Sarah Memmi, instructed by Sabrina Neves of GT Stewart Solicitors, represented JF in Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court. JF was jointly charged with another with two counts of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs, and with possession of criminal property namely proceeds of drug dealing, as well as one count of having custody or control of £2,000 in counterfeit notes.
Sabrina represented JF at the police station and in the Magistrates Court at his first appearance. She requested throughout the telephones’ raw data which the police had said were available as it prompted the arrests. The “drugs line” telephone was found on JF’s co-defendant and no class A drugs were found at either of their addresses.
Sarah and Sabrina spent the following 6 months fighting for fair resolution of this case: they chased the raw data to obtain their own expert reports; Sarah made an application to dismiss the counts for drugs and criminal property, in which it was clearly stated that the defence would argue that the statement of one of the investigating officers’ interpreting some selective cell site evidence and stating he was not a cell site expert was inadmissible (relying on R v Calland); a s.8 CPIA application was made for disclosure of the raw data requested and raised at several hearings but ignored; they made an application to exclude cell site evidence which was listed twice. Raw data was served very late and no expert report had been served until a couple of weeks before the trial. The first hearing relating to the application to exclude the officer’s cell site interpretation was adjourned: after declining a later listing, the CPS had not sought an update as to why no expert report had been prepared against their own counsel’s advice and the Crown needed time to make enquiries. At the adjourned hearing, the CPS started uploading an expert report at the time the hearing was due to commence; the Judge had to further adjourn in the circumstances but heavily criticised failures on the part of the prosecution and described Sarah’s application as otherwise “unassailable”.
Throughout the proceedings, Sabrina repeatedly made both oral and written representations to the Crown arguing that they could not exclude his innocent explanation. Both Sarah and Sabrina continued to make representations following receipt of the Crown’s cell site expert report, which succeeded mere days before the trial was due to commence and materialised on the first day of trial; the Crown offered no evidence on the drugs and criminal property counts. As for the counterfeit money, JF benefitted from a psychological report which explored his extensive vulnerabilities and significant intellectual impairment. The expert opined that this caused him to accept the notes without questioning why he was given those nor being capable of contemplating the consequences of having those notes. The expert further opined that his intellectual impairment also impacted his decision making and taking action despite having decided that he wanted to bring them to the police. Sarah argued that JF fell short of a defence in the circumstances, the notes having been kept in a drawer and JF having volunteered the information to the police before the notes were found. She further argued that JF should receive a shorter sentence than usually warranted for possession of counterfeit notes. JF received a 4-month sentence which fully reflected his personal circumstances and was a very welcomed, fair sentence after JF had otherwise effectively been deprived of a sentence in the community whilst remanded in custody primarily for the drugs charges.
Related barristers: Sarah Memmi
Related practice areas: Crime
