeds were said to have ambushed the victim launching a targeted and unprovoked attack. The victim sustained a number of stab wounds which led to his death. The prosecution relied upon a number of eye-witness testimonies, CCTV evidence of before, during and after the attack. Furthermore, telephone evidence was heavily relied upon which consisted of cell-site and the content itself. The Crown stated that this was a pre-planned murder, and the defendants had turned off their phones during the attack in order to prevent detection and further went on to dispose of the vehicles, clothing and the mopeds itself. The defence undertook extensive analysis into the evidence of the case and neutralised the drill rap evidence which the prosecution heavily relied upon. Our client, who was alleged to have been the main attacker, was acquitted after trial.
R V M – WOOLICH COURT – POSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH INTENT TO CAUSE FEAR OF VIOLENCE AND POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION
Our client was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and possession of ammunition. The incident was alleged to involve two males riding around Northwest London pointing a firearm at members of public. The Crown relied upon numerous eyewitness accounts and the national police air service to locate the motorcycle where the males dismounted and ran into a block of flats. Officers entered the building where clothing and a firearm was found discarded. The items were forensically examined, resulting in a DNA match to our client on the balaclava and inside the helmet. During the trial, we made a series of disclosure requests relating to the officers’ handling of the case. This led to the Crown offering no evidence on all counts.
R V AS – WOOLICH COURT – GBH S18 WITH INTENT
Our client was charged with GBH S18 with intent and possession of an offensive weapon (Machete). It was alleged that the victim was stabbed twice with the machete. Part of the evidence relied upon by the Crown included a police officer making a positive identification of the client from CCTV that captured the attack. Through careful preparation to include the lack of regulations complied with when the officer made the identification, we were unable to undermine the Crown’s case and successfully argued for all counts to be dismissed.
R V M – READING CROWN COURT – CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLY CLASS A
In this case, our client faced serious charges after being arrested upon exiting a property that was found to contain large quantities of Class A and B drugs, such as cocaine and MDMA. The situation seemed dire, but through our diligent efforts and extensive negotiations with the Crown, we were able to change the course of events significantly.
Our legal team meticulously gathered evidence and built a compelling case to demonstrate that our client was not a key player in the drug operation but rather a minor custodian with a limited role. This involved detailed analysis and strategic presentation of the facts to highlight our client’s minimal involvement.
Our persistent negotiations and strong advocacy were pivotal in reshaping the prosecution’s perspective. We presented strong mitigation arguments, emphasising our client’s lack of significant culpability and their otherwise clean record.
Ultimately, our hard work paid off. The court was persuaded by our arguments and granted our client a suspended sentence, allowing them to avoid immediate imprisonment. This outcome was a testament to our commitment to achieving the best possible results for our clients, even in the most challenging circumstances.
R V A – READING CROWN COURT – GBH SECTION 18
Our client was charged with grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent, accused of chasing and attacking the victim with a hammer alongside a co-defendant. The entire incident was captured on CCTV, and the Crown alleged that the attack was drug-motivated, presenting a formidable case against our client.
Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence, our defence team meticulously analysed the footage and the circumstances surrounding the event. We crafted a robust defence strategy, challenging the Crown’s narrative and undermining the reliability of the evidence presented.
Through relentless advocacy and strategic negotiations, we were able to cast significant doubt on the prosecution’s case. Our efforts bore fruit when, on the second day of the trial, we convinced the Crown to drop all charges against our client.
As a result, our client was released from custody immediately, avoiding a potentially severe sentence. This case highlights our dedication to thoroughly defending our clients and achieving justice, even in the face of daunting evidence.