A Testimonial for Solicitor Advocate Mike Reilly

We were delighted to receive the below testimonial this week after our consultant Solicitor Advocate, Mike Reilly, had a successful case in the police station. This demonstrates that our job has its rewards despite the difficult circumstances in which we work.

'Dear Michael,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for representing me as my duty solicitor at Charing Cross Police Station on Wednesday. I feel extremely blessed that I had your brilliant self, and extremely attentive trainee Richard, appointed as my solicitor when I was suspected of a driving offence. Words cannot really express the gratitude I feel, but I would like to say that after being released from the Police Station with absolutely No charges, a huge thank you and how relieved I am feeling!

My licence is essential to my career. With your invaluable service that day I feel elated that I have my driving licence and my life back untainted – Thank you, Thank you, Thank You!

I feel you are giving a great service to people such as myself or any other people that may end up in a Police Station and Cell. Without a proper guide or information I would never have been released or helped in such a way that you did for me. I really cannot express how happy I am with being gifted you as my solicitor that day, and I will never ever forget what you have done for me. Your service is invaluable and I truly appreciate everything you did for me that day. How you made me feel much more like a human being after seeing you and feeling so much more like a person again, and above all the incredible aptitude of how you dealt with my case and picking up on all the technicalities of my case which in due course led to me being released without any charges, a clean licence and given my life back! Once again Thank You!

Ms C'

Auditing

Wainwright & Cummins has been experiencing a blizzard of audits over the last few months. We have been examined inside out, backwards, upside down, and side to side. Every area of practice has been scrutinised, from family to housing to criminal and prison law. Auditors have looked at closed files, open files, personnel records, financial accounts, insurance details, training records, firm policies and everything else they could think of. And it’s not over yet! We have yet another audit coming up in the next few weeks. You could be forgiven for thinking that the firm exists mainly in order to be scrutinised by a wide variety of regulators, agencies, managers, and other bodies.

 

In fact we are focusing on remembering that we actually exist to serve our clients and support our community; and in amongst the endless checks, we are continuing to do what we do best. But clients can be reassured by the outcome of these unending audits – we are clearly working to a high standard!

R v Ms K

A report of a recent case handled by Wainwright & Cummins barrister partner, Rod Jones.

Ms K was charged with causing GBH with intent (OAPA 1861 s18). She was accused of throwing boiling water over the head of her boyfriend (Mr B). He said he awoke with a burning sensation and ran from the house in extreme pain – the photographs did bear witness to extensive cranial exfoliation. Ms K also ran from the house and called the police to escort her back, reporting accidentally spilling the liquid over her boyfriend who was manhandling her to have sex which she did not want. It was a grim end to Ms K’s birthday.

Both complainant and defendant stuck to their stories throughout. Mr B did acknowledge he had raised the issue of arranging to take another woman to Jamaica but this had not upset Ms K. Ms K freely admitted she was angered by that news, its timing and more so by his subsequent demands for sex but she had simply made coffee for the pair and spilled it.

The judge refused an application of “No case to answer” – grounded on the inability of the prosecution to refute accident. An alternative count of inflicting GBH (OAPA 1861 s20) was added to the indictment to cover any jury uncertainty about intent. The judge also directed the jury fully on self-defence to cover any uncertainty the jury may have had as to where the truth really did lie.

The jury acquitted in less than an hour.