Robert Levack

Cases

Criminal Defence

R v LC, Court of Appeal Criminal Division, January 2021

Appeal against conviction, led by Peter Clark.

R v Luke Strong [2020] EWCA Crim 1712

Appeal against sentence. Submissions described by Edis J as having ‘commendable succinctness and force’

R v Peter King [2019] EWCA Crim 1176.

Robert appeared alone in his second-six months of pupillage in this appeal against sentence, in which the Court agreed that the sentencing judge had wrongfully withheld credit for a guilty plea to failing to surrender to custody. Gross LJ described Robert’s submissions as “carefully constructed and able”. 6-month sentence reduced by 2 months.

C, The Crown Court at Maidstone (January 2021)

Robert persuaded the Court to impose a sentence of 6 months imprisonment for a high value commercial burglary said by the prosecution to have an appropriate starting point of 2 years.

G, The Crown Court at Wood Green. (September 2020)

Robert persuaded the Court to impose a suspended sentence for charges of perverting the course of justice, and breach of restraining order, against the weight of authority indicating that sentences for perverting the course of justice should invariably be immediate.

Q, The Crown Court at Inner London (January 2020)

Possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply. Robert persuaded the Court to impose a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment, well below the starting point for the category advanced by the prosecutor.

C, The Crown Court at Ipswich. (June 2019)

Defending allegation of assaulting an emergency worker. Careful analysis of unused material revealed evidence to strongly support contention of self-defence. Acquitted.

L, The Crown Court at Guilford. (November 2019)

Allegation of dwelling burglary. Stolen items found in the defendant’s car, and cell-site evidence placing defendant in area of the burglary. CPS offered no evidence, adopting Robert’s reasoning

Motoring Defence

Robert is experienced at advising and representing individuals facing prosecution for a range of motoring related offences. Robert is able to accept instructions directly from members of the public, without a solicitor, in appropriate cases.

DPP v H, Oxford Magistrates Court (October 2019)

Individual charged with failing to provide driver information. Robert persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence on the day of trial, based on a failure to follow the Criminal Procedure Rules regarding service of documents.

DPP v B, Guildford Magistrates’ Court (October 2019)

Guilty plea to failing to provide a specimen having been suspected of driving. Robert persuaded the Court to impose a fine, rather than a community order as indicated by the sentencing guidelines.

DPP v D, Basildon Magistrates’ Court (August 2019).

Guilty plea to driving whilst disqualified a very short while after disqualification imposed. Robert persuaded the bench to impose a community order, rather than imprisonment as indicated by the sentencing guidelines.

DPP v R, Stratford Magistrates’ Court (July 2019)

Summary trial for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle following alleged police pursuit. Acquitted.

Professional Discipline

Robert is authorised to appear for the NMC and receives regular instructions to appear for the council before the NMC committees. Rob is experienced at dealing with matters involving allegations of lack of competence, abuse of patients, and impairment through drink or drugs, as well as cases involving sensitive issues concerning the practitioner’s health.

Robert is currently instructed in an ongoing matter before the HCPC, representing a paramedic accused of serious failings; he appeared in a 5-day substantive hearing in this matter, and is instructed for a further 4 days later this year. During this matter, described by presenting counsel as the most evidentially complex matter she had ever dealt with, Rob dealt with complex issues involving disclosure of unused material.