Adam Williams

R v L Cambridge Crown Court [2020] –The defendant was facing trial for being concerned in the supply of drugs. There was no evidence of supply adduced during the trial. The Judge approved a submission of no case to answer and the matter was withdrawn from the Jury, with them directed to return Not Guilty verdicts.

R v A Catterick Court Martial [2020] – A Sergeant was charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm on an off-duty RAF Police Officer whilst in the Junior Ranks Mess by deliberately head-butting him. The defence put forward was that it was an accident. The Sergeant was acquitted after trial by the board.

R v H Aldershot Magistrates’ Court [2020] (privately paid) – High profile client who was under significant media attention and scrutiny. Originally charged with 3 offences. After substantial negotiation and submissions from Adam, on the day of trial, the Prosecution offered no evidence in relation to 2 of the charges and accepted a plea of guilty to a lesser set of facts than originally alleged. The Client expressed how impressed she was with Adam’s conduct considering the amount of scrutiny she was under.

R v A Cambridge Crown Court [2020] – A defendant was observed in suspicious circumstances. Found on him was a mobile telephone and near his feet there were class A drugs. An application to dismiss was successful as it was accepted that whilst there was some evidence of supplying drugs on the phone, it was not the drug which was charged and the phone was more akin to that of a drug users.

R v K Guildford Crown Court [2020] – A youth trial involving 6 youth defendants and the main prosecution witness was also a youth. The trial involved a number of issues in law but also required sensitive cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses. At the end of the trial Adam was praised by the Client and his parents for how clearly he explained everything to the Client so that he could effectively participate in the proceedings.

R v G Aylesbury Crown Court [2019] – Prosecuted an unrepresented defendant under the malicious communications act. The prosecution evidence was a significant number of pages due to the amount of emails sent by the defendant. Following an effective review by Adam, the material was condensed into a Jury Bundle which was more manageable for the Jury. The trial Judge praised Adam’s ability following the trial stating his advocacy was “thorough and effective”.

DB v R [2019] Court of Appeal – Successfully appealed against a term of a restraining order prohibiting the appellant from going within 100 metres of the complainant.

R v A Croydon Crown Court [2019] (privately paid) – Allegation of no insurance. Police officer states they saw the client driving the vehicle and pulled them over. The client factually disputed this stating he had never been in the vehicle. Due to effective cross examination of the officer and his generic computer generated automated statement, the Court were not satisfied the client had been driving and accordingly found him not guilty.

R v B High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court [2019] (privately paid) – Theft of over £2,000 on numerous occasions from a high end supermarket. Due to the nature of the offence and the value, custody was almost inevitable. Following being instructed, Adam advised on the best mitigation to advance which included a mitigation bundle being presented to the Court. Following submissions, the client was sentence to a low level community order instead of custody.

R v K Catterick Court Martial [2019] – Desertion from the Army for 10 years. Following mitigation, the client was sentenced to a community order instead of a custodial sentence.

R v B Catterick Court Martial [2018] – A Corporal had pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation. Following substantial mitigation advanced on his behalf he was sentenced to a suspended period of detention and retained in the service.

R v W Colchester Court Martial [2018] – A Corporal was originally arrested for attempted murder against an Officer. He was subsequently charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. There were significant disclosure issues within the case that Adam successfully argued. The client was acquitted after trial by the board.

R v N Oxford Crown Court [2018] – S20 deferred sentence for client to demonstrate he is addressing his alcohol use with a prohibition on him having any alcohol. Evidence of client breaching prohibition during deferred period, following mitigation HHJ Ross imposed a suspended sentence despite breach.

R v G Kingston Crown Court [2018] – The defendant denied breaching his criminal behaviour order as he believed he was in Middlesex not Surrey when he committed the offence. Following further disclosure on the day of trial and representations made to the Crown which resulted in them offering no evidence.

R v E Isleworth Crown Court [2017] – Defendant charged with affray with 3 others. CCTV of incident showed defendant using a belt as a weapon. Raised self-defence, acquitted after trial.

R v T Reading Crown Court [2017] – The defendant was originally arrested for attempted murder and charged with S18 GBH. After representations were made to the CPS a plea to ABH was accepted. The defendant was eventually sentenced to a suspended sentence order.

S v R [2017] Court of Appeal – Successfully appealed against an immediate custodial sentence for fraud by false representation which was substantially reduced in length.

R v R Banbury Magistrates’ Court [2017] (privately paid) – Following a successful S8 application being made, disclosure of documents were ordered by the Court. The Crown having not complied with the request by the day of trial, offered no evidence as the Magistrates, following submissions from the defence, refused to adjourn the trial.

R v T Bulford Court Martial [2017] – Successful appeal against sentence following demotion for disobeying standard orders. Rank reinstated.

R v R Bulford Court Martial [2017] – A Sergeant pleaded guilty to a number of charges of theft and fraud with the overall value in the tens of thousands of pounds. He was in a significant position of trust as he could self-authorise payments on the services buying system. Following significant mitigation advanced the client was sentenced to a suspended period of detention and retained in service.

R v W Colchester Court Martial [2016] – A Flight Lieutenant pleaded guilty to a mess deck theft. Considering the significant breach of trust the Court would ordinarily be considering dismissal and custody. Following mitigation, including a psychiatric report, the client was sentenced to a fine and not dismissed from service.

R v B Harrow Crown Court [2016] – Following an error by previously instructed representation the matter was incorrectly listed for a Newton hearing following an equivocal plea. After identifying the issues it was then listed for an application to vacate plea. Following legal submissions the application was granted and successfully remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for trial.

R v J & R Isleworth Crown Court [2016] – Application to dismiss a charge of aggravated vehicle taking was successful. The defendants were both passengers of the vehicle and it was raised that there was no evidence that they knew that the vehicle was stolen.

R v T High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court [2016] – The defendant was successfully acquitted following trial in relation to an allegation of assault by beating. It was alleged that he spat at the complainant and wiped blood upon her.

R v C Banbury Magistrates’ Court [2016] – The defendant had exited his property with weapons to confront attackers who had attended his back garden. He raised self-defence and defence of property as a defence to the charge of affray. The defendant was successfully acquitted following trial.

R v U Oxford Magistrates’ Court [2015] – Successful submission of no case to answer in relation to two allegations of assault by beating. One of the allegations involved a child in a pushchair which the complainant and defendant were both tugging back and forth. No physical contact was made with the child.

I v R [2015] Court of Appeal – Granted leave to appeal sentence in relation to an S5a Stalking offence. Appeal abandoned on the day as appellant was being deported and no longer wished to appeal. Indication from LJ Rafferty appeal would have been allowed.