We represented a young adult of good character who had been charged with assaulting an emergency worker. It was the Crown’s case that in an attempt to get away from the police, our client deliberately struck a police officer causing them to fall and hit their head on the ground. It was alleged that the officer was rendered unconscious. The Crown relied on the evidence of two police officers who alleged that they had witnessed the assault take place. Our client denied the offence in its entirety and entered a not guilty plea.

There was body worn footage which covered the incident and it was our view that this footage clearly demonstrated that there was no assault; this was an accident which occurred after the officer lost their balance whilst trying to detain our client. We made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service on no less than three occasions in which we argued that the body worn footage significantly undermined the Crown’s case. With our final representations, we provided a defence exhibit containing ‘frame by frame’ stills of the body worn footage which clearly demonstrated that there was no assault. Despite this, the Crown Prosecution Service maintained that they would be proceeding with the prosecution of our client.

Separately, there were several hearings at which serious concerns were raised by us in relation to the Crown’s preparation of the case. We served a Defence Statement to obtain material that had not been disclosed to us and then a s.8 application when the response provided to the Defence Statement was inadequate.

We also served a pre action protocol letter in which we argued that the Crown had failed to properly apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors when making the decision to proceed with the prosecution. We are argued that the decision to proceed was irrational in light of clear undermining evidence and that this decision was a continuation of the ongoing culture within the Crown Prosecution Service that where allegations of assault on emergency workers are made, they must be prosecuted no matter the circumstances. We argued that this was a direct result of the ‘Joint Agreement on Offences Against Emergency Workers’ and that this amounted to a fettering of Crown’s discretion.

After considering our pre-action protocol letter, the Crown discontinued the case against our client meaning that they remained a young adult of good character.

Our client was represented by Sabrina Neves and Kath Jatter, both Solicitors in our Croydon Crime Team.