He is currently instructed by a firm to conduct a combined privilege and substantive review along with other assistance on the case, within the firm’s offices for one of their current corporate clients, a large multinational, who are facing an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.
R v BAJ & Others:
Ed was instructed by the SFO to assist in the evaluation of evidence and management of the disclosure review in an international bribery and corruption case involving the procurement of oil contracts in post war Iraq.
R v MB, Crown Court:
Ed was instructed to prosecute a benefit fraud.
R v RL (2019), Magistrates Court:
Successfully represented client in a cash forfeiture hearing in obtaining the return of £20,000 that had been seized from RL at the airport.
R v SL (2019), Crown Court:
SL pleaded guilty to the importation of 4 handguns and over 100 rounds of ammunition. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. After extensive mitigation, including a detailed analysis of the development of sentencing law in relation to the importation of firearms, SL received a sentence of 8 years and 3 months.
R v TT (2019), Crown Court:
Secured acquittal for TT who was charged with racially aggravated common assault.
R v LS (2019), Crown Court:
LS pleaded guilty to possession of an offensive weapon, namely a knuckleduster. After detailed mitigation, LS was sentenced to a conditional discharge.
R v LM (2019), Crown Court:
LM was a third striker for domestic burglary. Successfully mitigated to ensure that the minimum sentence was not handed down, but instead LM was sentenced with a community order.
R v PH (2019), Crown Court:
PH was serving 10 years in prison and while serving his sentence pleaded to numerous additional burglary offences which had taken place prior to the offence for which he was in custody. Successfully persuaded the Judge to make the sentence for those additional matters concurrent rather than consecutive to the 10 year sentence.
R v AM (2019), Magistrates Court:
Represented a city professional who was charged with assault. After extensive cross examination of all three of the Crown’s witnesses and detailed closing submissions, he was acquitted.
R v HM (2019), Crown Court:
HM was charged with one count of possession of a bladed article. After considerable work detailing the weaknesses in the Crown’s case, the matter was dropped on the day of trial.
R v SL (2018), Youth Court:
SL was charged with two counts of Robbery and one count of Fraud. Successfully applied to have ID evidence excluded and, caused the Crown to offer no evidence on both robbery counts. Following a plea to the fraud charge, persuaded the court to impose a conditional discharge.
R v EM (2018), Youth Court:
EM faced four charges of common assault and one charge of criminal damage. Intermediary required as EM had serious difficulties with communication. At his first appearance he pleaded to one common assault and one criminal damage and the Crown dropped the other common assault charge. Persuaded the Court to impose a four-month referral order.
R v ME (2018), Magistrates Court
Successfully defended ME who had been charged with possession of a bladed article.
R v AB (2018), Crown Court
Persuaded the Judge to make the sentences for the common assault offences committed whilst AB was serving an SSO concurrent to the SSO which was being activated.
R v PH (2019), Magistrates Court:
Successfully represented PH who was accused of driving a vehicle whilst using a handheld mobile telephone. After lengthy cross examination of the Crown’s witness and detailed closing submissions PH was acquitted.
R v NH (2019), Magistrates Court:
Successfully argued exceptional hardship and therefore NH retained his licence.
R v NA (2019), Magistrates Court:
NA was accused of driving a vehicle whilst using a handheld mobile telephone. After detailed cross examination of the crown’s witness NA was acquitted.
R v AW (2018), Magistrates Court:
AW had driven into the back of a black cab and this was witnessed by a civilian witness. He was charged with driving without due care and attention. After extensive cross-examination of the civilian witness and two police officers AW was acquitted.
R v ZH (2018), Magistrates Court:
ZH was charged with failing to provide a specimen. Managed to persuade the court to fine and disqualify him for fourteen days, rather than giving him points which would have led to an automatic revocation of his licence.
R v TS (2018), Magistrates Court:
Successfully argued exceptional hardship and therefore TS retained his licence.