Testimonials
What we do
What we do
Notable Cases
In the legal field, success can be defined by many factors and is ultimately subjective. Below are a selection of “notable” and sometimes high profile cases Micaila has been instructed to handle.
R v M et al (2020) – Attempted Murder, Grevious Bodily Harm x3
Currently instructed in this 7-handed case as Led Junior to a QC to defend a serious violent incident that is alleged to have occurred on New Year’s Eve at an Irchester Travellers Site. The trial is scheduled for 6-8 weeks.
R v Booth et al (2019) – Drugs Conspiracy – Heroin & Cocaine (circa 5kg £2-3million)
Currently instructed in this 20 Defendant Drugs conspiracy. Trial is being held in 2 parts due to the number of Defendants. Significant analysis of cell site evidence, CCTV, mobile phone data required to piece together the jigsaw.
R v McLeish et al (2019) – Drugs Conspiracy – Cocaine (circa 5kg £2million)
Currently before the Appeal Court after a significant sentence of imprisonment was imposed to the main conspirator after guilty pleas in this multi-handed (8) drugs conspiracy.
R v Martin et al (2019) – Gang related s.18 GBH
The case involved 2 indictments covering serious acts of knife violence from an established gang. Detailed analysis of the evidence was required to prepare the defence. Successfully argued at trial but before the Jury were sworn that there was insufficient evidence against this Defendant and Not Guilty verdicts were entered.
R v Byrne (2019) – Causing GBH with intent (s.18)
Originally charged with causing a serious open fracture to a female Police Officer. The allegation being that the Defendant, whilst trying to evade arrest in a local nightclub, bit her finger causing the fracture. After detailed analysis of the Body Warn Footage it became apparent that the injury in fact most probably occurred as a result of a baton strike from a colleague in the melee. The Defendant pleaded guilty to Public Order offences to cover his behaviour in the nightclub.
R v P (2019) – Historic Rape, Sexual Assault, Indecent Assault
Historic case in a domestic setting. This case required a significant degree of care as both the Defendant and the victim suffered from Aspergers and other disorders. An intermediary was required for both.
https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/crime/broughton-man-jailed-rape-1371387
R v B (2019) – Historic Indecent Assaults
Offences from 1950s with the Defendant in his late 70s during the trial. Difficult issues to do with recollection and the passage of time as always in cases such as this.
https://www.heart.co.uk/fourcounties/news/local/jail-for-kettering-child-sex-abuser/
R v Aucott et al (2016) – Dangerous Dogs
This case was the first of its kind to be brought under the new sentencing guidelines for Dangerous Dogs where death occurred. In this case it was the Defendant’s 6-month old baby granddaughter. The matter was presided over by Mrs Justice Carr and attracted significant media interest. The main issue was whether the dog was in fact dangerously out of control on the basis that the Defendant had no reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure any person. The case required consideration of previous caselaw but also interpretation of the new sentencing guidelines as well as requiring a significant degree of tact and care given the nature of the case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-37371852
R v Calin et al(2016) – Rape & Kidnap
The case itself involved a joint enterprise rape by two older Romanian men. Convicted after trial but successful Appeal to the Court of Appeal overturning the finding of the Sentencing Judge that the Defendant was dangerous and warranted the imposition of an extended. The Client had previous for murder in Romania and enquires had to be made internationally to assist with his defence.
R v P & P et al (2015 and 2016) – Rape, Indecent Assault, Sexual Assault
This was a lengthy Crown Court trial with some 23 counts on the indictment relating to historic sex offences. All allegations were inter-familiar. The 2 Defendants represented by Miss Williams were both alleged to have been between 12-17 at the time. Not guilty verdicts were returned after the retrial but the case brought up interesting questions relating to disclosure which was tested vigorously. Successfully argued doli incapax for a number of the counts on the indictment.
R v Eloise Burton-Cope – Police Station Interview – Manslaughter/Murder – baby shaking
An extremely sad case that in fact resulted in a serious case review. At the time of Miss Williams’ attendance at the Police Station, the Defendant had not been made aware that her son had died and it was Miss Williams who had to break the news to her. The case required careful handling and as a result of the advice received and the account advanced in interview, ultimately the Crown were able to take a view and a plea to manslaughter was accepted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-36781681
R v Thaws et al (2009/2010) – Fraud
Instructed as Led Junior in this 12-week benefit fraud multi-Defendant (15) trial alleging a network of making false claims for Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit by inventing fictional disabled children in support of their claim. The case involved a number of complex areas of law and fact culminating in various legal arguments including abuse of process, severance and admissibility.
R v Burrows (February 2009) – Robbery
There was significant media interest in this case where the Defendant had voluntarily returned home to England from Thailand (where he had fled after he committed this crime) to plead guilty to one count of knife-point robbery committed at a betting shop in order to pay off his drug debts. Sadly, he was sentenced to 18 months immediate custody despite finding “exceptional circumstances”.
R v Kendall CA [2008] EWHC 1848
A member of the BNP had displayed a poster in Southend High Street with the phrase “Illegal Immigrant Murder Scum” followed by pictures of three black illegal immigrants who had just been convicted of manslaughter. The questions posed for the consideration of the High Court were whether (i) on the facts of the case, the visual display could be regarded as threatening, abusive or insulting; (ii) it could be said that K intended or was aware that the posters might be threatening, abusive or insulting; (iii) it could be said that an act of putting up the posters was motivated by hostility towards a particular racial group. The appeal was dismissed but raised interesting areas of law and fact.