- R v GM & RM – led by Toby Hedworth Q.C. in Murder trial, representing the first defendant. On day 8 of the trial, immediately prior to the making of a submission that our client had no case to answer, the prosecution offered no evidence against the client.
- R v CD – successfully represented defendant charged with GBH with intent. The allegation was that my client had bitten part of another man’s ear off. Following a 3-day trial, involving expert evidence, my client was acquitted by the jury.
- R v ST – successfully represented defendant in a multi-handed conspiracy to supply heroin trial. On day 15 of the trial, the prosecution offered no evidence. The prosecution’s decision to offer no evidence was caused by my protracted, detailed disclosure requests, which the prosecution was unwilling/unable to respond to.
- R v TS – successfully represented defendant charged with assault by penetration. Following 5-day trial, involving detailed cross-examination of the complainant and police officers’, about the quality of their investigation, my client was acquitted by the jury.
- R v TC (1) – successfully represented first defendant in an armed robbery trial. The key issue was identification, specifically the police’s failure to comply with the provisions of Code D of PACE 1984. Following 5-day trial, which involved detailed cross-examination of the complainant and police witnesses, my client was acquitted by the jury.
- R v TC (2) – represented defendant charged with aggravated burglary. I successfully argued that the prosecution’s identification evidence was inadmissible, which resulted in the prosecution offering no evidence against my client on the day of trial.
- R v S – represented defendant charged with conspiracy to supply cocaine. Client charged following an undercover police investigation. Pre-trial, the prosecution offered no evidence against my client, after I successfully argued that the evidence against my client was inadmissible.
- R v GB – represented defendant in an Aggravated Burglary case. Successfully argued that the Crown’s Facebook identification evidence was inadmissible, which led to the Crown offering no evidence.
Steven Reed
Call 2017
