The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol, raising the very difficult defence of duress. The defendant was found not guilty on the basis that she had acted of out necessity after considering the arguments presented by Hennessy & Hammudi.
The defendant was acquitted of the offences of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. Following incisive cross-examination of the two police officers in this matter by Hennessy & Hammudi, the District Judge accepted a submission that the officers were not acting in the execution of their duty. As a result, the case against the client was dismissed.
The defendant was involved in a knife fight, described by the prosecution as ‘a fight to the death’. Charged with section 18 GBH and possession of an offensive weapon, following a full trial the jury accepted the defence that this was a matter of self defence and acquitted the defendant of all charges.
The defendant was charged with Section 18 and child cruelty x2. Following a trial at Nottingham Crown Court, K was acquitted of the more serious offences of Section 18 Grievous Bodily Harm with intent, which carries a life sentence, but convicted of the less serious offence of Section 20 Grievous Bodily Harm without intent. As a result, he received a 3 1/2 year custodial sentence. The defendant in this case required robust cross-examination of the Crown’s Paediatric experts.
The defendant was charged with Section 18 GBH with intent, an offence that carries a life sentence. Also possession of an offensive weapon. The defendant was acquitted of the Section 18 and pleaded guilty to Section 20 GBH without intent and possession of an offensive weapon. The defendant received a 27 month custodial sentence.
The defendant was charged with one count of grievous bodily harm. This case was difficult due to the defendant’s learning difficulties and mental health difficulties. Notwithstanding this, after a full trial the jury reached a verdict of not guilty and the case against our client was dismissed. The court were provided with information from a psychologist and psychiatrist instructed by Hennessy & Hammudi in order to assist in understanding how the defendant’s mental health difficulties would impact on his ability to exercise judgement.
The defendant was charged with two counts of assaulting police in the execution of their duty. Following a proactive defence by Hennessy & Hammudi Solicitors and the effective cross-examination of the police officers at trial, the court found the defendant not guilty of the offences of assault PC.
The defendants were charged with burglary dwelling. The CPS discontinued the case days before trial as the forensic evidence it intended to rely upon was not ready. H & H advised our clients that the cps could revive the case once the forensic was available. The only way to do this would be to reject the cps discontinuance and ask the court to revive the case. As a result, at trial, H & H argued that as there was no further evidence since the decision to discontinue was taken, the court could not be certain that the cps had proved it’s case. The case was dismissed and the defendants acquitted and cannot be re-tried, even if the cps get forensic evidence.
The defendants jointly charged with offences of violence and threatening behaviour. Following the Crown’s failure to secure the defendant’s for trial who had been remanded in custody, Hennessy & Hammudi opposed the Crown’s application for an adjournment. Hennessy & Hammudi argued that this would be an abuse of the court’s process. The District Judge agreed with those representations and refused the Crown’s application, stating that the Crown Prosecution Service’s conduct in the case would cause such a delay as to infringe on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
The defendant originally faced trial for the offences of grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm and violent disorder. Following robust representations made by Hennessy & Hammudi, the Crown were persuaded to accept a guilty plea to a charge of affray. As a result the defendant received a 12 month suspended sentence order of imprisonment.
