The defendant was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath, driving without a licence and insurance. Failing to provide carries a mandatory disqualification upon conviction. It was argued successfully on behalf of the defendant that he was not fit to plead. As a result he avoided disqualification.
The defendant was charged with battery. The complainant alleged that he was walking with his girlfriend when he was sucker-punched by the defendant, who he claimed to recognise having met him at least 20 times. The defendant’s vehicle was captured on CCTV within 200 meters of the location only minutes beforehand. In his police interview, the defendant denied involvement, and stated he had not seen the complainant for 8 years as he had been in prison. Hennessy and Hammudi argued that the complainant’s identification of the defendant should be excluded because the police had failed to carry out a video identification parade to test the complainant’s ability to recognise the defendant. The ID evidence was excluded, and the defendant was acquitted.
The defendant was charged with an assault on a police officer, assault and public order. On the advice of Hennessy & Hammudi, the defendant successfully raised the defence of temporary insanity and was acquitted of all charges.
Defendant was charged with Failing to provided a specimen of breath, an offence that carries mandatory disqualification upon conviction. Due to the defendant’s mental health difficulties, Hennessy & Hammudi, successfully argued that he was unfit to plead, thus avoiding disqualification.
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 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.
Client was charged with racially aggravated offences. Following an application by Hennessy & Hammudi Solicitors to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process as a result of the Crown’s failure to comply with disclosure, the District Judge granted the application. The District Judge citing that the delay in the case would result in unfairness to the defendant as a result of the CPS failure.
