Notable General Crime cases
R v Alves de Paiva [2026] Harrow Crown Court
The defendant faced a single count of ABH against his ex-partner. The Crown relied upon the complainant’s account and photographs of injuries she attributed to the defendant. There was no metadata showing where, when or what time the photos had been taken. Eliza highlighted this, alongside inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, and the defendant was acquitted.
R v Barrett [2026] Huntingdon Crown Court
The defendant was charged with burglary of a dwelling. His co-defendant had already pleaded guilty and DNA from both was found on the external front door handle. The defendant’s account was that his DNA must have deposited there via secondary transfer, possibly from the co-defendant borrowing some of his clothes. The Crown’s forensic expert deemed this a possible explanation. Eliza highlighted the absence of any other evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene, and he was acquitted by the jury.
R v Baldry [2025] Ipswich Crown Court
The defendant pleaded guilty to a 10-count indictment, including to distributing category A indecent images of children and computer misuse. Although significantly crossing the custody threshold, mitigation advanced on the prospects of rehabilitation, purposes of sentencing, and steps already taken by the defendant, persuaded the Judge to suspend the inevitable custodial sentence.
R v Lance [2025] Wood Green Crown Court
Eliza represented a man charged with intentional strangulation and assault of his partner. After the complainant withdrew from giving evidence in both trials, the Crown sought to admit her police statement under res gestae. Eliza successfully opposed this, arguing lack of spontaneity and fairness under Article 6. The application was refused, and the defendant was acquitted.
R v O’Driscoll [2025] Chelmsford Crown Court
The defendant was sentenced for Category A1 dangerous driving, which involved a police pursuit with multiple police units and a helicopter. The defendant was also driving whilst inhaling Nitrous Oxide balloons. Although the custody threshold was clearly exceeded and the judge acknowledged that the aggravating factors significantly outweighed the mitigation, the judge was none the less persuaded to suspend the sentences and impose a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement instead.
R v C [2025] Stratford Youth Court
The case was dismissed at the close of the Prosecution’s case after a successful submission of no case to answer. The police officer identifying the defendants was cross-examined on failure to comply with PACE Code D. Ultimately, the District Judge found that the identification was tenuous and there was no case to answer.
R v O [2025] Folkestone Magistrates' Court
The defendant was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of an arrest. Successful cross-examination of the complainant police officer and an eyewitness police officer highlighted inconsistencies between the two officers, and the defendant was found not guilty.
R v M [2025] Ipswich Magistrates' Court
The defendant was charged with stalking his ex-partner, with the Crown basing their case on messages from WhatsApp, a Co-Parenting app, and the running app, Strava. The defendant was acquitted and the Crown’s application for a non-conviction Restraining Order was successfully opposed.
R v A [2025] Croydon Magistrates' Court
The defendant was found in possession of a 2-foot bladed article and, in the course of arrest, assaulted a police officer. Given D’s age (22yo), time spent on remand in custody, and significant gap in offending, a submission was successfully made to suspend the mandatory minimum. This is a rare, but available, approach, set out by the Court of Appeal in R v Uddin [2022] EWCA Crim 751.
R v M [2025] Southampton Magistrates' Court
Client acquitted of common assault, which had allegedly been committed against his partner. After cross-examination of three Prosecution independent eyewitnesses, the Bench could not ultimately find the offence proven.
