New tenant Peter Cruickshank has secured acquittals after two jury trials in July 2023

July 25, 2023

6 Pump Court

In the first case, the Defendant was charged with s.18 grievous bodily harm with intent. It was alleged that he had approached the complainant’s car armed with a hammer. After a verbal argument, the Prosecution case was that he swung the hammer multiple times into the complainant’s face, causing very serious injury. The complainant gave evidence that he was sat in the driver’s seat of the car at the time he sustained the injuries, with the Defendant stood at the car window swinging the hammer at him.

The Defendant accepted possession of the hammer and accepted swinging it at the complainant, but averred he was acting in self-defence. The Defendant’s case was that the complainant had threatened and assaulted him in the past. The Defendant’s case was that he did not strike the complainant while he was sat in the car, but that the complainant had come out of the car and come to attack him, at which point the Defendant struck him twice to the face with the hammer which he had brought with him for his own protection.

After hearing evidence from 8 witnesses, the jury acquitted the Defendant of both s.18 grievous bodily harm with intent, and also acquitted the Defendant of s.20 wounding in the alternative. Peter was instructed by Nina Riches of Main Nickolls LLP.

In the second case, the Defendant was in custody charged with attempt s.18 grievous bodily harm with intent on his partner, as well as coercive and controlling behaviour and a number of s.47 assaults occasioning actual bodily harm. The attempt s.18 involved pressing a knife to the complainant’s neck on multiple occasions.

The jury trial lasted for three days, with the complainant giving evidence on day two. Further to the complainant’s evidence in chief and in cross examination, Peter drafted a submission of No Case to Answer which he prepared overnight after day two of the trial. On the third day of the trial, the Prosecution called their final evidence, after which Peter made his No Case to Answer submission. The Crown asked for time to consider the submission, and returned to Court thirty minutes later to inform the judge and the Defendant that they would be Offering No Evidence on all of the counts on the indictment. The jury were accordingly directed by Her Honour to return Not Guilty verdicts in respect of each count, and the Defendant was so acquitted.

Peter was instructed by James Langridge of Bond Joseph LLP.