William (Bill) Bache has spent over 40 years in the law. After training in London he practised in property law. He later became involved in Local Government matters including Health and Safety prosecutions and Town and Country Planning Appeals. He became a Partner in a firm in Salisbury until 2005 when he formed his own niche Practice in the areas of criminal law and complex care proceedings including those where adoption is sought.
In summary, Bill has had extensive experience in dealing with shaken baby and other alleged child abuse cases where false accusations have been made against parents to the effect they have inflicted non accidental injuries. He has dealt with these matters in the context of care proceedings and prosecutions for murder and manslaughter.
As his practice progressed he dealt with many high profile criminal cases, military law, courts martial and complex child care matters. He has been a regular speaker on both Television and Radio.
Bill was Deputy Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon for almost twenty years which has assisted him in representing parties at Inquests as well as dealing with the complex issues of law and medicine which arise in the cases he conducts.
His expertise in military law resulted in him being asked to assist in drafting amendments to the Armed Forces Bill in relation to the granting of Army Legal Aid to members of the Armed Forces who were under investigation. He then gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee on the topic at the House of Commons resulting in members of the Armed Forces receiving legal aid at a much earlier stage in criminal investigations.
Some notable Cases to Date are:
Acting for one of the defendants charged with importation and transportation of drugs by helicopter which was the first of its kind in England. Convicted but conviction quashed on appeal
R v. Cannings:
Acting for mother accused of murdering two of her infant children. Convicted but conviction quashed on appeal. The Judgement handed down has been described as a landmark judgement and is having a marked effect on both the criminal and family courts
Acting for a father accused of murder of his infant son by shaking. Acquitted of Murder but convicted of manslaughter. Currently considering appeal
Acting for a father accused of murder of his infant daughter by shaking. Acquitted at trial.
Acting on appeal for prospective adoptive parents convicted of murder of their child by salt poisoning. Conviction quashed at appeal but faced retrial. Retrial in January 2007 – acquitted at retrial of all charges
Acting for a parent accused of murder of her infant son by salt poisoning. Trial in September 2006 – acquitted at trial of all charges
Acting for Step Father accused of murder of his infant step daughter by shaking. Acquitted at trial.
Acting for a father accused of murdering his infant son by shaking. Acquitted at Trial on a submission at full time. December 2011
Acting for a father accused of harming his child by shaking. Prosecution discontinued proceedings. November 2014
Acting in many other cases currently where parents allege they have been falsely accused of abusing their child(ren).
He has dealt mainly with matters which come before the courts solely on the grounds of disputed medical evidence.
Below are a sample of our cases which have set legal precedent:
RE: U a child (2005)
Successfully applied to re-open an appeal on the grounds of fresh evidence and demonstrated a powerful probability that an erroneous result was arrived at in the earlier proceedings.
RE: SJ A Child (2007)
A mother who had, on an earlier occasion been found in the family courts to have murdered her first born by smothering, sought to have the finding reviewed in subsequent proceedings by the same Local Authority to take a further child born later to the mother into care. She was successful.
RE: M (2011)
Care proceedings come to a successful end with our client and her children remaining together after concerns of emotional harm are quashed.
RE: A (2011)
Care proceedings were instigated following accusations of non-accidental injury but all proceedings were withdrawn and his client was exonerated when it was established that an accident was the cause of fracture(s) and the accident had been witnessed by an independent source.
Re: K (2011)
Complex and lengthy care proceedings concluded successfully with the step- father being able to return home with the mother and child following serious allegations of inflicting non-accidental injury.
Re: T (2011)
Following two years of care proceedings a child was returned to its parents after the court found against the Local Authority, that there had been “massive bureaucratic incompetence”.
RE: S (2011)
Child returned to mother following a period in Local Authority Care when it was demonstrated that the allegation of causing emotional harm was unfounded.
Re: R (2011)
The child was returned to the mother and she was exonerated after it was established that the allegations of shaking against his client were unfounded.
Re: G (2012)
This very long running matter in which there was a negative finding against his client was appealed in the Family Appeal Court on the basis of new evidence. This was unprecedented as the original finding had taken place some three years earlier. In light of the new evidence the appeal against the negative finding was granted and there followed an eight week re-trial of the new facts which resulted in the original negative finding being overturned and his client being exonerated and reunited with her child.
Re: B (2012)
The mother was exonerated of inflicting injuries to her child by shaking.
Re: ED, JD and TD (2013)
The parents were completely exonerated. The extensive investigations into the medical histories of the children, their parents and other relatives indicated that by far the most likely causes of the symptoms first thought to have been caused by abuse were natural. In addition to this the Judge found the parents to be utterly devoted to their children.
Re: RH, KS and JS (2013)
This was a baby shaking case where the mother was absolved of any blame for inflicting injury. Significant scientific developments regarding the diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome were canvassed.
Re: SB and EB (2013)
A father was wholly exonerated from deliberately causing injury to his daughter by shaking and the Local Authority’s application for a Care Order was refused.
Re: SG (May 2013)
A mother who had fled the jurisdiction with her child having applied for a discharge of a care order successfully restored her application after a number of years. A Return Order was rescinded and a European Arrest Warrant withdrawn.
Re :NB (November 2014)
Allegations that a mother had shaken her child and abusively caused injuries were defeated and the child was returned to his mother’s care. The danger that a child the mother was carrying would be taken into care at birth were avoided.
RE: E (April 2017)
Allegations that a mother had shaken her child with or without impact against a semi-unyielding object or, in the alternative, abusive head trauma. The court found that the child was suffering from the vascular form of Ehlers Danlos Syndrome and the child was returned to its parents.
RE: J & R (October 2018)
Allegations that a mother had abusively caused fractures to her child. The concerns which triggered the proceedings arose from a finding that R had sustained a metaphyseal fracture to the left femur. The allegations are that this is a non-accidental injury inflicted by the mother or her father who have both been carers of R at the material times. A Paediatrician at the hospital concerned considers that the fracture is unexplained. The child was returned to the mother after the Local Authority concluded it could not prove its case in the face of expert medical evidence sought on behalf of the mother.
RE: E (December 2018)
The child had, for a number of years, presented with extremely troublesome behaviour which appeared to be deteriorating. The parents believed that the problems arose from Autism. The Local and Health Authorities rejected this idea and thought the main reason for the child’s behaviour was due to the conduct of the mother who they alleged was guilty of FII following advice from a local Paediatrician. That is to say, they alleged she was fabricating the child’s symptoms. Experts called on the initiative of the mother exonerated the parents of any blame and confirmed the diagnosis of Autism. The Local Authority withdrew the proceedings.
H v. MOD
A Senior NCO was subjected to major administrative action under AGAI 67 suffering a penalty that effectively eliminated any possibility of future promotion. He claimed damages under the Human Rights Act for being subjected to what was effectively a criminal trial without the appropriate safeguards. An application by the Secretary of State for Defence to strike out what is believed to be the first claim of its kind, was defeated clearing a path to what might be a far reaching decision on the legality of using major administrative action in certain cases.
H(2) v. MOD
A Lt. Col. In the Royal Army Medical Corps had been wrongly accused of professional incompetence whilst serving in Afghanistan. He was subsequently subjected to sanctions without a proper investigation whether the allegations were properly founded. He submitted an application for a Redress of Grievance which took no less than five years to resolve ultimately at a hearing before the Army Board. Here he was wholly exonerated and received praise for his conduct in difficult circumstances.
Acting for a high ranking Army Officer accused of conduct unbecoming in relation to his affair with a Female Naval Officer. Acquitted at Court Martial
Acting for two of five Army Training Instructors collectively charged, initially, with over 50 charges of bullying. Acquitted at Court Martial
Acting for a soldier accused of Manslaughter of an Iraqi civilian and, together with six other defendants, facing war crimes charges. This is the first case of its kind and thought to be the largest held in the UK. The Judge was a High Court Judge. The Trial continued for seven months (September 06 – April 07) – acquitted of manslaughter but convicted of lesser charge of committing a war crime to which he pleaded guilty.
Acting for the main core participant in the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry before Sir William Gage following the court martial referred to above.