BPTC Criminal Procedure Paper 2

You represent Mr Leon Campbell, aged 26, who was convicted after trial at the Crown Court of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution case was that Mr Campbell attacked the complainant, Darren Foley, outside a pub following an argument, stabbing him once in the abdomen with a kitchen knife, causing a wound that required emergency surgery and resulted in the removal of part of Mr Foley's small intestine. Mr Campbell's defence at trial was self-defence: he claimed Mr Foley attacked him first with a glass bottle and that he produced the knife (which he routinely carried for work as a carpet fitter) in fear for his safety. The jury convicted by a majority of 10-2. During the trial, two issues arose that concern you: (1) the trial judge refused to allow the defence to adduce evidence of Mr Foley's three previous convictions for violent offences, including an ABH committed in the same pub 6 months earlier, ruling that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative; and (2) in summing up, the judge told the jury: "You may think that a person who routinely carries a knife is someone who is prepared to use it, and that this tells you something about the defendant's state of mind." Advise on the prospects of a successful appeal against conviction, identifying the grounds, the test the Court of Appeal will apply, and the procedure for appealing.

You are instructed to represent Ms Naomi Adewale, aged 31, who is charged jointly with her partner, Mr Craig Wilson, aged 38, with conspiracy to commit burglary, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The prosecution alleges that between June and November 2024, the defendants conspired to commit a series of 14 dwelling burglaries across South London, targeting elderly householders. The prosecution case relies primarily on: (1) cell site evidence placing both defendants' phones in the vicinity of 11 of the 14 burglary locations at the relevant times; (2) fingerprint evidence linking Mr Wilson to 3 of the properties; (3) items of stolen property found at the defendants' shared home address; and (4) text messages between the defendants allegedly discussing targets and proceeds. Ms Adewale's defence is that she had no knowledge of Mr Wilson's criminal activities. She claims she lent him her phone regularly, that the stolen items in the house were bought by Mr Wilson and she believed they were legitimate purchases, and that the text messages about "jobs" and "earners" referred to Mr Wilson's legitimate cash-in-hand building work. She is of previous good character. Mr Wilson has 8 previous convictions for burglary. Advise on: (a) the evidential challenges to the prosecution case; (b) the bad character provisions relevant to both defendants; (c) the potential for a cut-throat defence; and (d) any applications that should be made pre-trial.

You are instructed to represent Mr Patrick Doyle, aged 52, a retired police officer, who is charged with two counts of perjury, contrary to section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911. The prosecution alleges that during a civil trial in 2024, Mr Doyle gave sworn evidence that he had personally witnessed a road traffic collision, when in fact he had arrived at the scene approximately 15 minutes after the collision occurred. He is said to have given this false evidence to assist his neighbour, Mrs Linda Clarke, in her personal injury claim arising from the collision. Mrs Clarke's claim was ultimately successful, and she was awarded £85,000 in damages. The prosecution case relies on: (1) GPS data from Mr Doyle's personal vehicle, showing he was 3 miles from the scene at the time of the collision; (2) CCTV from a petrol station showing Mr Doyle purchasing fuel at 14:22, 8 minutes before the collision occurred at 14:30; (3) a neighbour, Mrs Patel, who says Mr Doyle told her he had not actually seen the accident but was "helping Linda out"; and (4) phone records showing 14 calls between Mr Doyle and Mrs Clarke in the week before the civil trial. The trial is listed at the Crown Court. Mr Doyle's instructions are that the GPS is inaccurate, he purchased fuel before driving to the area where the collision occurred, and that Mrs Patel has misunderstood a conversation. Advise on: (a) the elements of the offence of perjury and the evidential requirements; (b) the strength of the prosecution case and the viable defence arguments; (c) the evidential and procedural issues that may arise at trial; and (d) the sentencing implications if convicted.

You represent Mr Isaac Mensah, aged 24, who was convicted of robbery at the Crown Court and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. He has been in custody for 6 months. New evidence has emerged: a witness, Mr Derek Owens, has come forward and provided a statement to Mr Mensah's solicitors saying he was with Mr Mensah at a barbershop at the time of the robbery (the alibi was not raised at trial because Mr Mensah said he could not remember where he was). Additionally, the solicitors have obtained mobile phone cell site analysis showing Mr Mensah's phone was in the area of the barbershop, not the robbery location, at the relevant time. However, Mr Mensah's trial counsel has informed the solicitors that during a pre-trial conference, Mr Mensah had mentioned knowing Derek Owens but expressly instructed counsel not to contact him, saying "leave Derek out of it — I don't want him involved." The prosecution has also disclosed, post-trial, that a complaint was made against the identifying witness, Ms Sandra Mills, alleging she had falsely identified a suspect in an unrelated case two years ago. This complaint was known to the police but was not disclosed to the defence before trial. Advise on: (a) the routes available to challenge the conviction post-appeal; (b) the significance of the fresh evidence and the test for its admission; (c) the disclosure failure and its implications; and (d) the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.