This case was a particularly good example of how a relatively minor matter can assume significant importance in relation to other matters.

The client in this case was accused of assaulting his partner who was also the mother of their infant child. He denied the offence and stated that she had made up the allegation as a way to separate from him and to retain custody of their child.

In fact, she absconded abroad taking the child with her without the permission of the father. In the circumstances, he had instructed family lawyers and was proceeding against her for the abduction of his child. If it were proved that he had assaulted her it would weaken his case considerably. This would have long lasting repercussions in relation to his ability to maintain contact with his son and might even affect the distribution of property in divorce proceedings. Therefore, a successful outcome in the magistrates’ court was crucial.

At Lewis Nedas Law we have a great deal of expertise in dealing with this type of case. Miles Herman, a partner at the firm had conduct of the case. Danny Barnard of counsel was instructed to represent the client at trial.

On the day of the trial, the client presented as highly anxious and fearful of an adverse outcome and its negative ramifications. However, after having the trial procedure explained to him he gained some confidence.

Given that the complainant had potentially acted unlawfully in removing their son from the jurisdiction, there was always some doubt that she would attend at the trial. However, this would not necessarily be fatal to the Prosecution’s case as they could apply to have her statement admitted under the hearsay provisions.

In fact, this is exactly what happened. Having a great deal of experience in this area, Miles and Danny where well prepared for the legal argument that would ensue. If her statement were admitted as evidence, in her absence it would be a disaster for the defence as she would not be able to be cross-examined and her evidence would go in untested. Essentially the Court would have to be satisfied of two things before admitting this evidence: firstly, that all steps taken to secure her attendance were reasonably practicable, and secondly, that it was in the interests of justice to admit this evidence. Fortunately, Danny had both statute and numerous cases to show that the Prosecution had failed in both regards.

After some deliberation the Bench ruled in the client’s favour. The evidence was not admitted and the Prosecution had no alternative than to offer no evidence.

The client was greatly relieved and thankful that the case had been resolved in his favour. In addition he was entitled to recover a proportion of his defence costs and further wasted costs to be determined at a later date due to the inefficient way in which the case was prosecuted.

Contact Lewis Nedas Specialist Solicitors

If you are concerned about similar allegations to those above, contact our expert lawyers on 0207 387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.