Hayley Brickel

2009

Hayley Brickel

Contact Hayley

Hayley specialises in defending in criminal cases; she is noted for being tactically astute as well as for her attention to detail, personable nature and excellent client care skills. A selection of cases of interest are below :-

Homicide:-

R v JS and 3 others – Central Criminal Court – Led Junior – Defending D1.

  • Murder and Manslaughter;
  • Multiple street stabbing following a drug deal;
  • Defence of self-defence.

R v RC and 4 others – Central Criminal Court – Led Junior – Defending D1.

  • Murder, Manslaughter, Section 18 OAP, Violent Disorder, Possession of a Bladed Article;
  • Committed when client was aged 14 years old;
  • Extensive CCTV footage, particularly because the stabbing occurred outside a music event where approximately 250 young people attended.

R v MP, and 2 others:- Central Criminal Court – Led Junior – Defending D1. 

  • Manslaughter by Gross Negligence, 4-week Trial;
  • Highly complex medical evidence relating to the multifactorial cause of death, which was recorded as Asphyxia following Restraint.
  • Complex legal arguments as to the extent of the duty of care owed by D, if that duty was breached, causation, whether death was reasonably foreseeable, subjective recklessness, and whether any alleged breach was gross in nature.
  • Acquitted – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35507077

Serious Violence:-

R v RA, and 7 others:- Snaresbrook Crown Court – Led Junior – Defending D2.

  • Drug Supply, Kidnap, False Imprisonment, Section 18 OAP (burning with a domestic iron directly onto skin), Section 20 OAP (pistol whipping), Possession of a Firearm with Intent and Perverting the Course of Justice;
  • A re-trial, lasting 6 months, involving voluminous and complex cell site evidence, forensic-match evidence, firearm expert evidence, a Serious Organised Crime and Police Agreement, novel legal factors and multiple cut-throat defences;
  • Trial Judge observed :- “both leading and junior demonstrated the highest standards of legal skill, professionalism and commitment….an appropriate ferocity of argument (when required) was delivered, but always with great skill, balance, good sense and good grace”.

R v JK –  Isleworth Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Attempted murder, multiple stabbing.
  • Defence of alibi.
  • Crown’s case largely consisted of cell site and forensic evidence.

R v RR and 1 other – Woolwich Crown Court – Junior alone – Defending D1.

  • A family were targeted after a Defendant, who was a social media influencer, befriended the son of a wealthy investment banker.
  • Demands for £100,000 made via telephone calls and text message.

R v RB – Woolwich Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Aggravated burglary and kidnap
  • Admissibility argument regarding a recorded telephone call made by the complainant which identified the client as the culprit.
  • Successful half time submission.

R v PC and 1 other – Croydon Crown Court – Junior alone – Defending D2.

  • Section 18 OAP
  • The client was alleged to have broken into a residential home and repeatedly stabbed an occupant.
  • Defence of self-defence.

R v RF – Woolwich Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Perverting the Course of Justice, Burglary and Assault;
  • An 8-day Trial which included the disclosure of numerous recordings of telephone conversations obtained from HMP Belmarsh to cross-examine the complainant (over 3 days) regarding the status of her relationship with the client and the commission of any criminal offence.

Drug Supply:-

R v AM and 11 others – Woolwich Crown Court – Defending D1 – Led junior

  • Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs
  • “County lines” organised drug supply network covering London and Gillingham;
  • Complex cell site and co-location evidence involving over 11,000 pages;
  • Successful exclusion of evidence regarding the polices’ discovery of SIM cards found at an address connected to the client.

R v KK and 10 others – Chelmsford Crown Court – Defending D1- Junior alone.

  • Conspiracy to Supply a Class A drugs;
  • “Operation Rose”, drug supply sourced from London and supplied in London, Crewe, Bangor and Norfolk;
  • Prosecution evidence included extensive phone evidence.
  • Sentence of client was later successfully appealed.

R v MC and 5 others – Inner London CC – Defending D2. Junior alone.

  • Conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs and Possessing Criminal Property. 3-week trial;
  • Conspiracy involved over 7 kilos of cocaine with a 97% purity;
  • Defendants travelled by air and car from Scotland to Canary Wharf with over £200,000 in cash to purchase cocaine for onward supply;
  • Crown’s case centred largely on cell site and co-location evidence and included messages sent from a handset in a Scottish prison to London-based drug suppliers.

R v J, and 3 others:- Isleworth CC – Defending D3 – Junior alone.

  • Conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs (kilos of very high purity cocaine) which was imported from Amsterdam, to be distributed in London;
  • Issues included the client’s fitness to enter a plea and stand Trial.

Firearms:-

R v JH – Oxford Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Possession of a Prohibited Firearm, Air Pistol and Ammunition;
  • Abuse of Process Application spanned two days, and involved legal argument regarding the scope of Legal Professional Privilege between CPS and the Police;
  • “Exceptional Circumstances” found, due in part, to the conduct of the CPS.
  • The mandatory minimum 5-year prison sentence was not imposed.

R v RP – Croydon Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Possession of a Firearm with Intent to Cause Fear of Violence;
  • Client entered a post office, produced a handgun to threaten staff while demanding money. He was arrested at the scene.
  • “Exceptional circumstances” found, mandatory minimum sentence not imposed.

R v  TM – Woolwich Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Possession of an imitation firearm;
  • Client found to have a gun outside a Public House;
  • Sole issue at trial was whether the item could properly be classed as an intimation firearm which included careful cross examination of firearm experts and police.

R v LM – Guilford Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Possession of Firearm with Intent to Cause Fear of Violence.
  • Defence of lawful authority, challenge to the classification of the rifle as being a “firearm” and disputed identified evidence.

Protest:-

R v ET, and 14 others (“The Stansted 15”) – Chelmsford Crown Court – Led Junior – Defending D1.

  • Charged with Intentional Disruption of Services at an Aerodrome, contrary to Section 1 (2)(b) of the Aviation and Martime Security Act 1990, an infrequently utilised piece of legislation.
  • Issues included whether the Defendant’s actions were “unlawful” within the meaning of the Act, the defence of Necessity and whether permission to charge with this offence was proportionate and appropriate.

Dishonesty: –

R v CC and 5 others – Woolwich Crown Court – Led Junior – Representing D6

  • Conspiracy to make counterfeit currency;
  • Nominal face value of the notes was £1,612,380;
  • Prosecution against client stopped following disclosure requests and a re-review where it was concluded there was no realistic prospect of conviction.

R v OP and 3 others – Inner London Crown Court – Junior alone – Representing D2.

  • Entering into or becoming concerned in a money laundering arrangement. 4 week trial.
  • The purported laundering of the proceeds of fraud was at least £1 million.

R v IT – Wood Green Crown Court – Junior alone

  • Theft of a BMW from BMW Financial Services;
  • Successful application to vacate guilty plea;
  • Acquitted at trial; defence of duress, client disposed of a high value rental car by transporting it to another jurisdiction to satisfy a gambling debt.

Sex offences and offences against children:-

R v DW – Snaresbrook Crown Court – Junior alone

  • Child abduction;
  • Legal arguments included the scope of “to take out of lawful control” and “inducement” as well as the admissibility of a Child Abduction Warning Notice.

R v JM – Woolwich Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Multiple rape, attempted rape and sexual assault;
  • Client maintained no sexual activity took place without the complainant’s consent;
  • Bad character application, which was successful opposed, concerned an alleged sexual assault with the use of a weapon in a different jurisdiction.
  • Acquitted on all counts.

R v N:- Kingston Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Inciting a Child to Engage in Sexual Activity.
  • This was the first Section 28 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence case to be heard in London.

R v S:- Kingston Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Section 2 Sexual Offences Act – Assault by Penetration;
  • Legal argument regarding the admissibility of the client’s police interview, owing to multiple breaches by police of the Codes of Practice.

R v M :-  Croydon Crown Court – Junior alone.

  • Sexual Assault.
  • Allegation was that the client, who was a cleaner in a mental health hospital, assaulted a patient;
  • Legal arguments included disclosure applications, admissibility of medical records, admissibility of police records and misconduct of the complainant.

Education and Professional Memberships:-

Bar Vocational Course:           BPP London.

University of Bristol:                LLB/Hons.

Middle Temple

Criminal Bar Association.

Police Station Accredited.

“Great with clients and secures the best results possible”

[Solicitor, 2021]