Notable Criminal Cases – 2022
R v P – MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER Central Criminal Court
We were contacted by our client following his conviction aged 14 yrs old for murder, to advise regarding an appeal. In 2016 three persons were stabbed , one fatally, in Harrow. The Crown alleged a revenge gang attack in retaliation for other serious assaults. One evening P was present in a cab , together with others, who were armed with at least one zombie knife and latex gloves. The purpose of the cab journey was to hunt rival gang members in South Harrow and Harrow on whom to exact revenge. It was immediately clear to us that P required a mental health assessment. He was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder. We appealed the sentence and the Lord Chief Justice reduced his sentence. Having initially been unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal we were then successful in an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, who referred the conviction back to the Court of Appeal on the basis of fresh evidence. The court was persuaded that P had not had a fair trial, the new diagnosis itself may not have been sufficient , however P was a secondary party and another defendant in the earlier trial who was acquitted (also our client) had the protections in place of an intermediary as a vulnerable defendant, so there was a disparity. The Lord Chief Justice quashed the convictions. The prosecution sought a re-trial. P maintained his not guilty plea and following a trial was unanimously acquitted of murder and manslaughter by a jury at the Central Criminal Court in under 40 minutes.
R v SA-MURDER/PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
There was a triple shooting in North London, one fatality. A planned attack by one gang travelling into another territory, in a stolen car with cloned plates to carry out the attacks. The allegation made against our client was that he assisted in the burning out and destruction of the murder car following the shooting. Although originally arrested , with several others for murder, he at aged 14yrs , was charged with perverting the course on justice. He was captured on CCTV buying petrol, immediately following the killing and shootings. The murder car was seen on CCTV to be abandoned and later found burnt out, destroying the forensics. We were successful at the first appearance in securing bail and managed to successfully persuade the court to retain jurisdiction in the youth court where the Crown argued that it was properly joined to the murder indictment and that the case should be sent to the Central Criminal court. We had trawled though the Unused material and discovered unused CCTV footage from a local resident’s home of the murder car remaining undamaged for hours, therefore the nexus between the buying of the petrol and the burning of the car was broken. We drafted a skeleton argument and lodged an application to dismiss the charge. On the day of the dismissal hearing, the Crown offered no evidence. We conducted all litigation and advocacy in house in this case.
R V B-CONSPIRACY TO MURDER-CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
The victim was riding a pedal cycle when he was repeatedly stabbed by occupants of 2 cars who decamped armed with variety of machetes and other weapons. Both cars were later recovered, weapons were found, some with visible blood staining, later shown to be the victim’s. The attack was witnessed by local residents. The victim died at the scene but was revived by HEMS who performed open heart surgery in the street. The alleged motive was a gang turf war. Our client was said to be a member of the attacking gang, although resident elsewhere ,he had been cell sited in the area on days before the attack and at the time of the alleged offence. In addition his DNA was found in both of the cars used in the attack. We instructed DNA experts and argued transference. Our solicitor noticed an issue with the Crown’s expert cell site report. It omitted 2 vital calls made by our client at the material time. It undermined the contention that he was present in either of the attack vehicles. We advised a dismissal point and submitted an application to dismiss. The Crown offered no evidence following a review of the submissions we made.
R V CL – READING CROWN COURT-MURDER
Our client was charged with murder, perverting the course of justice and Possession with intent to supply. This relates to an organised attack whereby our client was alleged to have been armed with a knife, vehicle and a team of individuals to assist in the planning of a murder and clear up, thereby ensuring tracking them down afterwards would be difficult.
The central part of the murder was captured on CCTV and the victim can be seen socialising with two friends prior to the attack. Two males, one of which was alleged to be our client, arrive outside the scene in a vehicle, get out and launched an attack towards the group whereby the victim was caught and fatally stabbed.
The Prosecution relied heavily on cell site/phone evidence and extensive CCTV which the Defence spent many months analysing.
R V MK – CROYDON CROWN COURT – ATTEMPTED MURDER X2
We represented a leading UK drill artist on allegations that he shot another musician and their manager whilst they were at their recording studio in Woolwich Dockyard, whilst on license.
The trial lasted five weeks and included a DNA match to our client on a face mask that was allegedly worn by the shooter amongst a number of other ‘key exhibits.’ The defence analysed and criticised the Metropolitan police’s handling of those exhibits. The defence also broke down the continuity of the vehicle that was alleged to have driven away from the scene of the shooting to where it was allegedly decamped from.
Our client was acquitted of attempted murder x2 and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life.
R V S and Y – CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT- MURDER
Our clients were charged with murder, conspiracy to commit GBH and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life.
In this historic case, our clients were charged with the murder of their own friend, after it was alleged that the defendants engaged in a shoot-out with the opposition in which both sides agreed to shoot and to be shot at. The Crown relied upon the case of R v Gnango 2012, but the defence argued that the circumstances in Gnango did not reflect the facts in this case.
There was voluminous cell-site evidence that the prosecution relied on to track the movements of each defendant. The defence spent months considering this evidence, as well as instructing our own expert to offer their opinion on the crown’s findings.
The defence left no stone unturned when trying dismantle the prosecution evidence in order to prove our clients’ innocence.
R V E-A SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT-POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH INTENT
Our client was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and possession of ammunition without a certificate.
Our client was arrested when found near the scene of a firearm exchange. The exchange occurred between three males in a car and one male in a motorbike helmet with red devil horns. Following this exchange, police pursued a male on a motorbike matching the description of the male with a helmet.
Our client made it clear to the police upon his arrest that he had just stepped out of his home and did not know anything about the exchange. The police searched his address and found a helmet with red markings. They arrested the client despite the aforementioned police pursuit.
The police conducted telephone enquiries to investigate whether our client had contacted those arrested with the firearms in the car. At the same time, the defence started working on an application to release the defendant on bail and dismiss the charges against him.
An application to dismiss was lodged on the crown and court. Prior to the oral dismissal application, the crown offered no evidence against our client on all counts.
R V S CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT-POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH INTENT
Our client was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of ammunition. Our client was found in public with the firearm and ammunition in his backpack. The Crown stated that this firearm was used in a shooting a few days prior.
The Crown relied upon photos and videos of our client posing with the firearm. The client transferred his case to us from another firm. The previous firm had put forth in his defense case statement that he found the gun in a bush, suspected it was real so kept it. We successfully argued an acquittal by putting forth the defence that the client was forced to hold onto the gun through duress. An excellent result.