Military Law

Holborn Adams has a wealth of knowledge and experience in providing specialist advice and representation specific to military personnel worldwide.

Why choose Holborn Adams for pre-charge representation over other law firms Read More

The line between civilian and military law in the UK can be hard to navigate, especially if you’ve been accused of a crime. Fortunately, the team at Holborn Adams has a wealth of knowledge and experience providing specialist advice and representation specific to military personnel all around the world.

Why Use a Private Solicitor for Military Law Issues in the UK

There are several reasons why a member of the UK Armed Forces might need a private solicitor for a military law issue. For instance, private solicitors specialising in military law often possess detailed knowledge and experience surpassing that of legal advisors within the armed forces. Some cases are complex, involving multiple legal areas such as criminal, administrative, and employment law, which require specialised legal expertise.

More importantly, private solicitors can offer independent and impartial legal advice, free from potential conflicts of interest that might arise with military-appointed legal advisors. For serious offences tried by court-martial, having a private solicitor experienced in military law can be crucial for effective representation and advocacy. Even in summary hearings, a private solicitor can provide robust representation to ensure fair treatment and due process.

Finally, private solicitors can assist with complex claims for compensation, military pensions, and other benefits, ensuring that service members receive their full entitlements. Expertise in handling employment-related issues, including discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination, is crucial for securing justice and fair treatment.

We cover all these areas:

Appeals and reviews
Employment issues arising from injuries sustained on active
Arrest, custody, investigation and miscellaneous orders
Military pensions
Appeals against disqualification
Pre-charge representation
Civilians
Sentencing powers
Civil Courts and liibunals
Service complaints
Commanding Officer’s Investigation and Summary Hearing
Service discipline offences
Criminal conduct offences
Service regulations
Crisis management
The Court Martial

The team at Holborn Adams has experience in military proceedings across jurisdictions and has represented service personnel at every level within the Court Martial. We can advise on a vast array of situations related to service complaints, military pensions and employment issues arising from injuries sustained while on active duty.

The military has undergone significant and substantial changes in recent years, and it has become increasingly important for military personnel to have a lawyer who understands the military justice system. Service personnel unfortunate enough to find themselves subject to an investigation, summary proceedings, or those before a Court Martial need representation with the experience to fight their cases anywhere in the world.

Our team at Holborn Adams understands the unique nature of the demands placed on military personnel. More importantly, we can relate to clients when they discuss issues often only understood by those in the military or those with a military background.

Arrange a Free Consultation *

Lawyers available 24/7

Free & No Obligation
Speak immediately with a qualified and experienced solicitor
Reassurance & a clear plan of action
Free quote in writing straight after the call
Complete confidentiality assured as call is legally privileged
All major video conferencing systems supported

Arrange a Free Consultation*

* Initial assessment call with a solicitor to allow a legal advice plan to be prepared.

Speak to one of our experts

for further information on how we can help you:

Adam Rasul

Senior Partner
Andrew Ford

Head of Crime

Arrange a Free Consultation*

Holborn Adams has a phenomenal success rate of pre-charge defence, meaning that individuals can avoid criminal charge altogether. Below are some of our most frequently asked questions regarding pre-charge defence.

Pre-Charge General

What is Pre Charge Engagement: A Complete Guide

Pre-charge engagement with the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) may be labelled as ‘voluntary,’ but for anyone under investigation, it is an essential and strategic tool for a robust defence. By engaging early, we aim to gain access to the evidence the police intend to rely on, allowing us to dismantle weak allegations, highlight crucial lines of inquiry that support your innocence, and build a powerful defence from the outset.

Our primary goal is to have cases dropped and resolved before charges are ever brought, ensuring you never have to step foot in a courtroom. This proactive approach is vital in countering false allegations and addressing misunderstandings before they escalate. It also ensures full preparation, leaving no stone unturned when it comes to your defence.

We act decisively, preparing compelling representations and a comprehensive defence bundle, which we present to the CPS at the earliest opportunity to secure a ‘No Further Action’ outcome.

Released Under Investigation vs Bail: What are the differences?

If you have been arrested and interviewed at a police station, the police must decide whether to charge you, take no further action, release you under investigation, or impose bail conditions upon your release.

If all lines of inquiry have been exhausted and there is insufficient evidence to support a charge, the police are required to take no further action and close the case against you. However, if further investigation is needed, such as obtaining phone evidence or securing CCTV footage, the police must decide whether to release you under investigation or place you on bail with conditions while they complete their inquiries. In cases where the police believe they have enough evidence to charge but require a decision from the CPS, they may release you from custody while awaiting the CPS’ charging determination. There are specified offences that only the CPS have authority to make a charging decision on. In these cases, the police must refer the matter to the CPS, rather than making the decision themselves.

If you are released under investigation, there are no conditions that you need to adhere to while the police investigate nor are you required to attend the police station at a set ‘bail to return’ date. If you are subject to bail, the police have a duty to conduct the investigation expeditiously and diligently to justify the continued imposition of restrictive conditions on your liberty.

How long do police have to investigate a crime?

There are no fixed time limits for how long a police investigation can last. However, certain offences are subject to statutory time constraints that limit the time period in which charges can be brought. These are summary-only offences, which are less serious offences that can only be heard in the Magistrates’ Court. Court proceedings for these offences must begin within six months of the alleged offence, unless another law specifically allows a longer period for the offence. If you are under investigation for a summary-only offence, the police must act within this timeframe, or the case cannot proceed. If the time limit has passed, we can challenge any attempt to charge you and push for the case to be closed.

When do police stop investigating a case?

The police will stop investigating a case once all reasonable lines of inquiry have been completed, it is evident that sufficient evidence cannot be obtained to pursue a charge or if it becomes clear that proceeding with a charge is not in the public interest. If there is insufficient evidence or it is not in the public interest to proceed, the police should close the investigation and take no further action.

Bail

On bail but not charged? What does it mean?

If you have been released on pre-charge bail, this means the police have made the decision to continue the investigation while imposing certain conditions on you. The police can only impose bail conditions if they believe it is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. This means that conditions can only be put in place to prevent a ‘real risk’ rather than fanciful risk to a person involved in the case, stop further alleged offences from being committed, or to avoid interfere with the investigation. Common conditions may include restrictions on who you can contact, where you reside or where you can go.

If you have been released on bail, it is crucial to follow the conditions in place carefully. We will review your bail conditions, challenge them if they are unfair or unnecessary, and ensure that the police are not keeping you on bail longer than legally allowed.

What happens when bail ends in the UK?

As your bail period nears its end, the police must decide on the next steps. If further investigation is required, they may seek an extension of bail, this can only take place if there are still outstanding lines of inquiry, they have acted diligently and expeditiously in the investigation to date, and the bail conditions remain necessary and proportionate. If they have failed to act diligently and expeditiously, or conditions are no longer necessary or justified, they must release you under investigation.

If the police have completed all outstanding enquiries, they must decide whether to charge you, refer the case to the CPS for a charging decision, or take no further action and close the case if there is insufficient evidence against you.

How long can I be kept on police bail for without being charged?

The police cannot keep you on pre-charge bail indefinitely. The initial bail period is three months, after which they can extend it another three months with approval from an Inspector. Following this, the police can extend it up to another three months with approval from a Superintendent, a senior-ranking officer. If the police need more time beyond this nine month period, they must apply to the Magistrates’ Court for further extensions. These legal safeguards are in place to prevent unnecessary delays and ensure that investigations progress fairly. If the police have referred the case to the CPS for a charging decision, the bail periods mentioned above are ‘paused’ while the CPS consider the case. If you are facing prolonged bail, we can challenge unnecessary extensions, push for the case to be resolved, and work to have your bail conditions lifted where appropriate.

Can you go abroad whilst on bail?

Pre-charge bail does not automatically prevent foreign travel. You are free to travel unless there are specific bail conditions restricting it. Conditions that could impact travel may include a requirement to live and sleep at a specific address or a surrender of your passport. If you are on bail and need to travel, we can review your conditions and challenge any unnecessary restrictions to ensure your freedom is not unfairly limited. If no travel ban is in place, you are legally allowed to leave the country.

What happens if I break my pre-charge bail conditions?

If you are on pre-charge bail and the police are aware that you have breached your conditions, they have the power to arrest. However, breaching pre-charge bail conditions is not a criminal offence in itself, unless the breach involves a separate offence such as witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice. Unlike post-charge bail breaches, there is no court procedure for pre-charge bail breaches, meaning the police handle these matters directly.

Once in custody, the police must decide whether to charge you with the original offence. If they have sufficient evidence (and CPS authorisation if required), you may be charged. If not, they can use this detention period to seek a charging decision, a further three hours is added to the detention clock when someone has been arrested for breach of bail. If a charging decision is not made, you will be released from police custody.

Why have the police extended my bail?

The police can extend your bail if they need more time to complete outstanding lines of inquiry. Common reasons for extensions include stretched police resources, delays in obtaining evidence from third parties, the need to investigate new evidence, or due to the complexity of the case. However, the police must justify any extension by showing that they have conducted the investigation diligently and expeditiously. If there are unreasonable delays or a lack of progress, we can challenge the extension and argue that further bail extension is unlawful.

How do I get my bail conditions lifted?

We can formally request that the police vary or remove your bail conditions if they are unnecessary or disproportionate. We will make strong representations to challenge any restrictions that are unfair or excessive. If the police refuse to amend or remove the conditions, we can apply to the Magistrates’ Court to have them varied or removed entirely. The court has the power to remove restrictive bail conditions if they are not legally justified. If your bail conditions are affecting your daily life, we will take swift action to challenge them and protect your rights.

How many times can my bail be extended?

There is no fixed limit on how many times bail can be extended, however after nine months, any further extensions require approval from a Magistrates’ Court.

What happens when you return to the police station on your bail return date?

On your bail return date, the police should have reviewed the progress of their investigation and decided on the next steps. As mentioned above, they may conduct a further interview if further evidence has been obtained. They may charge you with an offence if they believe there is enough evidence to proceed. If they still need more time to conduct the investigation, they may seek to extend your bail period. If the investigation remains ongoing but the conditions of bail are no longer necessary or proportionate, they may release you under investigation. If the police conclude that there is insufficient evidence or it is not in the public interest to proceed, they will close the case with no further action bringing the matter to an end.

When you attend the police station for your bail return date, you will be booked into custody and searched, following a similar process to when you were first arrested. However, you are unlikely to be at the station for as long as you were during your initial detention. The reason for this custody procedure for your bail return date is that the police must comply with the 24-hour detention clock that started to run when you were first detained at the station from your initial arrest. If they need to interview you again, any time spent doing so must be deducted from this 24-hour limit. If the police run out of time on the detention clock, they cannot keep you in custody unless they obtain an extension from an Inspector. If they do not seek or obtain an extension, they must release you under investigation before interviewing you. This will mean you will no longer be on bail, and any further interviews must be conducted voluntarily rather than in detention. This also means that you would no longer be subject to bail conditions while the investigation continues.

If you are due to return to the police station for bail, we can advise you beforehand, attend with you, and challenge any unnecessary extensions. Our priority is to ensure that your case is handled fairly and that you are not kept on bail longer than necessary.

Can you work while on police bail?

You can continue working while on police bail and most people do not encounter issues. Certain conditions may prevent this however, such as if there is a condition prohibiting you from contacting colleagues. Certain conditions may also unintentionally impact your ability to work, such as a curfew, travel restrictions or an exclusion zone. If your bail conditions are making it difficult or impossible to work, we can act quickly to have them reviewed and varied or removed, ensuring you are not unfairly restricted while under investigation.

Do police check bail address?

If your bail conditions require you to reside at a specific address, the police can conduct checks to confirm the address is suitable as a bail address and to confirm compliance with the condition. The police may attend unannounced. If these checks become excessive or unreasonable, we can challenge their necessity and frequency by making formal representations to the police.

RUI

What does ‘released under investigation’ mean?

Released under investigation means you have been released from police custody without charge, and there is no requirement to return to the police station on a set date. Additionally, you are not subject to any bail conditions restricting your actions, however the investigation remains ongoing. If new evidence emerges, the police may re-arrest you for further questioning. However, this can only be done if the legal criteria are met, ensuring that any subsequent arrest is justified and lawful. The police may also request that you attend a voluntary interview if they intend to interview you again (please see further information on voluntary interviews below).

How long can police keep you under investigation?

There is no fixed time limit for how long you can remain under investigation, except for summary-only offences, which must be charged within six months as discussed above.

Voluntary Interviews

What is a voluntary police interview under caution?

A voluntary police interview is an official police interview that is subject to the same legal procedures as one conducted following an arrest. Anything you say or choose not to say can still be used as evidence in court if you are later charged, making it just as significant as an interview conducted following arrest. The key difference is that, during a voluntary interview, you are not under arrest, will not be searched, and are not detained. You are free to leave at any time; however, if you attempt to leave before the interview has concluded, the police may decide to arrest you to ensure the interview continues.

What happens after a voluntary police interview?

Following a voluntary interview, the police will continue the investigation if there are outstanding inquiries to complete, this is similar to someone who has been released under investigation following an arrest. If all enquiries have been completed, the police may choose to take no further action against you and close the case. Alternatively, they may choose to charge you or refer the case to the CPS for a charging decision.

I’ve been called for a voluntary police interview – does this mean there isn’t enough evidence?

If the police have asked you to attend a voluntary interview, this means they do not have sufficient grounds to arrest, it does not necessarily mean there is a lack of evidence. The police must apply the legal necessity criteria prior to conducting an arrest, meaning an arrest must be necessary for one or more specific reasons, such as preventing harm, protecting evidence, ensuring an effective investigation, or securing attendance at an interview. The police cannot arrest arbitrarily, they must be able to demonstrate that an arrest is necessary for the investigation in the circumstances.

Do I need a solicitor for a voluntary police interview?

Yes, voluntary interviews are still official police interviews under caution. This means that anything you say, or fail to say, can be used as evidence in court and may harm your credibility if you later raise a defence that you did not mention during the interview. Having a solicitor present ensures you do not unintentionally harm your defence. Furthermore, a solicitor ensures that police questioning is fair and not oppressive, providing an important safeguard during the interview. They will intervene if officers overstep their legal powers and make sure your legal rights are fully protected throughout the process.

What happens if you don’t attend a voluntary police interview?

If the police have asked you to attend a voluntary interview but you do not attend, they may decide to arrest you to ensure the interview takes place. While the interview is initially voluntary, refusing to cooperate can lead the police to believe that an arrest is necessary to progress their investigation.

Saying no comment in a police interview

You have the right to remain silent and answer ‘no comment’ to police questions in an interview. If there is a clear lack of evidence to substantiate the allegation against you, it may be advisable to say no comment in an interview. This prevents you from unintentionally providing information that the police could ‘spin’ and use to strengthen their case against you.

However, staying silent without a good reason can be used against you in court during a trial. If you are later charged and the case goes to trial, the prosecution can argue that you failed to raise a defence at the police station because you did not have one at the time. This could lead the court to believe that any defence you present has been fabricated.

Arrest

How long can you be held in police custody?

The normal maximum time a person can be held in police custody without charge is 24 hours from their arrival at the station. This can be extended to 36 hours if a Superintendent or higher-ranking officer authorises it, but only if further detention is necessary to secure or preserve evidence and the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. Extensions do not apply to minor summary-only offences.

For more serious offences, the police can apply to a Magistrates’ Court for a warrant of further detention, allowing detention to be extended up to a total of 96 hours before a charge must be made or the person released.

Evidence

How long can the police keep your phone for investigation?

The police can keep your phone if they believe it contains evidence of an offence or was obtained through criminal activity, there is no specified time limit. However, its retention must be justified under the law, meaning they can only keep it if necessary to prevent disposal, damage, destruction, or tampering. The police can only retain it for as long as necessary in all the circumstances. Retention is only lawful if it serves a legitimate purpose, such as an ongoing investigation or forensic examination. If the phone is no longer needed by the police and they refuse to return it without proper justification, we can challenge their decision.

What evidence does the CPS need to charge someone?

The CPS require admissible, reliable and credible evidence to charge someone. In making a charging decision, in most cases they apply the Full Code Test which comprises of an Evidential Stage and a Public Interest Stage, both stages must be met to authorise a charge. The Evidential Stage assesses whether the evidence makes it more likely than not that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The Public Interest Stage looks at whether a prosecution is in the public interest even if there is sufficient evidence to charge. The CPS look at evidence of factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim, the suspect’s age and background, and whether prosecution is proportionate.

How far back can police track text messages?

If the police download data from your phone, they can access all messages stored on the device, including texts, WhatsApp messages and other communication. In some cases, they may also be able to recover deleted messages, but this depends on several factors, such as how long ago the messages were deleted, how the phone has been used since the deletion, and how much time has passed between the deletion and the police seizing the device.

Can the police take my phone without my permission?

If the police have reasonable grounds to believe your phone contains evidence related to an offence, they have the power to seize it. This can happen when you are arrested or if they have obtained a warrant authorising the seizure.

How long can police hold your property without charges?

The police can keep your property if they believe it contains evidence of an offence or was obtained through criminal activity, there is no specified time limit for retention. However, they must justify keeping it under the law, meaning they can only retain it if necessary to prevent disposal, damage, destruction, or tampering. The police can only hold onto it for as long as necessary in all the circumstances, and retention is only lawful if it serves a legitimate purpose, such as an ongoing investigation or forensic examination. If your property is no longer required by the police but they refuse to return it without legal justification, we can challenge their decision and seek its release.

Can the police track your phone?

The police can track a phone by obtaining cell site data from network providers. This data, which is typically retained for a year by network providers, allows the police to conduct cell site analysis to determine the approximate location of your phone throughout the period of the data obtained.

Cell site analysis works by identifying the mobile phone masts your device connected to at different times, helping to map out an estimated location. However, once this data is deleted by the network provider, it cannot be recovered. If the police want to obtain this information, they must request it within the retention period and require legal authorisation. It is important to note that this cell site analysis can provide an approximate location of a phone but cannot pinpoint an exact address or specific location. The accuracy depends on factors such as cell height, technology, network type, and surrounding terrain. A single cell tower can provide coverage ranging from half a kilometre to several kilometres, therefore cell site data can only show that a phone was within a general area, not at a precise location.

How do I get my property back from the police?

If your property has been seized by the police, we can take action to get it returned to you. The first step is for us to make formal written representations to the police, arguing that its continued retention is no longer necessary or lawful. The police must justify keeping your property, and if there is no valid reason, they should return it.

If the police refuse to return your property without justification, we can make an application to the Magistrates’ Court under the Police (Property) Act 1897. The court has the power to order the police to release property if there is no legal basis for the police to keep it.

Can the police access my WhatsApp (even after I delete messages?)

If the police gain access to the contents of your phone, either because you have provided the password or through their forensic software, they can retrieve WhatsApp messages. In some cases, they may also be able to recover deleted messages, but this depends on factors such as how long ago they were deleted, how the phone has been used since, and how much time has passed since the deletion of data before the police seized the device. The more the phone has been used after deletion and the more time that has elapsed since the deletion, the lower the chances of full recovery.

How long does it take for police to search a phone?

The process of searching a phone can take many months, sometimes over a year, depending on police resources and case priority. If you have provided the password, the police can typically access and examine the phone much sooner. However, if you have not provided the password, the police will attempt to use their forensic software to bypass security. This process is not always successful and, in some cases, can lead to the irreversible damage or destruction of phone data.

Can the police listen to your phone calls?

With legal authority, the police can monitor your communications without needing direct access to your phone. They may work with your network provider or internet service provider to intercept calls and messages, and monitor your browsing history and app usage.

How do police extract data from phones?

The police use several methods to extract data from phones, depending on the level of access needed. Manual extraction involves physically navigating an unlocked phone to view messages, calls, and media. The police can also use software to extract data and make copies of specific files without altering the phone’s structure. In some cases, the police may also access cloud backups from services like Google or Apple with the appropriate legal authority. Advanced encryption on modern devices can make data recovery more difficult, but the police use forensic tools to bypass this where possible.

No Further Action

No Further Action: What Does It Mean?

This means the police or CPS have decided not to proceed with a charge or prosecution in your case. This decision is typically made due to insufficient evidence to support a conviction or because pursuing a prosecution is not in the public interest. Once this decision is made, the investigation ends and the case is closed. Therefore, bail conditions immediately cease to apply and you are no longer required to attend the police station if you had a bail return date. We will also request the return of any property seized by the police if applicable.

False Allegations

What can I do if someone makes false allegations against me?

If someone has made false allegations against you, it is essential to seek legal advice immediately. A proactive defence is crucial to refute the claims effectively and ensure that any evidence supporting your innocence is identified, preserved, and presented properly. Acting quickly can help prevent wrongful charges and increase the chances of having the case dropped promptly before it progresses further. We advise you on the best strategy, gather evidence, and make robust representations to the police or CPS to challenge the false allegations.

Help me – I’ve been falsely accused of domestic abuse

If you have been falsely accused of domestic abuse, it is crucial to take immediate action to protect evidence and build a strong defence. First, cease contact with the accuser. If the accuser continues to contact you, preserve all evidence of their communications, including messages, missed calls and social media interactions. Even if something seems minor, it may become critical evidence in your defence later.

Gather and secure any evidence available to you. This includes call logs, text messages, emails, CCTV or Ring doorbell footage, and any other records that can demonstrate the true nature of your relationship and interactions. Identify potential witnesses, such as friends, family members, or colleagues who have spent significant time around both of you and can provide an independent account.

It is essential to act proactively. We will work swiftly to gather evidence, make robust representations to the police and CPS, and ensure your evidence and account are properly presented.

Help me – I’ve been falsely accused of sexual assault

It is critical to act quickly to protect yourself and preserve evidence if a false allegation of sexual assault has been made against you. Allegations of this nature are taken extremely seriously by the police and can have severe legal and personal consequences, even before a charge is made.

One of the most important steps is to preserve any evidence that could help demonstrate the truth. This includes messages, call logs, emails, social media interactions that can provide essential context. If the accuser continues to contact you, do not engage, but ensure that any messages, calls, or attempts to communicate are recorded and stored. Witnesses who have spent time with both of you and can provide an independent account of your interactions should also be identified as soon as possible.

It is vital to approach the situation proactively. We will act swiftly to secure evidence, challenge inconsistencies in the allegations, and make strong legal representations to the police and CPS. The earlier we act, the greater the chance of preventing the case from progressing further.

Recent case studies

Supporting and guiding individuals, both in the UK and beyond, to secure results.

View all categories Celebrity Civil Criminal Fraud Pre Charge Sexual Offences

R v N

Outcome: No further action

Following the submission of pre-charge representations to the police after the client was accused of perverting the course of justice, the client was granted a no further action. This no further action was appealed, and the client was then investigated for an accusation of perjury. After repeated liaison and pressure upon the officer in case on evidential grounds, the client was granted a further no further action.

R v M

Outcome: No further action

The client was accused of torture and battery abroad. The client and the alleged victim were citizens of the United Kingdom. While criminal proceedings against our client took place abroad, we drafted a crisis management bundle for the client consisting of a chronological statement, full binders of complex evidential material and an index referring to the same, which outlined the client’s innocence to pre-empt the matter proceeding to the United Kingdom. After liaison with the client and his international lawyers, the criminal case abroad halted and the client’s interests in the United Kingdom were protected against the unproven accusations.

R v B

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence

The client was charged with a motoring offence involving alcohol and speeding. After a close inspection of the case, we advanced mitigation alongside Counsel in reference to strong medical and psychiatric evidence. This secured the client a favourable sentence in which the aggravating elements of the offence were set aside, with the client subject to a fine and a driving disqualification.

R v K

Outcome: Removal of Caution and Settlement

We provided advanced written representations challenging the process by which a client was awarded a simple caution by West Mercia Police. We identified that the officers in the case had bartered with the client in his police interview while he was experiencing suicidality and a severe depressive episode. The officers informed the client they would provide him with his personal and work devices back if the client accepted a caution. We successfully argued that the client was cautioned for an offence he did not commit, prompting the removal of his caution by the relevant Police and Crime Commissioner. We then entered into pre-litigation negotiations with West Mercia Police, securing a pecuniary settlement the client.

R v ZH

Outcome: Client released

Following representation at the police station, the client was accused of perverting the course of justice. The evidence relied upon by the police was rightfully identified as circumstantial. Client was later released under investigation.

R v A

Outcome: Acquitted

Client accused of murdering his former girlfriend. We formed a Defence team that secured the acquittal of the client with specialist Counsel.

R v L

Outcome: Acquitted of rape

Client attempted murder and accused of raping his wife following the incident. We formed part of Defence team alongside Counsel.

N v HMP

Outcome: Successfully brought action against prison staff

We formed part of legal team who successfully brought action against a British prison on behalf of client following injury and discrimination they faced. The client was an elderly Jewish prisoner who was discriminated against for wearing his kippa in canteen areas, who was denied Kosher meals, regularly facing anti-Semitic abuse from prison staff and was denied medical attention after his diverticulosis worsened, which partially immobilised him.

AH v SSHD

Outcome: Claim Settled

Claim settled with the Government Legal Department for the unlawful detention of a client who, if deported to their country of origin, would have had an extreme risk to their life as a transgender individual. The client had gained a recognised status in the United Kingdom, making the extent of their detention unlawful and their (potential) removal impossible.

HMRC v LM

Outcome: Ongoing

Retained to defend a client with allegations of VAT and income tax fraud. We have prepared written submissions to the CPS to the effect that criminal charges would not be in the public interest.

S v HO & Others

Outcome: Ongoing

Holborn Adams is retained by two clients in a vast cross-border human trafficking and a multi-million pound fraud investigation by both UK and Polish authorities. Our Senior Partner, Adam Rasul travelled to Poland to liaise with the clients’ Polish lawyers as part of a coordinated legal response. Written representations have been submitted to the CPS that the investigation failed to follow proper procedures and that the case should be reviewed at the highest level.

United States v EL

Outcome: Ongoing

Holborn Adams is retained to assist and advise on an international drug trafficking investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Our Senior Partner, Adam Rasul, travelled to Washington DC and Virginia to represent the interests of a British Citizen implicated in a large-scale drug trafficking conspiracy. Adam is working jointly with United States Attorneys in preparation of the client’s case.

KH

Outcome: Ongoing

Retained to make enquiries into the police handling and conduct of an historic incident.

Q v I

Outcome: Ongoing

Instructed in relation to an appeal against sentence and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 confiscation order in relation to conspiracy to supply Class A and Class B drugs to the value of £5,000,000.

W v LA

Outcome: Ongoing

Retained to advise on an appeal against conviction for murder (‘Joint enterprise’) where we did not act at trial. This involves detailed review of ‘what went wrong’ in the trial and investigating evidence and legal errors that may be used to overturn the conviction

S v KE

Outcome: On going

Represented a client in a wave of Operations by Greater Manchester Police of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. This case involved consideration of a voluminous amount of telephone evidence and a large investigation across the North West.

R v NP

Outcome: No further action

Acted for a client cleared of attempted murder in the course of a ‘drive-by shooting’ in Birmingham following a successful submission of no case to answer.

S v KA

Outcome: Ongoing

Acted for a Czech national facing multiple rape charges and false imprisonment. A case that involved Czech translators and hundreds of hours of defence preparation.

U v I

Outcome: Not guilty

Assisted in the preparation and defence on a 14 handed corruption and perjury case, surrounding the notorious prosecution of the ‘Cardiff 3’ for the murder of Lynette White. This was the largest ever case of police corruption in legal history. The £30,000,000 prosecution ended in the collapse of the case and not guilty verdicts.

I v BI

Outcome: Claim settled

Represented a client charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. This case was a multi-million pound international drug trafficking and confiscation case. Investigated by the SOCA and involved international jurisdictions and surveillance.

Y v E

Outcome:

Acted for the main defendant charged with Conspiracy to Murder. This involved extensive defence preparation of cell site analysis extending over 20,000 pages of evidence at the initial stages of the case.

S v RH

Outcome: On going

Acted for the main defendant in a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, possession of firearms and human trafficking. Extensive surveillance evidence and hundreds of hours of audio product from probes placed in vehicles.

B v ND

Outcome: On going

Instructed to act for the main defendant in a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Prosecution and investigation brought by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Extensive preparation and review of hundreds of hours of covert surveillance and detailed disclosure applications to the Court.

T v DE & Others

Outcome:

Represented a client charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and firearms offences.

UAE v JU

Outcome:

Instructed to draft an advice on UK law in respect of the use of cannabis for the United Arab Emirates Courts. The advice was translated into Arabic and was presented to the UAE courts on behalf of an overseas client.

N v PX

Outcome:

Represented the lead defendant on the largest commercial cannabis cultivation and supply conspiracy in UK History. Stock value estimated at £20,000,000 by the prosecution authorities.

HMRC v KD

Outcome: No further action

Represented a client (pre-charge) facing alleged offences, including fraudulent evasion of VAT contrary to the VAT Act 1994, investigated by the HMRC Criminal Team. We obtained medical evidence and other defence evidence as part of a pre-charge representations package.

R v LC

Outcome:

Acted for a client facing multi-million pound money laundering allegations. This prosecution arose from a previous case (‘Operation Shoot’) into this case known as ‘Operation Echogramme’. The case involved analysis of evidence from conveyance material stemming over tens of thousands of pages.

R v GY & UH

Outcome: No further action

Successfully defended clients charged with conspiracy to defraud to the value of £25,000.000. This case involved over 10 months of full-time preparation to test the allegations presented by HMRC.

S v EB

Outcome: Acquitted

Successfully defended a client charged with multi-million pound money laundering. This case involved criminal proceeds that had allegedly been transferred from Latvian bank accounts into UK-based companies. Due to the level of the client’s business activity, all aspects of his lifestyle were financially interrogated.

R v ND

Outcome: Acquitted

Acted for a Chartered Accountant charged with false accounting. After intense defence preparation with the assistance of expert forensic accountants, the client was acquitted after trial. The defence successfully exposed that the Inland Revenue staff were dishonestly taking bribes to process claims.

A v D

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence

Represented a husband and wife investigated for mortgage fraud. Forensic defence preparation led to lesser charges being brought against by both clients and a non-custodial sentence.

U v V

Outcome:

Acted for the main defendant in a prosecution investigated by Trading Standards. The client was charged with 400 separate offences which involved thousands of pages of evidence on behalf of Nike, Adidas, Hugo Boss and other high-profile clothing brands.

S v L

Outcome: On going

Acted for a client charged with Copyright Fraud – prosecution by F.A.C.T (Federation Against Copyright Theft). The preparation for this matter involved taking instructions on over 4.2 million pages of evidence with a large defence team. One of the largest private prosecutions ever undertaken.

S v BD

Outcome: SFO Concluded Investigation

Acted for a Director investigated for fraud related offences involving a Professional Football Club. A case brought by the Football Association (FA) from events dating back to March 2001. The SFO took over the investigation, leading to 19 charges including false accounting, furnishing false information and theft.

W v YU

Outcome: Prosecuted by NHS Counter Fraud Team

Acted for a Senior Dentist charged with false accounting. The proceedings attracted wide media attention and was prosecuted by the NHS Counter Fraud Team.

Q v J

Outcome: On going

Acted for a Company Director facing serious money laundering allegations in relation to alleged criminal property. A multi-handed conspiracy at an alleged value of £4.2 million.

A v LD

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence

14 handed corruption and fraud case involving Trafford City Council in Manchester. One of the largest ever investigations into alleged fraud by Senior Council employees. Client received a suspended sentence and walked free after an investigation that lasted 8 years.

E v YG

Outcome: No further action

Successfully defended a businessman against a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The client was alleged to be a significant figure in a money laundering conspiracy in the Netherlands. The case outlined procedural errors in the EAW and continuous defence preparation revealed significant flaws in the investigation.

K v MJ

Outcome: Outcome

(‘Operation Euripus trial 5’) – represented a former Times Rich List client accused of money laundering from the proceeds of multi-million VAT fraud. The case involved prosecution and defence enquiries in Spain, Gibraltar, Dubai, Hong Kong, China and the Caribbean.

R v ZY

Outcome: No further action

Senior Partner, Adam Rasul successfully defended the largest VAT fraud recorded in UK history (£330,000,000). After extensive case preparation and a six-year investigation, the client was discharged from criminal proceedings and the matter was discontinued.

R v TC

Outcome: No further action

Successfully represented a Doctor pre-charge in relation to an allegation of domestic violence. Representations made on behalf of the client resulted in no further action being taken and no General Medical Council intervention.

R v DN

Outcome: No further action

Represented a client investigated for an alleged serious assault. After extensive pre-charge preparation, which entailed collating witness evidence and early representations, no further action was taken.

D v JS

Outcome: No further action

Successfully represented client on allegations of racial and threatening behaviour. Following pre-charge representations to the Reviewing Lawyer at the CPS and collating witness evidence, we persuaded the CPS that there was insufficient evidence to make a formal charge and no further action was taken.

S v EX

Outcome: No further action

R v L

Outcome: No further action

Instructed to represent individual arrested in relation to coercive and controlling behaviour. Submitted pre-charge representations and due to the comprehensive nature of the representation, no further action was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.

R v K

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence

Represented professional individual in relation to a third drink driving offence and driving whilst disqualified. Holborn Adams successfully mitigated on the clients behalf, resulting in a stand alone suspended sentence order.

R v O

Outcome: No further action

Instructed to represent a client in relation to an allegation of rape. Holborn Adams put forward pre-charge representations which resulted in no further action being taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.

R v B

Outcome: Early release from prison

Successful representation at Parole Hearing, securing clients early release from custody.

Q v IL

Outcome: No further action

Successfully represented a high-net-worth client on allegations of racism and threats to kill. Following our early intervention, which included gathering key defence material, the client avoided police arrest and we persuaded the police and CPS not to make formal criminal charges. The client was able to retain his right to travel to the United States and Canada without restriction.

DWP v LB

Outcome: No further action

Holborn Adams successfully defended a serious pension fraud investigation. The DWP/CPS accepted Holborn Adams’ pre-charge representations. The client avoided criminal prosecution and further investigation.

DWP v CR

Outcome: No further action

Represented a vulnerable adult in a DWP criminal fraud investigation. Following negotiations and pre-charge representations, we persuaded the DWP to discontinue the criminal investigation and not to press formal charges against the client.

N v ON

Outcome: No further action

Successfully represented a Senior Doctor pre-charge in respect of an alleged multi-million pound fraud against the NHS. After intense defence preparation and preparation of a full bundle of defence evidence, no further action was taken against the client. The client faced a joint regulatory and police prosecution, and both investigations were discontinued.

HMRC v TC

Outcome: No further action

A substantial and lengthy investigation into a multi-million pound VAT fraud case was discontinued against Holborn Adams’ client. Following years of investigation, the CPS and HMRC accepted Holborn Adams’ detailed pre-charge representations and discontinued their investigation. As a result, the client no longer faced criminal prosecution or Confiscation proceedings.

HMRC v B and C

Outcome: Significantly reduce charges

An investigation that commenced in 2011 was brought to a successful conclusion by the Holborn Adams’ Serious Fraud Team. Extensive pre-charge representations at interview and powerful client statements resulted in an extensive list of charges being ‘dropped’ against our client by HMRC investigators. These included conspiracy to cheat the public revenue, conspiracy to undertake fraudulent activity, and making and supplying articles for use in fraud and money laundering. The value of the alleged crimes was estimated at £5,000,000.

D v MET

Outcome: Ongoing

Retained to bring a Civil claim agianst the Metropolitan Police for various failings on their behalf, including malicious prosection and unlawful racial discrimination.

T v E

Outcome: Property returned to our Client

Holborn Adams successfully worked on behalf of the client to secure the return of property considered as chatells under British Law.

Anonymous

Outcome: Ongoing

Holborn Adams are instructed on a retained basis to manage all legal affairs and PR related issues for a high-profile former premier league footballer.

Anonymous

Outcome: Ongoing

Retained to negotiate sporting contracts in relation to sponsorship deals and team contracts. Also involved in the management of all legal affairs and PR related issues

Anonymous

Outcome: No further action

Retained to deal with an ongoing criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, lasting over two years.

R v L

Outcome: Caution

Client arrested for Criminal Damage. Following successful submissions to the Crown Prosecution

Service and police, after a charging decision had been made, we persuaded them to allow our client

to be re-interviewed which resulted in a caution being administered and the case before the

Magistrates Court was discontinued.

R v B

Outcome: No further action.

Client arrested for a serious allegation of Perverting the Course of Justice. Following extensive Pre-

charge Representations and instruction of medical experts by Holborn Adams, the Crown

Prosecution Service made the decision to take no further action.

R v G

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence.

We were instructed to represent a defendant charged with possession of indecent images of

children and following successful mitigation we secured a non custodial sentence, when the offences

had crossed the custody threshold and argued that the imposition of a Sexual harm Prevention

Order is not necessary or proportionate in this case whereby it may have been the case that such an

order was imposed.

R v CH

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence.

Defendant charged with a possession of indecent images of children, including the highest category

A images. Successfully mitigated before the crown court that a suspended sentence should be

imposed and not an immediate custodial sentence.

R v P

Outcome: No further action.

We were instructed to represent a defendant regarding allegations of Controlling and Coercive

Behaviour, Assault and an allegation of Rape. We successfully halted this at the police investigation

stage without the need for it to be reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service.

R v S

Outcome: No Further Action.

Police investigation surrounding an assault on a young child. Police investigation and LADO

investigation concluded and investigations stopped.

R v I

Outcome: No further action.

Investigated for an offence of assault which was successfully halted at the investigation stage

without the need for written representations to be submitted.

R v N

Outcome: Acquitted after trial.

Client charged and prosecuted for an allegation of domestic abuse. Following a trial in the

Magistrates Court whereby our client was represented by Senior counsel, we successfully secured an

acquittal and they remain a person of good character.

R v F

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence.

Defendant prosecuted for Criminal Damage; Graffiti caused to buildings, including religious buildings

and following successful mitigation at court Holborn Adams managed to secure a none custodial

sentence.

R v B

Outcome: No further Action.

Youth arrested for possession of indecent images of children. Pre-Charge Representations were

submitted and due to their comprehensive nature and instruction of medical experts, no further

action was taken although the evidential threshold being passed.

R v K

Outcome: No further Action.

We were instructed to represent our client at the police station following his arrest for a serious

allegation of Malicious Communications. This was halted at the investigation stage due to the

representations made by our police station representative at the police station.

R v B

Outcome: No further Action.

Holborn Adams were instructed to represent client in relation to an allegation of assault by

penetration on a child. The police sought further time to complete their investigation resulting in

them making an application to extend bail. This application was opposed by HA. Arguments were put

forward to the court thus finding in favour of HA. Following this, pre-charge representations were

submitted which resulted in no further action being taken.

R v S

Outcome: Discontinued.

Client was arrested and charged for failing to comply with DIP testing. He instructed Holborn Adams

post charge to represent him when he appeared before the Magistrates’ Court. HA made disclosure

requests and threatened an abuse of process argument. Disclosure requests were not fulfilled and

the matter was discontinued.

R v S

Outcome: No further Action.

Client was arrested after an allegation that he placed his mobile phone in record mode underneath a

cubicle in a family changing room. Following a defence bundle being complied, pre-charge

representations were submitted which resulted in no further action has been taken in this matter.

R V J

Outcome: Acquitted

Client was arrested for assaulting a police officer. Whilst on bail and awaiting trial before the Crown

Court, client was arrested again for another offence of the same nature. After a four day trial, the Jury

retired to consider their verdict. They were unable to reach a unanimous decision which resulted in a

majority direction being given by the Judge. Shortly after, the Jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

R v G

Outcome: Acquitted x2

Client is an international student who was charged with rape after allegations being made by two

sperate complainants. The case proceeded to a two week trial. Following trial, the jury returned a

verdict in relation to one of the allegations and were undecided in relation to the other thus resulting

in a hung jury. The Prosecution took the decision to commence with a retrial in relation to the

undecided matter. On day two of the retrial there was a lengthy abuse of process argument advanced

by Holborn Adams, which resulted in the case being discontinued.

R v W

Outcome: No further Action.

Client was arrested for a historical sexual assault on his step daughter. Following pre-charge

representations, no further action was taken.

R v CG

Outcome: Acquitted

We were instructed, along with the leading female KC in the country, Sallie Bennett-Jenkins KC, to represent a young client before the Crown Court for trial, in relation to very serious sexual offences. The defence advanced was that of reasonable belief as to the age of the victims at the material time; in that they were 16 years or older. There was a further allegation of Count on the Indictment of Rape, the issue in relation to this Count was one of consent. After a 2 week trial, during which we were able to argue the inadmissibility of certain evidence, the jury rightly acquitted our client of the 12 Counts on the Indictment. Had the jury returned guilty verdicts, it would have resulted in a custodial sentence of many years. As a result of the preparation and hard work undertaken, our client has now resumed work in a heavily regulated profession in the City.

R v G

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

ex girlfriend alleged he had controlled her, and assaulted her whilst she was underage.

R v N

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

client sent monies to young individuals, prosecutors said for sexual

gain. Complainant’s mothers knew of the monetary gain they were making and did nothing about it.

R v S

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

In a relationship with tenant who made various allegations against him when he asked her and her daughter to move out.

R v T

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Private school teacher who had allegedly made 40+ calls to a victim of her former partner’s. Prosecutors say it was to persuade her against giving evidence on court that

day.

R v Y

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Former friend alleged that he roughed her up before forcing her to have sex with him. The defence retrieved medical evidence and pointed towards his lack of strength at the time due to stage 3 Cancer.

R v K

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Alleged by younger brother that she sexually assaulted and groomed him many years ago.

R v U

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

caused his former partner a cut on her arm requiring 20+stitches - she said he dragged her across concrete, smashed her head on the ground multiple times, stomped on her head and the threw her into the shower to clean the blood off before driving her to the hospital.

R v N

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Historical rape allegation

R v F

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

R v X

Outcome: JURY RETURNED VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

R v U

Outcome: JURY RETURNED VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

R v X

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegation of rape historic sexual assault

R v N

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegation of harassment

R v T

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegation of sexual communication with a child

R v W

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegation of sexual assault on a child

R v T

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegation of rape

R v Q

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegation of historical rape

R v U

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegation of criminal damage

R v S

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Exposing oneself to cause distress or harm to other

R v H

Outcome: CROWN DISCONTINUED THE CASE AFTER A CAUTION WAS ADMINISTERED.

allegation of criminal damage and assault on 14 year old son

R v L

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

threats to kill and inflicting injury causing Grievous Bodily Harm

R v I

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegations of Rape common assault, coercive and controlling behaviour and harassment

R v R

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegations included :

Attempted Rape, attempted to have sex without consent, Common Assault, Controlling and coercive behaviour.

R v E

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

allegation of sexual assault on a child

R v D

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Grooming

R v C

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

assault

R v H

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Sexual activity with a child

R v Q

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Voyeurism

R v S

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Allegation of historical rape

R v Y

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Indecent images of children

Rex v H

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully persuaded the Crown to offer no evidence following our representations. This was a case against our client for an allegation of using a false instrument with intent.

Rex v SS

Outcome: CROWN DISCONTINUED THE CASE AFTER A CAUTION WAS ADMINISTERED

Holborn Adams successfully secured a caution a client under investigation for two counts of sexual assault following our representations at a voluntary interview.

Rex v T C

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client who was arrested for rape shortly after graduating university. Within 4 weeks of instructing Holborn Adams and serving emergency representations of the police, the matter was concluded with no further action.

Rex v C F

Outcome: Acquitted

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client who was charged with assault of an emergency worker. After a two day crown court trial, the client was successfully Acquitted.

Rex v G E

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of distribution of indecent images of children and participating in an organise crime group for child abuse. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v A J

Outcome: Suspended sentence

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of distribution of indecent images of children. Although the charge passed the custody threshold, our client received a Suspended Sentence following our representations at court.

Rex v SS

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client who was arrested for Harassment and Stalking. Within 3 weeks of instructing Holborn Adams and serving emergency representations of the police, the matter was concluded with no further action.

Rex v SM

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of common assault. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v P Y

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of 10 allegations of Historic Sexual Abuse. All allegations were discontinued by the Teacher Regulatory Authority after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v N C

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of possession with the intent to supply class B drugs. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v L M

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER POST CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of harassment, intentional strangulation, and assault by beating. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Post Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v J N

Outcome: Suspended sentence

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of sexual communications with a child and inciting a child who engaged in sexual activity. Although these charges pass the custody threshold, our client received a Suspended Sentence following our representations at court.

Rex v L C

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of possession of indecent images of children. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v M L

Outcome: No further action

Holborn Adams made successful representations for a client accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. However, a decision was reached where no claim was made at the Employment Tribunal and client was able to remain employed.

Rex v J C

Outcome: CROWN DISCONTINUED THE CASE AFTER A CHARGE WAS ADMINISTERED.

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of Criminal Damage. Despite being charged, Holborn Adams persuaded the prosecution to refer the case back to the police to issue an out of court disposal and the matter was discontinued.

Rex v L D

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client at court for driving under the influence of drinks/drugs. Despite being an offence, which carries mandatory disqualification, Holborn Adams persuaded the court to issue the client with a low level fine.

Rex v M J

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

REX V GBV

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence

Holborn Adams successfully secured a non custodial sentence for a professional defendant charged with possession of indecent images of children. There was a subsequent argument regarding the imposition of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order which we argued was not necessary or proportionate to impose such an order, which the court agreed with.

Rex v SS

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of sexual assault. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v SW

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of fraud by abuse of position and money laundering. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v E B

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a 16-year-old client at a voluntary interview for an allegation of sexual assault. Within 1 week of serving emergency representations to the police, the matter was concluded with no further action.

Rex v JW

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of improper use of public electronic communications network. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex V RG

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of harassment, assault and criminal damage. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after successful Pre Charge representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Rex v JDK

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of a public order offence. The case was disposed of by way of no further action.

Rex v TT

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of administrating a substance with intent. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after contacting the police regarding Pre Charge representations.

Rex v RP

Outcome: Significantly reduced sentence

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client who was charged with six sexual offences against a minor, that could have resulted in a custodial sentence which could have lasted over a decade. After court proceedings, he was acquitted of five and sentenced two-month curfew as part of a community order.

Rex v KN

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of possessing a firearm. The case was disposed of by way of no further action.

Rex v CS

Outcome: Acquitted

Holborn Adams successfully achieved an acquittal on all three charges, two counts of breaching a restraining order and one count of malicious communications.

Rex v IM

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client for an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was disposed of by way of no further action after submitting written representations.

Rex v RD

Outcome: NO FURTHER AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client charged with domestic common assault. This case was successfully discontinued within five days of instruction, preventing the case going to trial.

R v MR

Outcome: NO FURTHER ACTION AFTER PRE CHARGE REPRESENTATIONS

Holborn Adams successfully represented a client facing an allegation of historic rape. Through meticulous analysis and proactive engagement with the investigation, the team effectively demonstrated the insufficiency of evidence, resulting in the investigation being successfully discontinued within two weeks of instruction.

Holborn Adams - Why choose us

Holborn Adams has a phenomenal success rate of pre-charge defence, meaning that individuals can avoid criminal charge altogether.

We provide legal advice 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with direct access to some of the country’s leading specialist counsel and Queen’s Counsel.

More About Pre-Charge Representation
Call Us: +44 (20) 7205 2303

What makes us different

2.44

Solve your legal problem today

* Initial assessment call with a solicitor to allow a legal advice plan to be prepared.

Arrange a Free Consultation*