Bill Wilson represented a client at Croydon Crown Court charged with 8 Counts of Fraud arising from allegation between 2013 -2015.
Bill Wilson Represented a client charged with both Theft and False Accounting.The allegations arose from employment with a leading debt recovery business and involved monies being transferred from a major client’s account. One of the significant issues which arose involved the credibility of electronic data which necessitated the assistance of both a Computer Expert and Forensic Accountant . The case was heard at Guildford Crown Court. Following a guilty plea, a suspended sentence was imposed and we were successful in negotiating a Confiscation Order of only £100.00.
Our client is a social worker who was based in a hospital. The complainants had pursed a complaint to the Health Services Ombudsman. His report had been sent to the HCPC. We successfully challenged the admissibility of the Ombudsman’s report in these disciplinary proceedings. We were also able to point out significant gaps in the evidence put forward by the HCPC. They found “evidence provided by the HCPC as to the Registrant’s responsibility for the alleged acts and omissions particularised in the allegation was generally vague, inconsistent and inherently weak”.
This resulted in a submission of no case to answer being upheld by the CCC in relation to all of the allegations our client faced. Furthermore they found that even if they had found there was a case to answer in relation to any of the allegations “the Panel was of the view that none of the particulars, if proved, would have constituted a serious departure from the standards of conduct to be expected of a registered Social Worker in the circumstances. The Panel would not therefore have found misconduct.”
John Williams commented “Jonathan Goldring, the barrister we instructed, did an excellent job in this case. I made written representations to the HCPC Investigating Committee and their lawyers throughout these proceedings as to the weakness of their case. Unfortunately these fell on deaf ears and a full 5 day hearing was necessary in this case. It is very unusual for a disciplinary committee to find no case to answer in relation to all allegations. Whilst I am obviously delighted for my client whose name has been cleared, the delay (4 years from when the allegations arose), the cost and last but not least the stress and anxiety caused to my client over this period is deeply regrettable.”
Our client commented about John Williams: "It is such a relief that this case is over as it was impacting on my life. It was reassuring to meet John as he was immediately supportive, knowledgeable and insightful into the detail of my case and as a result I
And he said about Jonathan Goldring J Goldring website: Jonathan's knowledge and experience of my case and legal detail in the lead up, and during the hearing was terrific. During the hearing itself, I felt that Jonathan was always "2 steps ahead" of the HCPC- all I can say I would never want to be on the other side of the Court room from Jonathan!
All I can say really is that these two chaps were a real blessing!"
Bill Wilson represented a client accused of Illegal Money Lending, Money Laundering and Perverting the Course of Justice at Wood Green Crown Court. This was a 9 Count indictment, detailing offences covering the time period between 2010 – 2015, primarily concerning illegal money lending contrary to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and follow-on offences of money laundering. Our client admitted some of the offences and the Crown dropped the remaining allegations. It was heard at Wood Green Crown Court and was prosecuted by City of Birmingham Trading Standards Office.
Bill Wilson successfully represented a company director who innocently arrived back to check his work premises were secure, but within minutes of leaving the property, a large industrial unit was engulfed in flames. Numerous fire-fighters attended the scene and it took hours to bring the fire under control and extinguish it. Damage was said to have ran into millions, involving not only the unit itself, but the numerous vehicles inside and the adjourning properties. Members of the public made thirty one separate “999” calls to report the fire, the first being only 5 minutes after the premises were secured. Flames were said to have been bellowing 15 feet from the highest point in the roof space. Over the following days, numerous Insurance Assessors carried out detailed forensic examination, which resulted in Bill’s client being arrested and interviewed at length (over 5 hours) on suspicion that he was responsible. Both the Police and the Insurance Experts claimed that the fire must have been started by him as it was inconceivable due to the veracity and timings of the fire, that he was innocent. This culminated in a further interview many months later and despite maintaining his innocence, he was charged with the offence of arson. Bill’s client had always contended that although he had been welding in the unit earlier that morning, he had left at lunchtime and merely returned to check that the premises were fully secure at the end of the day before the weekend. He had been inside for approximately 10 minutes and upon leaving simply locked up. He had absolutely no knowledge of the impending fire. The case went to trial lasting three weeks and after hearing all of the evidence, the jury took just over two hours of deliberation to formally return a “Not Guilty” verdict.