We recently represented two defendants, a mother and her son, both good character, and both charged with assaulting an emergency worker.

In May 2021, the defendants had invited police officers into their home to speak with their son and brother. Police proceeded to question the boy about an alleged offence without cautioning him. They expressly said that they were not there to arrest him but wanted to have an “adult conversation”. 

The boy repeatedly stated that he did not know anything about the offence. Eventually officers told him that if he did not confess, they would in fact arrest him. He then said “OK I’ll get ready” because he was just wearing boxer shorts. 

Officers interpreted this to mean arm himself, and used excessive force to arrest him. At this point, his mother and older brother intervened and were arrested for assaulting an emergency worker. 

Client charged three years later for assaulting an emergency worker

Unusually, the case was not charged for 3 years, until March 2023, which the police stated was due to confusion over which postal requisition system to use and taking 6 months to download a mobile phone video. 

The Defendants never received the postal requisition in any event, and so were arrested on a warrant at their own home at 8am Monday 25 March 2024. They were held in custody for over 48 hours until their production at court on Wednesday 27 March 2024. 

At that hearing, MK Law’s trial specialist Samantha Gilmour

Sam Gilmour made extensive representations to the District Crown Prosecutor that the delay was an abuse of process, and the case was not in the public interest. He agreed and the case was withdrawn in open court. 

However, after the officers made a victim right to review request, the Crown reinstated proceedings.

Both defendants then pleaded not guilty and elected Crown Court trial. 

Legal representations made

Terisa Chaudary represented both defendants as litigator, and instructed Harry Martin and Tom Gregson as in-house advocates. 

Together, they set the matter down for an abuse of process hearing and submitted representations that the case was not in the public interest. 

It was argued that the conduct of the prosecuting authorities amounted to a limb (ii) abuse. MK Law argued that the initial conduct of the officers, the unjustifiable delay, and the representation to the defendants in open court that proceedings were over, taken together, were an affront to the rule of law. And therefore, given the offence was not serious, the balance lied in favour of staying proceedings. 

At the initial hearing on abuse, the Crown failed to produce a skeleton argument in response. A further hearing was therefore listed for the Crown to reconsider whether proceedings were truly in the public interest, and if so produce a skeleton argument in response. 

At the next hearing, the Crown did not contest the abuse and formally offered no evidence, definitively ending proceedings against these defendants.