7
4 King’s Bench Walk Criminal Law Update 4 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7DL. Tel: 020 7822 7000. Web: www.4kbw.co.uk. Email: [email protected] January 2012 Timothy Raggatt QC Roger Thomas QC Basil Hillman Robert Spencer Bernard Kate Mallison Naomi Perry Peter Fortune Nicholas Doherty Reginald Arkhurst Gwynn Price-Rolands Kim Preston Tamala McGee Nadia Chbat Olive Lycourgou Beverly Roberts John Upton Gavin Holme Lee Harris Robert Salis Michael Roques Justine Davidge Jerome Silva Marc Tregidgo Richard Moss Joanna Durber John Brown Keith Webster Abbey Vooght Tomas Quinn Brian Costello Sophie Chaplin Philippe Bonavero Helen Dobby Ricky Gardner Clerks Tom Priest Team Members What's in this edition x Criminal sanctions for contempt in civil proceedings, Immediate cusͲ tody for exaggerating a personal injury claim. x Appealing ruling of no case to answer. x The British Firearms Handbook (Formally published as Gun Law). x New members profiles. x Updates I would like to take this opporͲ tunity to welͲ come you to the rebranded 4KBW criminal Law newsletter. We welcome Lee Harris and Tomas Quinn to our team and their profiles are included. It is also an opportunity for memͲ bers of the 4KBW to demonstrate their experience and skills to proͲ vide you with a better picture of the criminal team as a whole. We hope you find the newsletter useful and encourage feedback. We wish you all the best for 2012 Gavin Holme Ͳ Team Head As we enter 2012 our crimiͲ nal group is alͲ ready looking forward to the new challenges that this year will bring. With legal aid being cut and high contributions for defendants we have looked at and now offer comͲ petitive private fee packages to our professional and lay clients which give financial certainty to a case. These packages are available from our silks to our most junior tenants and covers all work undertake in the criminal field. We have piloted this with a few of our solicitor clients and they have found it popular with some of their lay clients. For more information please conͲ tact chambers. Lee Cook Ͳ Principal Clerk

4King’s Bench Walk 2 01 2 Criminal Law Update · 2016-05-27 · personal injury claims. In both cases the High Court showed a willingness to respond with sentences of imme r diate

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 4King’s Bench Walk 2 01 2 Criminal Law Update · 2016-05-27 · personal injury claims. In both cases the High Court showed a willingness to respond with sentences of imme r diate

4�King’s�Bench�Walk�

Criminal�Law�Update�

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]

January�2012�

Timothy Raggatt QC Roger Thomas QC

Basil Hillman Robert Spencer Bernard

Kate Mallison Naomi Perry Peter Fortune

Nicholas Doherty Reginald Arkhurst

Gwynn Price-Rolands Kim Preston

Tamala McGee Nadia Chbat

Olive Lycourgou Beverly Roberts

John Upton Gavin Holme Lee Harris

Robert Salis Michael Roques Justine Davidge

Jerome Silva Marc Tregidgo Richard Moss

Joanna Durber John Brown

Keith Webster Abbey Vooght Tomas Quinn Brian Costello Sophie Chaplin

Philippe Bonavero Helen Dobby

Ricky Gardner

Clerks

Tom Priest

Team�Members� What's�in�this�edition� x� Criminal�sanctions�for�contempt�in�civil�proceedings,�Immediate�cusͲ

tody�for�exaggerating�a�personal�injury�claim.��x� Appealing�ruling�of��no�case�to�answer.� x� The�British�Firearms�Handbook��(Formally�published�as�Gun�Law).��x� New�members�profiles.��x� Updates��

I� would� like� to�take� this� opporͲtunity� to� welͲcome�you�to�the�r e b r a n d e d�4KBW� criminal�Law��newsletter.��

�We�welcome� Lee�Harris�and�Tomas�Quinn�to�our�team�and�their�profiles�are�included.��It� is� also� an� opportunity� for�memͲbers� of� the� 4KBW� to� demonstrate�their� experience� and� skills� to� proͲvide�you�with�a�better�picture�of�the�criminal�team�as�a�whole.��We� hope� you� find� the� newsletter�useful�and�encourage�feedback.��We�wish�you�all�the�best�for�2012�

��

�Gavin�Holme�Ͳ�Team�Head�

As� we� enter�2012� our� crimiͲnal� group� is� alͲready� looking�forward� to� the�new� challenges�that� this� year�

will�bring.��With� legal� aid� being� cut� and� high�contributions� for� defendants� we�have� looked�at�and�now�offer�comͲpetitive�private� fee�packages� to�our�professional� and� lay� clients� which�give�financial�certainty�to�a�case.���These� packages� are� available� from�our�silks� to�our�most� junior� tenants�and�covers�all�work�undertake�in�the�criminal� field.�We�have�piloted� this�with� a� few� of� our� solicitor� clients�and�they�have�found�it�popular�with�some�of�their�lay�clients.��For�more�information�please�conͲtact�chambers.�

Lee�Cook�Ͳ�Principal�Clerk�

Page 2: 4King’s Bench Walk 2 01 2 Criminal Law Update · 2016-05-27 · personal injury claims. In both cases the High Court showed a willingness to respond with sentences of imme r diate

Keith� has� a�mixed� practice.�He� is� regularly�instructed� in�Crime,� EmployͲment� Law,�ComͲmercial�Contract�Law� and� PerͲsonal� Injury.� His�criminal�practice�

spans�the�gamut�of�offences�as�well�as�matters� of� confiscation� and� forfeiture.�He� particularly� enjoys� cases� involving�financial� wrongdoing� and� regulatory�crime,�where� his� previous� career� as� a�senior� company� director� gives� him� an�astute�perspective.��Solicitors� find� him� userͲfriendly;� effiͲcient� and� communicative.� Lay� clients�value�his�approachability�and�clear,�noͲnonsense�advice.�For� more� information� please�visit�www.keithwebster.co.uk��

Criminal�Law�Update�Ͳ�Article��

Edward�Nield,�Acromas�Insurance�Company�Limited�v�Graham�Jeffrey�Loveday,�Susan�Loveday�[2011]�

EWHC�2324�(Admin)�

Lane�v�Shah�[2011]�EWHC�2962�(Admin)�

Two�cases� this�year� featured�covert�surveillance� evidence� obtained� by�insurance� companies� to�expose� lies�and� exaggerations� by� claimants� in�personal�injury�claims.�In�both�cases�the�High�Court�showed�a�willingness�to�respond�with�sentences�of�immeͲdiate�custody.�

The�first�case,�in�July�2011,�was�that�of� Graham� Loveday� and� his� wife,�Susan.� In� his� witness� statement,�made� in� August� 2009,� he� claimed�that�he�needed�to�use�a�wheelchair�to�travel�any�distance,�that�he�relied�fully�upon�his�wife� to�help�him�and�that� he� struggled� with� stairs� or�steps.�He�described�the�effect�of�the�back�pain�as� causing�an� "absolutely�crippling"� fear� of� travelling.� The�prospect� of� going� in� a� car� would�make�him�violently�ill.�

Covert� surveillance� footage,� obͲtained� by� the� Claimant’s� insurers,�revealed� that� at� no� time� was� Mr�Loveday� seen� in� a� wheelchair.� He�was�always�able�to�walk,�sometimes�slowly� but� at� other� times� without�any�apparent�problem.�He�carried�a�walking� stick� but� not� always� in� the�same�hand�and�there�was�nothing�to�suggest�that�he�struggled�with�steps�

or� stairs.� At� no� time� was� his� wife�seen�helping�him�nor�was�there�anyͲthing� to� suggest� that� she�was� conͲstantly� caring� for� him� as� he� had�claimed� –� in� fact,� sometimes� she�would� drop� him� off� in� the� car� and�drive�away.�

The� Defendant’s� insurers� counterͲclaimed,� seeking� a� declaration� that�the�claim� was� "contaminated� by�‘spectacular� dishonesty’� in� that� the�Claimant�had�set�out�to�perpetrate�a�‘manipulation�of�the�civil�justice�sysͲtem�on� a� grand� scale’",� and� for�his�claim�to�be�struck�out�as�an�abuse�of�the� court's� process.� They� also� put�Mr�Loveday�on� notice� that� permisͲsion� to� commence� committal� proͲceedings� for� his� contempt� of� court�would�be�sought.�

His�wife�subsequently�admitted�that�the�elements�of�her�statement�supͲporting� the� level� of� care,� the� reͲquirement� for�a�wheelchair�and�the�description�of�Mr�Loveday�as�a�virtuͲally� housebound� recluse� were� not�true�at�the�time�she�made�the�stateͲment.�

Mr�Loveday�was�found�guilty�of�conͲtempt� of� court,� pursuant� to� CPR�32.14.� The� court� noted� that,� irreͲspective�of�his�inability�to�pay�a�fine,�the� appropriate� sentence� was� one�of� nine�months� immediate� custody�(the� maximum� would� have� been�two�years).�Mrs�Loveday� received�a�sixͲmonth� suspended� sentence,� reͲflecting� her� lesser� but� significant�involvement�in�the�deception.�

The� Judge,� quoting� Lord� Justice�Moses� in�South�Wales�Fire�and�ResͲcue� v� Smith� [2011]� EWHC� 1749�(Admin),� stated:� � “Those�who�make�false�claims,�if�caught,�should�expect�to� go� to� prison.� There� is� no� other�way� to�underline� the�gravity�of� the�conduct,� there� is� no� other� way� to�

deter�those�who�may�be�tempted�to�make� such� claims,� and� there� is� no�other� way� to� improve� the� adminiͲstration�of�justice.”�

In�October�of�this�year,�the�Loveday�case�was� followed�by� the�Divisional�Court� in� the� case� of� Lane� v� Shah�[2011]�EWHC�2962�(Admin).�Here�an�accountant�claimed�that�her�injuries�following� a� road� traffic� accident�made� her� unable� to� work.� Two�other� witnesses� produced� witness�statements� in� support� of� this� fact.�Covert� surveillance� obtained� by� inͲsurers�revealed� that�she�had� in� fact�been�working�over�a� lengthy�period�at�an�apparently� full� time� job�as�at�an� address� in� Stanmore.� It� showed�that�she�was�well�able�to�shop,�walk,�lift,� carry� and� bend.� Following� this,�she�admitted�her�deception.�

She� received� an� immediate� custoͲdial�sentence�of�six�months;�each�of�her� witnesses� received� immediate�custodial� sentences� of� three�months.�

Keith�Webster��

Criminal�sanctions�for��

contempt�in�civil�proceedings�

Immediate�custody�for��

exaggerating�a�personal��

injury�claim�

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]

Page 3: 4King’s Bench Walk 2 01 2 Criminal Law Update · 2016-05-27 · personal injury claims. In both cases the High Court showed a willingness to respond with sentences of imme r diate

The�prosecution�sought�leave�to�appeal�a�ruling�of�Dobbs�J�on�4th�NoͲvember�2011�made�at�the�close�of�the�prosecution�case�in�a�manͲslaughter�trial�at�Nottingham�Crown�Court.��Timothy�Raggatt�QC�apͲpeared�for�the�Crown�in�this�sucͲcessful�appeal.��At�trial,�Eva�Logina�and�Rashpal�Chana,�were�charged�with,�and�subsequently�convicted�of,�the�manslaughter�of�Kristiana�Logina.��Kristiana�was�the�two�year�old�daughter�of�Eva�Logina.��Eva�LogͲina�and�Rashpal�Chana�had�been�in�a�relationship�for�three�months�and�they�lived�together�along�with�Eva�Logina’s�two�children.��Rashpal�Chana�was�the�respondent�in�the�application.��Kristiana�died�on�15th�February�2010�from�the�onset�of�septicaemia�and�other�complications�as�a�result�of�a�severe�burn.��The�burn�had�been�of�sufficient�severity�so�as�to�require�urgent�inpatient�hospital�treatment�and�the�failure�to�afford�the�child�such�treatment�caused�her�death.��The�evidence�established�that�it�was�likely�that�the�burns�had�occurred�some�12�days�prior.��During�submissions,�and�at�the�apͲpeal,�the�prosecution�contended�that�it�would�be�open�to�the�jury�to�convict�Rashpal�Chana�of�manͲslaughter�even�if�he�had�not�been�aware�of�the�injury�at�the�time�of�its�occurrence�but�had�become�aware�at�a�time�when�the�failure�to�take�action�caused�death�and�his�failure�was�so�serious�to�amount�to�a�crimiͲnal�omission.��The�prosecution�had�to�adduce�sufficient�evidence�as�to�

the�timing�of�the�injury,�its�appearͲance�and�effect�on�the�child�as�to�justify�the�inference�that�Rashpal�Chana�must�have�known�of�the�inciͲdent�and�that�it�was�of�a�severity�requiring�assistance.����The�evidence�showed�that�the�burns�were�extensive�and�ran�across�the�child’s�buttocks�and�down�one�leg.��They�would�have�developed�in�colͲour�over�a�short�number�of�days.��In�addition�to�the�appearance�of�the�burns,�the�edges�of�the�injuries�would�have�caused�intense�pain�esͲpecially�when�rubbing�against�clothͲing�or�when�sitting�down.��After�four�to�five�days�a�noxious�smell�would�emerge�from�the�injury,�which�could�not�be�remedied�by�cleaning�the�wound.��Furthermore,�the�evidence�was�that�the�child�would�have�beͲcome�increasingly�unwell�and�outͲwardly�not�functioning�as�a�normal�healthy�two�year�old.����In�interview,�the�respondent�stated�that�he�had�been�working�long�hours�from�7.00pm�to�9.00pm�and�claimed�that�he�was�unaware�of�what�had�happened.��The�question�arose�in�the�appeal�as�to�the�extent�to�which�the�judge�could�use�his�asͲsertions�that�he�had�not�been�preͲsent�during�the�day�when�considerͲing�whether�there�was�sufficient�evidence�to�infer�knowledge�of�the�injury.��The�general�proposition�is�that�selfͲserving�or�exculpatory�statements�are�not�evidence�that�the�judge�can�take�into�account�at�that�stage.��The�Court�of�Appeal�found�that�the�judge�placed�too�much�emphasis�on�the�extent�to�which�the�prosecution�could�rebut�this�account.��The�real�question�was�whether�there�was�sufficient�eviͲdence�from�which�the�jury�could�infer�that�there�had�been�sufficient�contact�for�the�respondent�to�obͲserve�and�appreciate�the�injury�and�its�effect�on�the�child.����

In�her�ruling,�the�judge�held�that�it�would�require�there�to�have�been�close�and�regular�contact�for�the�jury�to�conclude�that�they�were�sure�that�he�was�aware�of�the�symptoms�relied�upon.��However,�the�Court�of�Appeal�held�that�this�was�a�view�of�the�facts�taken�by�the�Judge�but�may�not�have�been�the�view�taken�by�the�jury.��Although�the�evidence�was�neutral�as�to�whether�regular�or�lengthy�contact�had�taken�place�it�did�not�flow�that�absent�such�eviͲdence�no�jury�could�reasonably�infer�that�the�respondent�would�have�known�of�the�injury.��The�medical�evidence�did�not�support�the�propoͲsition�that�it�would�require�close�and�regular�contact�with�the�child�to�have�observed�the�injury�and�its�efͲfect.����The�respondent�did�admit�to�seeing�the�child�during�the�period�of�the�12�days�prior�to�her�death.��These�12�days�spanned�two�weekends�over�which�the�respondent�and�Kristiana�had�been�living�in�the�same�houseͲhold.��In�fact�he�admitted�to�having�seen�her�to�a�sufficient�extent�to�have�made�him�concerned�that�she�was�suffering�from�nappy�rash�and�advised�Eva�to�purchase�cream.��Given�the�evidence�of�the�symptoms�and�severity�of�the�injury,�the�jury�would�be�entitled�to�infer�that,�in�suggesting�it�appeared�to�be�no�more�than�nappy�rash,�the�responͲdent�sought�to�minimise�her�condiͲtion�and�the�jury�would�be�entitled�to�question�his�motivation�for�doing�so.��Further,�the�medical�evidence�suggested�it�would�be�difficult�to�mistake�the�burns�for�nappy�rash.��It�was�a�matter�for�the�jury�to�deͲcide�whether�it�would�require�close�and�regular�contact�with�the�child�in�order�to�observe�the�effects�of�the�burns.��The�judge�ruled�that�it�would�be�difficult�for�the�jury�to�conclude�that�the�respondent�deliberately�ignored�the�symptoms.��However,�

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]� 4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]

Criminal�Law�Update�Ͳ�Article��

Appealing�ruling�of��no�case�to�answer�

�R�v�Rashpal�Chana�

�Timothy�Raggatt�QC�

Page 4: 4King’s Bench Walk 2 01 2 Criminal Law Update · 2016-05-27 · personal injury claims. In both cases the High Court showed a willingness to respond with sentences of imme r diate

this�was�not�the�correct�test.��The�real�question�was�not�the�difficulty�in�reaching�such�a�conclusion�but�whether�the�jury�were�entitled�to�reach�that�conclusion.�Once�there�was�sufficient�evidence�on�which�a�jury�could�have�inferred�that�he�knew�of�the�injuries,�it�was�inevitaͲble�that�the�case�could�not�be�stopped.��In�her�ruling,�the�judge�stated�that�it�was�a�borderline�case�and�in�any�event�she�would�have�exercised�her�discretion�to�withdraw�the�case�from�the�jury.��Although�the�Court�of�Appeal�were�satisfied�that�the�judge�had�applied�the�correct�test,�it�was�emphasised�that�where�a�judge�has�found�that�a�jury�could�properly�convict�there�is�no�discretion�to�withdraw�the�case.��The�Court�apͲproved�the�approach�to�submissions�of�no�case�to�answer�taken�in�the�case�of�R�v�K�and�W.��As�the�court�said�in�that�case,�the�case�does�not�depend�on�the�exercise�of�discretion�but�rather�calls�for�a�careful�considͲeration�of�the�evidence�and�an�analysis�of�the�findings�which�the�jury�could�properly�make.��Where�there�are�findings�that�a�jury�could�make�to�support�the�Crown’s�case�then�the�case�should�be�left�to�the�jury.����The�Court�of�Appeal�held�that�they�formed�the�firm�view�that�there�was�sufficient�evidence�upon�which�a�jury�properly�directed�could�have�inferred�that�the�respondent�must�have�known�that�the�child�was�suffiͲciently�seriously�injured�to�require�outside�help.��Thus�the�Court�of�ApͲpeal�reversed�the�ruling�and�the�case�proceeded.���������������

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]� 4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]

Criminal�Law�Update�Ͳ�Article��

���������Timothy� practises� in� all� areas� of�criminal� law� but� particularly� murͲder,� serious� fraud,�drug� related�ofͲfences,� arson� and� serious� sexual�offences� cases.� He� is� also� authorͲised� to� try� all� Serious� Sexual� OfͲfences�in�his�capacity�as�a�Recorder.�����He�has�appeared� in�a� large�number�of�complex�and�serious�trials� in�the�South�East�and�West�Midlands�and�in� �particular�has�been� at� the� very�forefront� of� most� of� the� leading�cases�involving�“Black�on�Black”�gun�crime�in�the�West�Midlands.��Timothy� also� played� a� central� part�as� Leading� Counsel� in� the� recent�evolution�of�the�law�of�evidence�on�key�witness� protection� issues� such�as�anonymity�and�special�protection�measures�advising�the�police� in�the�Midlands� on� overall� policy� as� well�as�on�a�case�by�case�basis.�����During� recent� years� Timothy� has�been�instructed�all�over�the�country�in�centres�such�as�Leeds,�ManchesͲter,�Birmingham�and�London.�TimoͲthy� prosecutes� for� the� CPS� in� the�Midlands� and� Thames� Valley� areas�and� act� for� the� defence� on� a� naͲtional� basis.� As� well� as� the� above�Timothy� has� an� extensive� referral�practice� in� the� Court� of� Appeal�Criminal�Division.����Through�the�cases�that�Timothy�has�conducted�he�has�built�up�an�extenͲsive� specialist�knowledge� in�mobile�phone� technology� and� cell� site�analysis� as� well� as� in� DNA� techͲ

��������

About�Chambers����

Other�Specialist�Practise�Areas�Family�

Immigration�Employment�

Property�and�Housing�Personal�Injury�

�Members�undertake�most�areas�under�the�common�law�banner�for�further�information�please�

contact�our�clerks�room.���

Seminars��

Chambers�runs�a�series�of�CPD�acͲcredited�seminars�held�at�the�colͲlege�of�law�in�London,�Store�Street,�

London,�WC1E�7DE����

More information will be posted on our website

Www.4kbw.co.uk

Timothy�Raggatt�QC�

Page 5: 4King’s Bench Walk 2 01 2 Criminal Law Update · 2016-05-27 · personal injury claims. In both cases the High Court showed a willingness to respond with sentences of imme r diate

Criminal�Law�Update�Ͳ�New�Publication�

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]

����������

Chambers�is�pleased�to�announce�the�upcoming�publication�of�The�British� Firearms� Law� Handbook�by�Laura�Saunsbury�and�Nick�DoͲherty�with�Helen�Dobby.����Laura� and� Nick� were� invited� to�edit� this� core� text� due� to� their�specialism,�experience�and� interͲest�in�firearms�law.��Since�the�last�edition� of� the� book� was� pubͲlished� in� 1999� there� have� been�some� very� significant� changes� in�firearms�law.�The�book�therefore�includes�substantial�new�material�covering�these�changes.��The� book� is� devoted� exclusively�to� the� law� relating� to� the�use�of�guns.� In� it� the� ordinary� person�who�handles�guns�will�find�all�the�requirements� of� the� law� which�he� needs� to� know,� and� those�who�have�to�apply�or�enforce�the�law�will�find�it�of�invaluable�assisͲtance�to�them�in�their�work.��The�book� addresses� a�wide� range� of�issues� including:� shooting� game,�protected� birds� and� animals,�guns� for� sport,� rifle� clubs,� the�tenant’s� right� to� shoot,� the�defiͲnitions�of� firearms� and� ammuniͲtion� (including� prohibited�weapͲons� and� imitation� firearms),� the�

licensing�of� firearms,�how� to�obͲtain�a� license�and�how�to�appeal�a� refusal� or� revocation,� young�people� and� guns,� poaching,� and�criminal�offences�relating�to� fireͲarms�and�ammunition.��To� order� your� copy:� http://ww.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?reͲcordid=4725&productid=433909���

THE�BRITISH�FIREARMS�LAW�HANDBOOK�(FORMERLY�PUBLISHED�AS�GUN�LAW)�

Laura�Saunsbury��Nick�Doherty�Helen�Dobby��

����������Nick�Doherty�has�been� involved�with� firearms� law� for� over� 25�years.� He� is� the� Chairman� of� a�rifle�and�pistol� club�and� in�2008�Nick� was� appointed� the� only�common�law�legal�advisor�to�the�International� Council� for� Game�and�Wildlife�Conservation.���

Helen�Dobby’s� criminal� practice�encompasses� both� prosecution�and�defence�work.�She� regularly�appears� in� the� Crown� Court,�Magistrates'� Court� and� Youth�Court�and�has�dealt�with�a�wide�range� of� offences� from� firearms�to� motoring� offences.� � Prior� to�being�called�to�the�Bar,�she�comͲpleted�internships�with�the�InterͲnational� Criminal� Court� and� the�International� Criminal� Tribunal�for� Yugoslavia.� � She� also� pracͲtices� family� law,�personal� injury,�housing�and�civil�litigation.�

�������Laura� Saunsbury� is�a�consultant�at� London� based� Lewis� Nedas�and� instructs� members� of� 4�KBW.��

Page 6: 4King’s Bench Walk 2 01 2 Criminal Law Update · 2016-05-27 · personal injury claims. In both cases the High Court showed a willingness to respond with sentences of imme r diate

Areas�of�Practice�Crime� Ͳ� Lee� has�an�extensive�and�varied� criminal�law� practice,�both�prosecuting�and� defending.�He� practises� in�all�areas�of�crime�

including� offences� of� violence,� disͲhonesty,� those� of� a� sexual� nature,�and�those�involving�drugs.�He�is�also�happy�to�accept�instructions�in�relaͲtion�to�road�traffic�offences.��He� prosecutes� regularly� in� the�Crown�Court,�Youth�Court�and�MagͲistrates� Court,� and� has� also� apͲpeared� in� the�High�Court�on�behalf�of� the� Crown� Prosecution� Service.�He� has� represented� the� Crown� in�trials� relating� to� offences� such� as�grievous�bodily�harm,�sexual�assault�(including� against� children),� and�drug� cultivation.� He� is� experienced�in� effective� case� management� and�strategy,�and�also�has� the�ability� to�put� young,� vulnerable,� and� scared�victims� and� witnesses� at� ease� and�make� them� comfortable� with� the�court�process.��Lee� also�defends� clients� in� a�whole�range� of� criminal� offences� in� the�Crown� Court,� as� well� as� accepting�privately� funded� instructions� in� the�Magistrates�Court.�He� is�also�happy�to� advise�both� lay� and�professional�clients�as�to�the�merits�of�their�case.�He�has� recently� represented� clients�facing� charges�as�diverse�as� serious�identity� fraud,� drink� driving,� and�supplying� cannabis.� Lee� has� also�represented� people� against� whom�confiscation� orders� have� been�sought.��Family� Ͳ�Although�experienced�in�all�areas� of� family� law,� Lee� has� a� parͲticular�specialism� in�the� law�relating�to� children.� He� acts� in� private� law�

Criminal�Law�Update��Ͳ��Member�Profiles�

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]

proceedings� involving� disputes� of� resiͲdence,� contact,� international� moveͲment�of� children,�and� child�abduction.�He�also�acts� in�public� law�matters�repͲresenting�parents�and�guardians�in�relaͲtion�to�all�aspects�of�care�proceedings.�He� is� used� to� dealing� with� complex�cases� involving�psychiatric�assessments�of�children�and� implacable�hostility�beͲtween�parties.�His�ability� to�empathise�with�often�distressed�lay�clients,�and�to�negotiate� effectively� with� his� oppoͲnents�means�that�a�beneficial�outcome�can�be�achieved.���Professional�Memberships�Middle�Temple�Criminal�Bar�Association��Professional�Courses�Forensic�Accounting�Professional�Ethics�

�Tom�was� called� to�the� bar� in�2006.� � He� comͲpleted�his�pupilage�and� worked� as� in�house� counsel� for�a�number�of�years�at� Kaim� Todner�

LLP,� and� has� extensive� experience� in�the� Magistrates� Courts,� the� Crown�Court,� and� the� Court� of�Appeal.� � Tom�has�dealt�with�multiͲhanded�cases�and�serious�offences� such�as�Conspiracy� to�Kidnap,� False� Imprisonment,� and�GBH� .� �He�has�also�been� led� in�murder�and� rape�cases� for� the�defence.� �Since�joining�4�King's�Bench�Walk�he�has�deͲveloped�a�prosecution�practice� in�both�the�Magistrates'� Court� and� the� Crown�Court.� � He� has� further� appeared� in�Court�Martials,� representing�members�of�the�Armed�Forces�in�the�United�KingͲdom�and� in�Germany�and�hopes�to�exͲtend�his�practice� in� this� area.� �UnusuͲally,� Tom� is� a� Fully� Accredited� Police�Station� Representative� and� is� MagisͲtrates�Court�Duty�Accredited.���

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]

Lee�Harris(Called�1999)�

Tomas�Quinn�(Called�2006)�

Page 7: 4King’s Bench Walk 2 01 2 Criminal Law Update · 2016-05-27 · personal injury claims. In both cases the High Court showed a willingness to respond with sentences of imme r diate

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/hallͲothersͲjudgmentͲ24112011��R�v�Hall�and�others,�November�2011��New�guidelines�for�the�sentencing�of�historic�sexual�offences.�In�this�case�the�Court�of�Appeal�summarised�sentencing�principles�derived�from�statute�and�authorities�to�be�used�in�historic�sexual�cases.� It�concerns�eight�separate�appeals�all�concerning�convictions� for�historic�sexual�offences,�with�the�Court�of�Appeal�acknowledging� the�difficulties� in� reconciling�case� law,�statute�and� the�Sentencing�Guideline�on�Sexual�Offences.�The�definitive�sentencing�guidelines�should�be�used�in�a�measured�way�in�such�cases,�and�the�followͲing�considerations�treated�as�guidance.��x� Sentence�will�be� imposed�at�the�date�of�the�sentencing�hearing,�on�the�basis�of�the� legislative�provisions�then�

current,�and�by�measured�reference�to�any�definitive�sentencing�guidelines�relevant�to�the�situation�revealed�by�the�established�facts.�

�x� Although�sentence�must�be�limited�to�the�maximum�sentence�at�the�date�when�the�offence�was�committed,�it�is�

not�realistic�to�expect�a�sentence�assessment� to�determine�what�the� likely�sentence�would�have�been� if�conͲvicted�at,�or�shortly�after�the�offence�happened.�

�x� The�main�focus�should�remain�on�the�particular�circumstances�in�which�the�offence�was�committed�and�its�seriͲ

ousness.�Allowance�for�the�passage�of�time�may�be�appropriate,�and�have�a�bearing�on�the�offender’s�culpabilͲity,�in�particular�if�the�offender�was�very�young�at�the�time�of�the�offence.�

�x� Circumstances�in�which�the�facts�have�come�to�light�must�be�looked�at,�as�well�as�careful�judgement�of�the�harm�

done�to�the�victim.�Care�must�be�taken�in�assessing�the�true�extent�of�the�defendant’s�criminality�by�reference�to�what�was�actually�done�and�the�circumstances�in�which�they�were�done.�

�x� The�passing�of�time�since�the�offence�may�be�an�aggravating�feature�if�the�defendant�has�continued�to�commit�

sexual�crime,�or�represented�a�continuing�risk�to�the�public.�Comparative�mitigation�can�be�found�if�there�is�no�evidence�of�any�further�offending,�particularly�if�accompanied�by�evidence�of�positive�good�character.�

�x� Early�admissions�and�guilty�plea�are�of�particular� importance� in�historic�cases,�as�these�provide�vindication�for�

the�victim�which�is�often�of�great�importance�to�them.�

�Harvey�v�Director�of�Public�Prosecutions,�AC,�17�November�2011��This� case� received�much� press� attention,�with� newspapers� declaring� that� the� courts�were� condoning� defendants�swearing�at�police�officers.��The�reality� is�that�this�case�does�not�change�what�has�been�the�position�for�some�time.�Although�a�section�5�Public�Order�Act�1986�offence�requires� limited�criminal� intent�on�the�part�of�the�defendant,�the�Crown�does�need�to�show�that�the�words�were�said�within�the�hearing�of�someone�likely�to�be�caused�alarm,�harassment�or�distress.�The�reality�is�that�most�people�hear�bad�and�rude�language�on�a�daily�basis,�and�police�officers�in�particular�are�more�likely�to�find�it�unnecessary�and�irritating�rather�than�alarming�or�distressing.�Without�evidence�of�the�words�being�likely�to�cause�fear,�alarm�or�distress�to�anyone�who�could�hear�them�the�case�will�fail.�The�circumstances�and�context�in�which�such�words�are�said�is�the�crucial�factor�in�such�cases,�but�this�case�does�not�provide�a�green�light�to�swear�at�police�officers�Ͳ�however�tempting�it�may�be.�

Criminal�Law�Update��Ͳ��Updates�

4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]