R v D
William Paynter has successfully argued that a prosecution case against a client should be thrown out by the judge halfway through a trial before Inner London Crown Court following his submission that there was ‘no case to answer’.
The client was accused of possessing class A drugs with the intention of supplying them to another and was represented by Catherine Mescall when he was interviewed about the offence in the police station. Catherine remained his solicitor throughout the proceedings and ensured his case was thoroughly prepared before briefing Mr Paynter as the trial barrister.
The client consistently denied the allegation throughout the proceedings, and when it came to the prosecution presenting their evidence at trial, Mr Paynter was able to skillfully expose the weakness of the prosecution case. The prosecution DNA evidence was undermined to the extent that the trial Judge deemed there was not even a realistic prospect of conviction and acquitted the client of the charges without the client even needing to give evidence himself.
R v A
Iain Jenkins has successfully defended a client charged with two offences of assault against two people before Ealing Magistrates’ Court. The case against our client involved an allegation that he had not only assaulted both of the complainants, but had also produced a knife and threatened to stab them.
Prior to the case coming to trial the prosecution attempted to adduce evidence of our client’s bad character in the form of five previous convictions for assault ranging from simple common assault to assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. Iain successfully opposed the application before the same magistrates who would later go on to hear the trial evidence.
During the course of the trial Iain cross examined the two complainants, who had been granted ‘special measure’ to give evidence from behind a screen, as well as evidence from police officers. After calling the client to give evidence, Iain was able to show that the evidence of the complainants was riddled with inconsistencies and that no conviction could be based on their evidence.