XXX was arrested for the offence of Murder. It was alleged that XXX had consumed abortion pills, legally purchased online, when her baby was full-term. XXX gave birth to her baby at her home address and the remains were found by paramedics discarded in a black bin bag. XXX was a highly vulnerable adult and bailed by the Police following her first interview. During the 12-month investigation by the Police consent was given for XXXs’ medical records to be disclosed and various meetings took place between the CEO of the company that sold her the pills and XXXs’ legal team. Furthermore, detailed pre-charge representations were made to Senior Managers at the Crown Prosecution Service. These representations triggered a case conference at the most senior level within the Crown Prosecution Service, and as a result, no further action was taken by the Police.

SC was charged with a number of sexual and dishonesty offences against the same complainant. The complainant, a very vulnerable adult, had alleged anal and vaginal rape. She further alleged that after the sexual impropriety had concluded, SC had appropriated property from her.

SC was interviewed by the Police and tendered a prepared statement denying the offences. SCs legal team drafted an 8-page defence statement. The Crown Prosecution Service responded to the defence statement with over 900 pages of evidence. The 900 pages consisted of police reports in which the complainant had alleged rape against others. A critical analysis of the evidence revealed that the complainant, in every instance, accused the perpetrator of using very specific disparaging words before and after the alleged rapes. These instances were so similar that they could not simply be dismissed as a coincidence. An application was made to the Court for the previous allegations of rape, all of which were taken no further by the Police, to be placed before a Jury. To supplement the application, representations were made to the Crown Prosecution Service requesting a case review in light of the new evidence and on the basis that the complainant was incredulous.

The case was escalated to the sexual offences lead (manager) at the Crown Prosecution Service. As a result, the case was dropped the day before trial.

The defendant (JRB) was charged with going equipped to steal. JRB was in possession of a council style drop key that provided him with unhindered access to certain council buildings. JRB pleaded not guilty and elected a trial at the Crown Court. Representations were made to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) arguing that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of securing a conviction. The CPS reviewed the case and discontinued (stopped) the case against JRB

The defendant (MH) was arrested and charged with the offence of robbery. MH was on a night out in Soho. Whilst under the influence of a number of illegal drugs, MH approached a lone male who appeared intoxicated and was wearing a Gold Rolex Sky Dweller. For those who know their watches, the Rolex is worth in excess of £50,000. MH's friend hugged the lone male whilst MH forcibly removed the watch from his wrist. Unbeknown to MH, the lone male was an undercover Police Officer. Robbery is an indictable only offence which means it is so serious it can only be dealt with at the Crown Court. The maximum sentence is life-imprisonment. Following a lengthy sentencing hearing MH was sentenced to a suspended sentence order

The defendant (AH) was charged with Grievous Bodily Harm with intent and other less serious offences of violence. GBH with intent carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.AH suspected a male had been communicating with his wife. He attended the males home address in order to have a quiet word. Once inside, two eyewitnesses alleged that they saw AH using a knife to slash the males face. The male lost a substantial amount of blood, was taken to hospital where he received a number of stitches. The evidence consisted of eyewitness testimony, photographs, CCTV and mobile phone records. AH accepted attending the address but denied causing the male any injuries. After a 2 day trial, the CPS dropped all the charges. After being represented by Barrister Bismillah, AH remained a man with no criminal record.

Police officers observed the defendant (IS) on a public road acting suspiciously and decided to detain him for a drug search. Is made off and the officers gave chase. When stopped and searched, IS was found in possession of 260 wraps of crack cocaine, a large amount of cash, a "burner" phone with drug messages and a machete with a 40cm blade. IS was arrested and taken to a Police Station in South London where he was interviewed. IS was charged and held in custody to appear at the Magistrates' Court where he pleaded not guilty to all the charges and was released on bail. Following a number of Court hearings and correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Service all the charges against IS were dropped. 260 wraps, a machete, a phone and cash all found on 1 person shortly before midnight. Suspicious you may think. These 3 facts taken in isolation would lead anyone (even a lawyer perhaps) to conclude that IS stood no chance. This case emphasises the importance of securing quality representation at the earliest opportunity.

In January 2023 I attended a Magistrates* Court in London to deal with a clients case. Whilst I was waiting for my client to arrive, the Court staff enquired whether I would be willing to help with another case (ARW) and I agreed. After digesting ARWs case papers, I was struck by a number of factors. Firstly, ARW had pleaded guilty, without any legal advice, to serious drug related offences. Secondly, the Magistrates Court retained the case despite the offence being outside its sentencing powers. After speaking to ARW it became very clear that the defence of duress was available to him. In Court, the Magistrates' sent the case to the Crown Court as its sentencing powers were insufficient. I put the CP and Court on notice that I would be applying to vacate (remove) ARWs guilty plea. At the Crown Court I made written submissions as to why ARWs plea of guilty should be vacated and after a vigorously fought legal argument between the CPS and myself, the Crown Court Judge vacated AWs plea of guilty and sent the case back to the Magistrates' Court so the case could start again from scratch.

ARWs Case

ARW was seen inside McDonalds in broad daylight waving a wad of cash in both his hands. Keen customers were trying their best to enjoy their burgers and chips amongst ARWs state of jubilation. There came a point when the customers could not take any more and they decided to call the Police. Police arrived and upon searching ARW they found a large quantity of drugs, cash, snap bags and a brick phone. At the Magistrates' Court ARW pleaded not guilty and his case was sent to the Crown Court. At the Crown a timetable was set for trial. A defence statement, setting out ARWs defence was drafted and served on the CPS and Court. Shortly after the defence statement was served, the CP took the decision to drop all the charges against ARW. 

Experienced Lawyers will tell you that the easiest thing to do is change a not guilty plea to guilty and the hardest thing to do is change a guilty plea to not guilty. Attempting to do the latter often entails disclosing private discussions between you and your lawyer and having to give evidence before a Judge. There are occasions when the lawyer that gave you the advice to enter the plea that you now want to change, has to give evidence. ARW was caught in the act, he pleaded guilty and was about to receive a lengthy term of imprisonment. Barrister Bismillah was able to put AWs case in reverse, undo the damage that had already been done and eventually take the case to the impossible destination that was the CPS dropping the case entirely.

FH was charged with assault against his partner. The assault was captured on Ring Door Bell Footage and witnessed by a member of the public who attended Court to give evidence. Following legal argument on the day of trial, the Crown Prosecution Service Offered no Evidence against FH resulting in a not guilty verdict.

In 2023 GMB was charged with breaching the Restraining Order. Telephone records obtained by the Police from the Network provider showed GMBs mobile phone number calling his ex-partner and speaking to her for 20 mins. At the Crown Court a detailed defence statement was served on GMBs behalf. As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and a not guilty verdict was entered in respect of the offence.

The defendant (BW was charged, along with two others, with a serious public order offence and possession of an offensive weapon. Shortly after midnight, in a quite residential cul-de-sac, a fight erupted between two rival groups resulting in one male having his hand nearly severed off and another sustaining a 7cm laceration to his head. Following an 8 day trial at Kingston Crown Court BW was one of 2 defendants to be found not guilty of the charges. BW raised self-defence in his Police interview. In essence, he asserted that he was in fact the victim and not the perpetrator. Significantly, despite arguing self-defence, BW chose not to give evidence before the Jury. The Judge directed the Jury that it could draw a negative inference from his failure to give evidence. One of the defendants who was part of the rival group chose to give evidence. He was robustly cross-examined by Barrister Bismillah such that his evidence bolstered BWs case. This may have been the sole influencing factor in BW deciding not to give evidence.

The defendant was charged with attempted murder and numerous offences of violence against another. Following a 13-day trial, in which Barrister Bismillah acted as Junior-Alone, the jury found the defendant not guilty. 

The Defendant (JB) was arrested in March 2021 for attempting to sexually communicate with a child via social media. In his Police interview a detailed prepared statement was put forwards following which JB was bailed. The Officer in Charge of the case was chased numerous times for an update on the case. JB was eventually charged in October 2022. At the Crown Court further charges were laid against JB the most serious of which being Arranging of Facilitating the Commission of a Child Sex Offence (maximum 14 years imprisonment). The evidence against JB was that he had contacted a social media account posing to be a 13 year old girl. Unbeknown to JB, the account was being operated by a pedophile hunter group who attended his address with the Police. JBs phone was downloaded and a chat was uncovered between him and another male. This other male, following his chat with JB, went onto commit sexual offences against his own children. In the Crown Court, Barrister Bismillah argued that the case against JB was an abuse of the Courts process and that the delay in charging JB meant that he could no longer have a fair trial as he was not fit to participate. The day before the case was listed for the abuse of process argument, the CPS dropped all the charges against JB

The defendant (GC) was charged with disclosing private sexual photographs, breaching a Restraining Order and stalking the complainant. Between December 2021 and January 2022 GC was alleged to have engaged in conduct that amounted to stalking and in doing so he was in breach of a Restraining Order. Furthermore, it was alleged that GC disclosed, to others, private sexual photos of the complainant. GC pleaded not guilty to all the charges and bail was secured by his legal team. The case was listed for a trial to take place at Harrow Crown Court in June 2023. A detailed defence statement was submitted together with requests for further evidence. As a result, two-weeks before the trial was due to commence, the CPS dropped all the charges against GC and offered no evidence.

The defendant was found in possession of 10KG of uncut COCAINE blocks with a total street value of 1.25 million pounds. The defendant pleaded guilty on a basis of plea to possession with intent to supply class A drugs. Before passing sentence, a Judge must refer to the sentencing guidelines and determine two things; 1) HARM--this is determined by having regard to the quantity of drugs in question; 2) ROLE--the Judge must look at all the evidence and decide where in the chain of supply the defendant falls. The maximum weight in the sentencing guidelines is 5KG of drugs. The lowest starting point for the maximum weight of 5KG is 7-years imprisonment. This defendant had double the amount of drugs in his possession, exceeding the maximum catered for by the sentencing guidelines. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, in which numerous submission were made on the defendants behalf, the Judge imposed a sentence of 5 years imprisonment. 

The Defendant (KG) was attending a park in early 2022 where Jubilee celebrations were taking place. KG took out a sword concealed inside a stick, and began to show it to members of the public. A member of the public called Police and KG was arrested. KG instructed us at Court after being charged. Representations were made to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) requesting a case review and urging for the case to be dropped. CPS decided not to continued with the case and offered no evidence. Instructing a lawyer that will engage with the CPS at an early stage is vitally important. This case is a good example of how early representations to the CP can avoid the misery that comes with a criminal trial. Given the current case backlog at the Crown Court, the trial would not have taken place until the tail-end of 2023.

The defendant (PD) was charged with two counts of assaulting a Police Officer and criminal damage. PD pleaded not guilty and chose to have a trial at the Crown Court before a Jury. PD was trading caramelised peanuts using a mobile trolley. A licensing enforcement officer and two Police Officers attended to serve PD with a notice. During the course of the notice being served things began to escalate, and as a result, PD was arrested for trying to shove the notice in an officers mouth and for spitting at another officer. PD was taken to the Police Station where she urinated in her cell. PD was further arrested and charged with criminal damage to the Police cell. A trial lasting 4 days took place at the Royal Courts of Justice (Nightingale Court) where a number of witnesses were all cross-examined. PD gave evidence in her defence. Following a period of retirement, the jury returned unanimous verdicts of not guilty on all the charges.