Dominic Bardill, instructed by Nnaemeka Mpamugo of Alliant Law, successfully represents his client in an application to vacate a guilty plea to controlling and coercive behaviour at Reading Crown Court, forcing the Crown into offering no evidence.
The defendant, a Sri Lankan national a basic level of English, was interviewed by the Police about the very serious offences of Threats to Kill and Controlling and Coercive Behaviour. The Defendant did not have a solicitor or an interpreter to assist in his police interview and appeared to make admissions to the offences.
The threats to kill charge was discontinued, and the defendant pleaded guilty to controlling and coercive behaviour at the magistrates’ court. The defendant did this, having received legal advice based on information from the Police regarding the interview admission, which was not wholly reflective of the interview itself. That solicitor also did not enlist a Tamil interpreter for the defendant during Magistrates Court proceedings, despite knowing of the language barrier. When those instructing and Dominic were brought in, the defendant applied to vacate his guilty plea. Dominic drafted the legal argument and engaged in negotiations with the Crown.
At the first hearing, the complainant submitted a statement. In this statement, the complainant retracted all of her allegations, admitting to fabricating them and showing evidence to support this.
The Officer in the Case failed to attend the first hearing, and none of the Court’s directions had been complied with by the Crown. The Crown, at this stage, stated on the record that they did not contest the application. Nevertheless, the matter was adjourned to allow the Crown more time, and the client remained remanded. The Crown decided to contest the application, and over the weeks running up to the final hearing, the Crown failed with almost all of its obligations to obtain statements and comply with the Court’s directions.
At the hearing, Dominic cross-examined the interviewing officer and the duty solicitor who represented the client at his first appearance. Dominic quickly narrowed the issues and established that there were no adequate checks to ensure the client understood the grave offence with which he was accused and the admissions he was making. In essence, the defendant had made false confessions.
Dominic was able to show through cross-examination, that the Court could not be sure that the client understood, and this, taken together with the evidence of the complainant herself and evidence from the client’s son, suggested that the admissions in the interview should be disregarded and the guilty plea should be vacated. Dominic made strong closing submissions, citing case law, which resulted in a victory for the client and his guilty plea being vacated. The case was listed, and the Crown offered no evidence against the client at that hearing.