Ann Tayo secured not guilty verdicts in two Crown Court trials listed and effective the same morning at Inner London Crown Court.
Despite the clerking team’s best efforts to vacate or move the trials, Ann found herself in a position whereby two clients were listed for trial on the same day. Due to the ongoing ‘strike action’, no other barrister was able to cover either of the trials and Ann made the decision, as the 2 trials were listed at Inner London Crown Court in Court 8 and 9, that she would represent in both matters. This was only possible because the Judges’ and court staff were so accommodating and was done with the consent of all involved.
In both trials, Ann’s clients were accused of assaulting an emergency worker, both resulted in Not Guilty verdicts. In the first trial, Ann encouraged the prosecution to review the case and reconsider whether it met the evidential test or was in the public interest. There was Body Worn Video (BWV) Camera footage of a Police Community Support Worker in the home of a student of good character, having attended uninvited, to make a complaint against that student to his mother. The PCSO had been permitted entry by his mother but was then asked by the student to leave. The PCSO refused to do so before there was any physical contact; thereby opening a potential defence of withdrawal of consent to enter the premises or the possibility of a genuine belief by the student that there was a right to remove that individual from the premises. The Prosecution offered no evidence and a not guilty verdict was recorded.
The second trial resulted in a unanimous verdict by a jury of Not Guilty after a three day trial in which a 47 year old father of good character, who suffered a mental health episode during the height of Covid-19 was accused of assaulting a police officer. He needed to be assessed by paramedics but they could not force him to be assessed and leave if he did not want to and so police were called to assist. 5 police officers descended on the defendant and excessive force was used prior to him being handcuffed, put in an ambulance and taken to hospital. All officers wore body worn video cameras, two of which were missing by the time of trial. Of the footage provided, none captured the push to the officer that the defendant was accused of. It was the defence case that the officer who was asking the defendant to leave became frustrated by his refusal and in reaching out to stop a door closing had stumbled on debris on the floor, whereby the defendant had reached out to help him. His actions had been misinterpreted and he had been falsely accused of assaulting an emergency worker in order for officers to justify their excessive use of force and an entirely inappropriate response to dealing with a medical emergency that required assistance, sensitivity and patience in all the prevailing circumstances. The jury agreed and acquitted Ann’s client.
Ann Tayo’s full profile – https://greatjames.co.uk/members/ann-tayo/