Danielle Byford

Cases

Criminal Defence

R v TS (2024) – Danielle Byford led by Mitchell Cohen, represented TS who was charged on an indictment containing 19 counts, including attempted murder, rape, sexual assault, controlling coercive behaviour and child cruelty, at Cambridge Crown Court.

 

R v D & Ors – Liam Edwards leading Danielle Byford, represented the first of nine defendants charged in an industrial scale class A drugs conspiracy, before HHJ Deacon KC at Wood Green Crown Court. The case alleged against the defendants (Operation Wasdale) concerned a national chemsex conspiracy to supply multiple kilogram packages of class A and B drugs, including 45kg packages and £4 million pound contract deals per week, for just over one year. The Crown’s case was heard over a period of four weeks and was heavily dependent on digital communication between parties to the conspiracy and cell site evidence. At the close of the Crowns case, Mr Edwards and Ms Byford successfully obtain Not Guilty verdicts on all counts alleged against their client, following a submission of no case to answer on 8th April 2024.

 

R v RR (2022)- The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of PWITS Class A and possession of a bladed article.  The defendant was a second striker for bladed article and third striker for PWITS. After careful submissions, Danielle successfully persuaded the Court not to impose the mandatory minimum sentences, and the Court imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended for two years.

 

R v ML (2022)- The defendant ML was charged with section 20 GBH (domestic) and was remanded in custody. The nature of the section 20 GBH allegation was that the defendant hit the complainant with a bottle whilst under the influence of alcohol, causing injury. The defendant pleaded guilty on a basis. Danielle persuaded HHJ that the matter could proceed to sentence without a Newton hearing. Despite the aggravating features in this offence, together with the defendant being under a community order, Danielle persuaded HHJ to sentence the defendant to a minimal prison sentence, with the defendant receiving a six-month custodial sentence, and the community order being revoked.

 

R v DD (2023)- The defendant was charged with three counts of possession of a bladed article and driving offences. Danielle made representations to the Crown, which meant one bladed article offence was no longer proceeded with. The defendant pleaded guilty on a basis to the offences which all carried a starting point of six months. Due to Danielle’s persuasive mitigation, the defendant received a community order.

 

R v DG (2022)- Danielle represented a vulnerable defendant who faced sentence for multiple drug offences including PWITS Class A. The Crown placed the defendant in significant role, however the basis of plea and interview asserted lesser. Danielle was able to persuade the Court to deal with the case without a newton hearing, and the defendant was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years.

 

R v AH (2023)- The defendant was charged with possession of a bladed article. After drafting the defence statement and representations for the Crown to review their case, the CPS were persuaded to offer no evidence.

 

R v LN (2023)- The defendant was a vulnerable 11-year-old youth, with significant learning difficulties, charged with robbery. Danielle was able to build rapport with the defendant, and drafted a basis of plea which limited his involvement. This meant that after entering a guilty plea on the day of trial, he received a 3-month referral order.

 

R v DF (2023)- The defendant was charged with fraud by false representation. The fraud concerned opening a number of catalogue accounts, and bank accounts in C’s name. The defendant failed to attend Court and the trial proceeded in their absence. Danielle remained instructed to test the evidence of the Crown, and after careful submissions were made, Danielle asserted that the Crown had failed to prove identification. The defendant was formally acquitted of all charges.

 

R v CT (2023)- The defendant was charged with ABH. On the day of trial, the prosecution wished to apply for an adjournment to secure the attendance of the complainant.  Danielle opposed the application to adjourn, and the adjournment was refused. Following this, the Crown wished to proceed, formally making the application of res gestae. Danielle was able to successfully oppose the res gestae application, which resulted in the Prosecution having no alternative but to offer no evidence.

Criminal Prosecution

R v B (and others) 

 

Gregory Wedge and Danielle Byford obtain convictions for 7 defendants, for 23 offences involved in Operation Chrysanthemum, a complex, multi-handed case, concerning a spate of over 300 motorcycle /vehicle thefts during an 18-month period,  equating to a loss of approximately half a million pounds.

Operation Chrysanthemum was created following a continued spate of moped, low powered motorcycles, electric bikes and scooter thefts occurring within Cambridge throughout 2021 and 2022.  Between January 2022 and November 2022, over 300 vehicle thefts were reported in Cambridge City alone, for an estimated cost of half a million pounds.

The typical modus operandi for these incidents involved a number of offenders stealing such motorcycles and fleeing the area. The vehicles were generally then driven in an anti-social manner, causing varying degrees of damage, before being deposited, stored,  destroyed or offered for sale.

Gregory Wedge and Danielle Byford obtained convictions for seven defendants, for 23 separate substantive offences covering the period of offending.

Sentencing has been adjourned until January 2025.

 

R v VV (2022)– Following trial, Danielle succeeded in obtaining the conviction of a defendant charged with voyeurism.  The facts concerned the defendant entering a female toilet at a train station and recording the victim over the top of the cubicle door.

 

R v AP (2023)- Danielle secured the conviction of a defendant charged with breach of NMO at Huntingdon Crown Court. The defendant at trial, raised that he had a reasonable excuse in sending the email, which was in breach of the terms of his restraining order, as he stated it was a matter of national security. The defendant was unanimously convicted following trial.