Cases:
R v N (2026) – Defending a Crown Court trial of assault with intent to rob, with an independent prosecution eyewitness and CCTV covering the incident. Following a majority direction the jury were discharged, as they were unable to return an acceptable verdict.
R v O (2026) – Defence counsel for sentence in a case involving multiple grave offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
R v M (2026) – Defence counsel for sentence of causing grievous bodily harm with a kitchen knife at the Central Criminal Court, resulting in a suspended sentence.
R v O (2026) – Defending a Youth Court trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, within which a 17-year-old child had been filmed at the scene of a fight. Tess made submissions as to intention, joint enterprise, and causation resulting in an acquittal.
R v R (2026) – Defending a Youth Court sentence of a 16-year-old child relating to 9 offences, including possession of blades and dangerous driving. In line with current and updated guidance, Tess drafted a detailed sentencing note outlining the correct approach to sentence. The child avoided detention and received a Rehabilitation Order in the community.
R v I (2026) – Defending a Magistrates’ Court trial involving harassment of an ex-husband. Tess noted one charge failed to amount to a ‘course of conduct’, and the other was out of time under section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. She resisted a prosecution application to amend the charges out of time, resulting in the crown offering no evidence.
R v L (2026) – Defending a Magistrates’ Court trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of Class A drugs, and criminal damage. The defendant was acquitted of all charges following scrutiny of mobile phone and doorbell footage which purported to show the offences taking place.
R v S (2026) – Defending a Magistrates’ Court trial of a company charged with failing to identify the driver of a company vehicle. The District Judge was content that on the balance of probabilities, the Notice of Intended Prosecution had been responded to, despite no receipt having been retained.
R v H (2026) – Defending a Magistrates’ Court trial for possession of an offensive weapon. Cross-examination of the sole crown witness and submissions on insufficiency of the evidence resulted in the acquittal of the 70-year-old defendant.
R v E (2026) – Defending a successful Exceptional Hardship application made to avoid the mandatory 6-month disqualification from driving under the ‘totting up’ scheme.
