We represented a vulnerable adult who had been charged with an offence of s.20 GBH. Whilst represented by another firm of solicitors, our client entered a guilty plea to this offence. They were subsequently remanded into custody and committed to the Crown Court for sentence. We then became instructed.

Concerns regarding the guilty plea

After considering the circumstances of the alleged offence and our client's instructions, we identified the following issues of concern:

• the possibility that our client had the defence of insanity available to them at the time of the alleged offence.
• doubts as to whether the injuries sustained by the complainant amounted to grievous bodily harm.

Accordingly, we notified the Court that we were considering an application to vacate our client's guilty plea. We also applied for bail on our client's behalf and our client was released from custody with stringent conditions.

Psychiatric evidence and application to vacate plea

We instructed two independent psychiatrists to meet with our client and prepare a report addressing our client's mental health at the time of the alleged offence. Both psychiatrists confirmed our client was acutely unwell at the time and that the defence of insanity was available to them. We served these reports on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) alongside an application to vacate our client's guilty plea. Despite the content of our reports, the CPS confirmed that they would be opposing our application. On the day that the application was due to be heard by the Court, the CPS confirmed that the application was no longer opposed. The Court commended Defence Counsel's application confirming that even if it had been opposed, the application would have been successful.

Case re-evaluation and charge reduction

The matter was subsequently remitted to the Magistrates' Court and the CPS later amended the charge to one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Our client entered a not guilty plea and the matter was sent to the Crown Court for trial.

Further representations and case dismissal

Following this, we sent written representations to the CPS. We argued that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. We also argued that it was no longer in the public interest to prosecute our client for this offence. The CPS accepted the content of our reports but in their view, it remained in the public interest.

Following further representations on the first day of trial, the CPS offered no evidence against our client. A not guilty verdict was recorded.

Our client was represented throughout the proceedings by Sabrina Neves, a Solicitor in our Croydon Crime Team and in Court by Elena Papamichael, Counsel from Garden Court Chambers.

Are you facing charges despite strong evidence supporting your defence? Learn more about how we can help here.