Legal antenna

I went along to court yesterday for a first appearance in a case where my client and two others are accused of conspiracy to commit GBH.

First, I must say that the co-defendants' solicitor was delightful, insightful and extraordinarily clever... she must have been since she described me as inspirational and amazing.  She also suggested that I could earn a lot of money, "because of who you are."  Come to think of it, she may have thought I was somebody else.

Anyway, we had very different views of the case.  She said she thought the defendants would have to plead guilty in the Crown Court.  I was a little astonished.  I hadn't (and still can't) see how the prosecution can possibly prove their case given that the evidence indicates that the "victim" attacked and stabbed my client and that the victim was never attacked and did not sustain any injuries.  In the first place, I can't see the complainant actually showing up to court to make a complaint without some serious judicial arm twisting.  If he doesn't come along then I cannot see how the Crown can prove the conspiracy element as they'll have no direct evidence that the defendants were targetting him - they say there is some circumstantial evidence but I've yet to see it.  As there was no attack and no injury they cannot prove either GBH or attempted GBH.

That's my view having looked at the case summary, which is pretty much all we have at the moment.

Clearly one of us solicitors is right and the other is wrong.  Will be interesting to see the outcome.


  1. Sounds like there's a lot more to this than meets the eye (as usual). Heavy weaponry involved hence GBH? Evidence of agreement between co-accused?

    1. Thus far there really isn't any more to this case than I've outlined above. We haven't had full disclosure, but there's nothing in respect of any type of assault than I've outlined in the post.

      It really is one of those weird cases that you just wonder how it got charged.

  2. I would be interested to read the outcome of this case, keep us informed. My money is on the case being either discontinued or charges reduced to a minor public order offence.

  3. Normally one lawyer is right and the other wrong - that's contested trials (except in divorce where there are two winners - the parties solicitors).


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

Driving without insurance

National Identity Cards