Not Guilty Verdict on Old Bailey Witness Intimidation Case

Chantelle Peters-Augustine recently represented one of two defendants out of five in total found not guilty at a trial at the Central Criminal Court.

Our client was charged with intimidating a witness/victim of an aggravated burglary. He was alleged to have intimidated this witness by facilitating a threatening telephone call via loudspeaker together with his co-defendant. The co-defendant, who was also charged with aggravated burglary and witness intimidation, was found guilty on both counts. The other co-defendants were charged with much more serious offences including attempted murder of police officers, and were all found guilty.

Alphege Bell of Carmelite Chambers was instructed.

Wills and Probate Concerns

An article in the Daily Telegraph (11/08/2010) by the paper’s finance journalist highlights the dangers of poor will drafting which can lead to unnecessary IHT bills, and the increasing importance of the use of trusts in estate management.

The article continues to raise concerns about the popularity of unregulated, unqualified and uninsured will writers who offer wills “on the cheap”.

We, on the other hand, have four mature experienced probate and trust specialists, each of whom is a fully qualified solicitor who has been in practice for many years.

We offer EXPERT, reliable, reasonably priced services in this field.

Contact Jeffrey Lewis, Prue Abrahams, Richard McConnell, Barry Hellewell or enquiries.

Read the full article in the Telegraph at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100007244/how-cheap-wills-can-boost-care-home-fees-and-iht-bills/.

Stunning Extradition Success

K -v- The Judicial Authority in the Czech Republic

Appellant arrested on Euro Arrest Warrant on 28 January 2010. Czech Republic requesting state. Warrant issued March 2009 relating to his conviction for nine offences including three offences abduction, trading women etc. Offences alleged to have occurred 12 August 1993 – 20 April 1994. Appellant convicted in absentia and sentence to nine years imprisonment effective as of 18 December 1997.

DJ Riddle ordered appellant’s extradition on 8 April 2010 after extradition hearing on 15 March 2010. Appeal lodged to High Court, Admin Court QBD under section 26 of the Act.

Grounds of appeal – appellant’s extradition barred by reason that it would be oppressive and/or unjust to extradite him due to the passage of time, under s.14 of the Act. Additionally argued that appellant should be discharged as EAW did not contain sufficient assurance that the appellant would be entitled to re-trial as required under S. 20 of Act.

Appellant in custody since arrest. Appeal hearing listed on 14 July. Appeal successful on grounds would be oppressive to extradite. It was accepted that there had been a 16 year delay and no explanation for delay had been provided by Czech Republic.

Solicitor: Leila Rasool, assisted by Samantha Rowle; Counsel: James Stansfeld of Great James Street

Interesting Drugs Importation Success

R -v- B

Croydon Crown Court – 14 July 2010

Client attended court to stand trial on indictment containing one count – being knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion on the prohibition on importation of a Class B drug contrary to S.170 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Alleged client knowingly carried 14kg of cannabis (approx £40k worth) in her luggage from Jamaica to London Gatwick. She maintained she had no knowledge of the drugs and a third party must have put in bag without knowledge.

Client contended that she went through security checks twice in Jamaica prior to check-in and were no drugs in her case. Prior to start trial Crown produced a pocket book from English officer in Jamaica confirming this.

During course trial it came to light that there was a difference in weight of luggage at check-in Jamaica and upon arrival to Gatwick and therefore drugs must have been placed in case after check in. Submission no case to answer made after prosecution case on basis of weakness of prosecution case, namely that save for collecting her luggage the client had done nothing in furtherance of the importation. Her act in collecting her bag was an innocent act and the sole act the Crown relied on to prove case. Judge upheld submission and jury directed to find her Not Guilty.

Solicitor: Leila Rasool; Counsel: Mark Kimsey, head of Castle Chambers

Firearms Prosecution Success

R -v- J

Woolwich Crown Court – 7 July 2010

Client faced an indictment containing one count of possession of an imitation firearm and ammunition in a public place contrary to section 19 Firearms Act.

Circumstances: client arrested in January 2009 in South East London in a vehicle with two others. Car searched and a yellow blank firing Olympic starter pistol found in boot, in its box with ammunition, having been purchased less than half hour before. Client put forward reasonable excuse – namely that it had been purchased for use as a starter pistol in athletics.

Representations made to drop case prior to trial, based on fact it was an unrealistic imitation firearm and came within exemption in Violent Crimes and Disorder Act. Crown rejected reps.

Day one of trial was a voire dire on whether the article was an imitation firearm. He deemed that it was.

HHJ Byers then forced the Crown to review the case, on the basis that client was simply taking article from A to B, having just purchased it and therefore had a reasonable excuse.

It was also pointed out to Crown that the law at the time was such that the purchase of these starter pistols was legal and only became illegal in April 2010. There was an amnesty by police between April and June 2010, which the client had been deprived of participating in due to when he was arrested.

The Crown ultimately offered no evidence.

Solicitor: Leila Rasool; Counsel: Mark Kimsey