rather than a shield reaps rewards as Crown offers no evidence in three separate indictable only matters upon receipt of Defence Statements drafted by Emma Nott.
R v SW, JUNE 2015 MANCHESTER MINSHULL STREET CC
The defendant was charged with several counts of violent rape, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm with intent and penetration of his ex-girlfriend with metal objects over a prolonged period. Amongst the allegations, he was said to have slashed the breasts and genitalia of the complainant with a razor blade. Upon receipt of the evidence Emma drafted and served a comprehensive defence statement, containing reasoned requests for specific matters of third party disclosure, as well as cell site analysis of mobile telephones. After a review of the evidence set against the Defence Statement, the Crown decided that the likelihood of conviction test was no longer met, and formally offered no evidence.
R v LM, OCTOBER 2015, BIRMINGHAM CC
The defendant was charged with wounding with intent; it was alleged that he stabbed a taxi driver in the neck and shoulder during a row over the fare. He was linked to the scene by his blood on the taxi door, and the taxi driver picked him out at an identity parade as the assailant. The defendant had relevant previous convictions that would have meant a mandatory life sentence upon conviction. Emma drafted and served a defence statement attacking the integrity of the identification procedure and highlighting flaws in the evidence. After a review of the issues raised in the defence statement, the Crown concluded that the case no longer met the likelihood of conviction test and offered no evidence.
R v JW, OCTOBER 2015, WOLVERHAMPTON CC
The 75 year-old defendant was charged with incidents of indecent assault of a boy under the age of 16; the allegations were historic, made by an ex-police officer in respect of offences said to have occurred in the early 1980s. Upon receipt of the evidence, Emma drafted a defence statement attacking the integrity of the complainant and the circumstances of his complaint, which appeared to have been made for the first time during disciplinary proceedings against the complainant at a school where he now worked. Upon review of the defence statement, the Crown listed the matter in order to offer no evidence.
In SW and LM the defendants had been remanded in custody pending trial; in JW the defendant was physically disabled and suffering depression as a result of the allegations. In each case, as a result of pro-active defence, matters were resolved long before trial, saving months of anxiety for the defendants and significant amounts of public money.