Louise Muir Wilson. Held the role of a Lecturer and Examiner on the MSc in Forensic Science at King s College.

Transcription

1 Louise Muir Wilson Year of Call: 1999 Undertakes solely defence work in the Crown and Appellate courts and has been described as going above and beyond in terms of her preparation, tenacity and representation. Louise s recent instructions include allegations of attempted murder, rape, kidnap/ false imprisonment, firearms and conspiracies in relation to fraud, and high level drugs importations and supply and historic allegations of sexual abuse. Has a particular interest in allegations involving organised criminal activity, technical legal arguments and detailed evidential issues. Held the role of a Lecturer and Examiner on the MSc in Forensic Science at King s College. Has worked for many years with the John Smith Memorial Trust on their Fellowship Programme which involves providing placements and advice to Judicial, Legislative and Executive Ministers, Officers and Civil Servants in emerging democracies. This reflects her commitment to issues of human rights and freedom of speech and is also reflected in her pro-bono work. Legal adviser and writer for television and film - working on development, scripting, pre-production and on set advice. Professional Memberships Criminal Bar Association South Eastern Circuit Forensic Science Society Amnesty International Benefactors Scholar and Blackstone Entrance Award Homicide and Corporate Manslaughter Has a particular interest in cases involving technical and detailed forensic evidence. This has led to instructions in homicide matters involving issues on causation and complex medical and forensic evidence. Fraud and Financial Crime Many of Louise s cases have arisen from significant investigations, involving multi agency prosecutions, complex conspiracies, and encompassing technical and detailed evidence and issues in relation to accounting, liability, tracing (including international elements and evidential arguments). 1

2 Examples include: R v B and Others - Prosecution of substantial number of defendants involving sham companies, and alleged abuse of banking systems. R v O & Others - Multi agency prosecution of defendants for multi million pound fraud- described as largest ever DWP tax credit fraud. Non custodial sentence achieved. Virgin Media v D & Others - (led by Grahame James)- Private Prosecution brought by Virgin Media against the importers and wholesalers of illegal set top boxes- by far the biggest case of its kind brought to date and in relation to Intellectual Property fraud. Matters arising in relation to trademarks and property rights. R v S and Others - Prosecution of substantial car ringing conspiracy. Defendant absconded for years, prior to extradition. R v K & Others - (Led by Peter Corrigan). Prosecution of largest ever Internet prostitution and human/ sex trafficking organisation. Prosecuted on basis of financial matters. Substantial covert investigationmatters involving sex trafficking, international evidence, intelligence and anonymity. Terrorism Experience in advising on admissibility of covert evidence, disclosure and abuse of process. Organised Crime Significant experience in all aspects of organised crime. Including matters involving technical arguments on conspiracies, covert surveillance, probe evidence, informants, intelligence, anonymity, financial investigations, cell site attribution and evidential arguments, intimidation and duress. Detailed preparation has led to successful submissions on dismissal, disclosure, character and abuse of process. Associated confiscation matters. Examples include: R v R and Others. Representation of alleged Mastermind and Controller of street dealers of class A in Central London. R v S and Others (Led by Laura Brickman). Prosecution of organised network of high level and high purity drugs supply. Cut throat defences being run against this defendant. R v G and Others. Prosecution of long term organised supply from various shop premises of cannabis. 3 months of covert surveillance. Following representations on totality of surveillance and evidential issues this defendant was the only conspirator to avoid custody and confiscation. R v O. (Led by Anthony Orchard QC). Only second case of this kind prosecuted in UK- and first case being completely contested. Defendant prosecuted as being a major organiser in the international sexual trafficking of youths into and out of the UK- as well as associated allegations of rape, kidnap and false imprisonment- with the alleged use of juju/ black magic to ensure co-operation from victims. Substantial amounts of telephone and computer evidence in relation to international activity and organisation. Also involved 27 ABE interviews. Acquittals on numerous counts. 2

3 R v A. Prosecution of defendant, in relation to substantial international class A drugs operation- Defendant absconded overseas for number of years and had then been convicted overseas, as the leader of the European arm of this drugs organisation into the UK. Issues in relation to informants, intelligence and character. R v B & Others - (Led by Roxanne Morrell). multiple counts in relation to robbery, kidnapping, firearms and money laundering. Following a covert probe operation, prosecution was brought in relation to allegations of conspiracies to target other criminal enterprises. Defendant acquitted at re-trial. R v R & Others - (Led by Adam Kane). Prosecution arising from allegation of the largest heroin importation in the UK at the time. Substantial arguments on disclosure and related operations and intelligence, admissibility in relation to character, mobile phone evidence and inferences, financial and international evidence. R v D & Others - Leading Counsel. Conspiracy in relation to class A importation and supply. Arising from linked covert investigation. Issues in relation to mobile phone attributions- and surveillance with parallel cell site and informants. General Crime Defends the full range of general criminal allegations. She has a particular and detailed interest in technical issues on fairness, disclosure and forensic evidence. She also has special expertise in handling vulnerable defendants and witnesses- arising from mental health and physical health, behavioural difficulties and age. Examples include: R v H. Vulnerable defendant, sectioned after arrest- prosecuted in relation to bomb hoaxes made during his employment at the Olympics on his first day of work- high profile case- involving the closure of the Olympic Park at the start of the Olympics. Long term mental health history. R v M. Youth Defendant accused of being a gang member and imposing gang punishment on anotherby section 18 stabbings following public pursuit. R v H. Prosecution of Defendant in relation to child abuse (violence) and cruelty (involving refusal to provide medication) with previous high media profile and well reported previous convictions. Substantial amounts of 3 rd Party material had to be reviewed- leading to disclosure arguments and abuse of process. Prosecution offered no evidence after J indicated he would stay proceedings in the alternative. R v E. Allegations of false imprisonment, attempted rape and serious violence- with joined drugs matters made by a complainant claiming to be a masseur. Crown offered no evidence after abuse of process submissions. Follow on case of allegations involving child pornography- one of the early cases dealing with file sharing software- technical arguments and expert evidence of significant importance in diminishing culpability and considering the unintended consequences of using such software. R v W & Others (Led by Peter Corrigan). Primary defendant and alleged organiser, director and active participant in wide ranging conspiracies with others to commit armed robberies ( banks, travel agencies and betting shops). 24 substantive offences identified over the periods alleged. Issues on identification and admissibility. 3

4 R v R. Allegations of robbery and firearms. Complex as defendant sectioned following police interview and remained sectioned during the course of trial. Issues in relation to fitness, admissibility, and public interest in such prosecution. Full acquittal on all matters. R v L & Others. Primary defendant in allegation of attempted murder of a fellow prisoner in male prison. Significant forensic expert evidential matters on blood pattern analysis, shoemarks, tool marks and DNA. R v B & Others. Trial and re-trial of conspiracies arising from series of armed robberies at brothels. R v TA & Others (Led and Junior alone). Commenced as attempted murder- prosecuted at trial as a punishment offence section 18, following on from allegations in relation to drug dealing and gang membership. High profile issues in relation to happy slapping, and complex technical issues on computer, chat logs and phone evidence. Follow on trial in relation to kidnap, false imprisonment and blackmail- no evidence offered following written and oral arguments. Sexual Offences R v O. Prosecution for night-time stranger rape of leading pornography actress. Complex issues of admissibility and previous sexual history- given earlier allegations made the same night and information discovered on complainant- and complainant s answers in cross examination. Acquittal. R v M. Historic allegations covering 3 decades from 5 family members in relation to rapes and sexual assaults and grooming. R v M & Others (Led by Nigel Lambert QC) - Complex allegations of multiple rapes, sexual assaults and degrading filming and photographing of stepdaughter from young age- within the family home and involving activity also with mother, sons and family friends. This defendant was said to be the organiser, instigator and director of the activities over many years- using violence/ intimidation. Issues in relation to the defendant s severe ill-health, potential psychological issues, sexual history, third party and non disclosure. R v R. Allegations of attempted rape, digital penetration and sexual assaults on step daughter. Substantial 3 rd party disclosure. Acquitted on all matters. R v L. (Led Junior). Trial and re-trial of defendant on allegations of rape, kidnap and sexual assaults of a minor. Defendant on day release having spent 50 years in custody for murder and rape- and the commission of further murders and false imprisonment whilst at a Maximum Security Hospital. Complex arguments on disclosure, character and sexual history. Defence involved issues of blackmail and alleged under age prostitution. Confiscation, Civil Recovery and Asset Forfeiture Louise has been long instructed on all matters arising in this area, including matters of restraint and contested issues. Louise has dealt with many complex and high value applications, negotiations and contested hearings. 4

5 Appeals and CCRC Instructed in a number of matters for appeal purposes. In recent years has developed a particular expertise in relation to applications to vary and appeal SOPO scombining an interest in the technical arguments and practical applicability- in line with Human Rights and Public Interest. R v H & R v S. Leading authority on jurisdiction for the appeal of SOPOs- following conviction, sentence, appeal and applications to vary. R v H. Removal of SOPO following application based on statutory rules, guidelines and public interest. R v V. Leading authority at the time in relation to credit for a guilty plea and a Crown Court being restricted from withholding credit (even when evidence may be described as strong or overwhelming ). R v C. Sentence reduced by over 60% to enable immediate release- in relation to offence of blackmailcomplex issues on offence and telephone evidence following allegations of kidnap. R v M. Sentence reduced by half for serious, high value offences of armed robbery on vulnerable victims- with similar previous convictions. Submissions made on participatory roles should be identified if possible, where evidence supporting elements of duress and that credit should not be withheld. R v G. Instructed for Appeal purposes and leave granted in relation to conviction- early case following CJA 2003 bad character legislation involving Judge s rulings and admissibility of such evidence. 5