PACSO is the sister site of PAFAA – People Against False Allegations of Abuse
PACSO forums are now open: PAFAA/PACSO forums
We do not, cannot and never have charged for any of the work that we undertake or advice offered be it by telephone, email or face-to-face.
R v A: Appeal: reviewed prior to sending to the CCRC in November 2006. Convictions quashed 2nd December 2010 Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Crim 3067
R v B: Appeal: I stayed with the family and took ten witness statements from fresh witnesses. Convictions quashed 15th April 2011 Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Crim 1125
R v C: Trial: 2005, worked on the proof of evidence. Client unanimously found not guilty. I was complimented on my work by the trial solicitor.
R v E: Appeal: SJ rejected the application. I refused to accept this and found Counsel Annie Dixon from 1 Pump Court who renewed the grounds. Evidence that was not ‘fresh’ was accepted by CA and trial counsel was later sued by the client for negligence and she / Chambers settled out of court. Appeal succeeded 6th November 2008: Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Crim 3239
R v D: Trial: worked on proof of evidence and also found helpful evidence via Facebook. Client unanimously found not guilty in May 2012
R v G: Trial: October 2013: Reviewed all of the evidence and provided a comprehensive Proof of Evidence. Trial was halted on the 2nd day after the CPS decided to drop the case. This was due to evidence I had obtained via Facebook. The trial judge instructed the OIC to inform the complainant that the trial would not proceed as she was ‘not a witness of truth and that her evidence could not be relied upon’.
R v L: Trial July 2012: I provided a full Proof of Evidence. I attended the trial and was pleased to see defence counsel actually reading from my work some of the time. I obtained evidence by analysing photographs of the complainant’s bedroom (which caused a reaction from her as she had no idea that we knew what she was reading or what DVDs she was watching). Also analysed Police SOC photos and noticed evidence not taken into account by the police or CPS. Found unanimously not guilty.
R v P (F) and P (J) (husband and wife) Appeal: Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Crim 2292
Mr and Mrs P had been bailed pending appeal. While we awaited the appeal date I worked on gathering further evidence via the internet. I also assisted with the arguments for appeal as the client changed from trial sols/counsel to fresh. Convictions for both parties were quashed in October 2012 and there was a formal pronouncement in the Court of Appeal in December 2013 that there would be no retrial.
R v P: Trial: Reviewed disclosure and provided a proof of evidence. Client found unanimously not guilty in 2004. I was informed that trial solicitor found my work very helpful.
R v W: Trial: Later in 2011. I worked extensively on this case providing a proof of evidence. The case was dropped a week prior to going to full trial and the client was formally found not guilty. I have to add that this was not due to the work I had done, but I was told by trial sols that had this gone to trial my work would have been very helpful, hence why it is included in this list.
Referred by CCRC to CA on the 17th June 2014
R v P – the most outrageous case I ever dealt with. Mother of young complaint beat the little boy with a belt (there is clear evidence of this via OIC and CPS medical expert statements) and threatened to hit him again, before he made his allegations. While beating him she basically told him what to say. Appeal in 2011 failed on the grounds that the allegations were only elicited after a beating – so that’s ok then. Thrash a child until he says what you want him to say and send an innocent person to prison. Going back on other grounds.
Update: Appeal in 2016 failed. The presiding judge said that the fact that the mother beat her 8 year old son while shouting at him: “what is wrong with your bum. What did B do to your bum” was “totally irrelevant”.
However this was not a total failure as I wrote a submission for Mr P in application to get him removed from the Sex Offender’s Register and this succeeded.
R v A: Appeal allowed – 16th October 2015. Grounds relating to a modified good character direction and an insufficient direction relating to delay ~ Retrial ordered.
R v F: Innocence Project Application: An application to Nottingham Innocence Project where the complainant said semen went in three different places. None were forensically examined. She handed her clothes to a relative ‘due to what the complainant told [her]’. This was yet another place semen allegedly landed according to her relative (although the complainant was later to deny that). Never investigated and not challenged about it at trial. Still waiting for a result.
The State versus M: USA case: A friend of mine who lived in Idaho USA died on a prison visit in front of her husband who had been trying to appeal his convictions. This was on the 30th July 2011. Two days after she died I managed to preserve her email accounts and also blogs and Facebook profiles and pages – I knew her passwords so I could get in to change them before anybody from the accusing side of the family could. Between all of those accounts I found statements and affidavits that had not yet been sent to the Idaho Innocence Project. I effected the necessary formal introduction and was able to email all of the evidence. I am currently awaiting formal confirmation but I am informed that he should be released from prison at the end of this year. He had been given 20 years in 2010.
Update: Mr M was released on Appeal from a prison in Idaho on the 18th June 2014 after serving 7 years of a 20 year sentence. This was due to evidence of prosecution witness tampering.
R v A Appeal Against Conviction 7th February 2019
Convictions quashed on the ground that the trial judge failed to direct the jury properly on previous (irrelevant) bad character.
Client was released on bail 20th February 2019 pending retrial.