Castle Chambers

Jonathan Whitley

Back to Profile of
Jonathan Whitley


Jonathan Whitley

Criminal Defence

 

Jonathan is instructed by a number of firms of Defence solicitors to represent their clients. He is able to communicate clearly and effectively with clients from diverse backgrounds and those with mental health and behavioural  difficulties.

He is frequently successful in having cases dismissed at a preliminary
stage or at the close of the prosecution. 

Examples

  • R-v-P&P- Successfully applied to dismiss Conspiracy to Burgle involving 20 burglaries.
  • R-v-K- Defended in a sophisticated immigration fraud using falsely inflated earnings to enable applicants for Leave to Remain to qualify as highly skilled migrant workers. Case involved over 60 fraudulent applications.

Local Government and Regulatory

Jonathan has prosecuted and defended for over 13 years in both the Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court in relation to offences prosecuted by local authorities and government agencies and departments,

 

Types of offences include:


  • False descriptions, e.g. “clocked” car odometers, false or misleading product claims.
  • Breaches of safety regulations, e.g. electrical safety and toy safety
  • breaches of planning enforcement,
  • Supply of counterfeit goods Agricultural offences “cattle passport” offences, improper disposal of animal by-products,
  • Food safety offences,
  •  Offences of animal cruelty and neglect,
  • Property Misdescription Act offences.
  • Waste Management offences,

Examples


  • R (application of Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead)-v-East Berkshire Justices (2010) Prosecution. High Court Divisional Court. Judicial Review. Successsful Application on behalf of Prosecuting local authority to quash acquittal by Magistrates. Issue was the interpretation of “knife” in section 141A CJA 1988 in case involving sale of knife to person under 18 years
  • R-v-P & F Crown Court. Prosecution of £250,000 Conspiracy to Supply Counterfeit “designer goods” and sports equipment via internet
  • R-v-D,H & U Crown Court. Environmental Health Prosecution under Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006. Issue involving meaning of “food business operator” under EU law
  • R-v-L & A Crown Court. Prosecution of fraudulent use of international accreditation by a language school

Judicial Review and Appellate Advocacy

Jonathan appears regularly in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on behalf of Appellants or for the Prosecution in Appeals relating to Conviction and Sentence.

Often he is instructed on Appeal when he did not involved in the case at first instance.

He is also instructed to appear in Judicial Review and Case Stated procedures in the High Court in criminal and related matters. He is one of the few barristers who has actually appeared on a Habeus Corpus application and therefore understands the urgency that such applications require. In his case, Jonathan was instructed as he left Court for the day and then had to prepare the application on his way to the High Court for an out of hours application.

Examples:

  • R (application of Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead)-v-East Berkshire Justices (2010) Prosecution. High Court Divisional Court. Judicial Review. Successsful Application on behalf of Prosecuting local authority to quash acquittal by Magistrates. Issue was the interpretation of “knife” in section 141A CJA 1988 in case involving sale of knife to person under 18 years
  • R-v-C (2010) Court of Appeal. Prosecution, responding to Appeal against Sentence. Issue: was Judge entitled to conclude that disruption and diversion of emergency services caused by a serial bomb hoaxer at airport amounted to “a risk of serious harm to the public” and therefore justified the imposition of a Section 41 Restriction to a Hospital Order
  • Application of KI for Habeus Corpus (2009) High Court Divisional Court Appeared for CPS as Interested Party
  • R-v-G & A (2007) Defence. Court of Appeal. Successful appeal against conviction. Issues: Admissibility of Bad Character and Hearsay evidence where hearsay evidence was determinative of case. Case has been widely cited subsequently.
    R-v-R (2007) Defence. Court of Appeal. Successful appeal against sentence. Court held that sentencing Judge should have found “exceptional circumstances” to suspend custodial sentence under “old” law: section 118 PCC(S)A 2000. Trade Union treasurer, now aged 67 years, stole £170,000.00 from Union in breach of trust, three year delay between discovery and sentencing.
  • R(W)-v-Brent Youth Court (2006) Prosecution. Divisional Court. Judicial Review: “Grave crimes” committal heard by Youth Court prior to publication of Sentencing Guideline on Robbery: review heard after publication of Guideline. Praised by Court for pragmatic approach. Instructed by CPS Harrow especially for the Judicial Review proceedings, not otherwise involved in case.
  • R-v-P (2006) Prosecution. Court of Appeal. Successfully resisted appeal against conviction. Court held that knowledge of content of disc not required for distribution of indecent child images pursuant to section 1 (b) Protection of Children Act 1978 Inadvertent distribution sufficient where appellant had known he had indecent articles in his possession.
  • R-v-H & C (2006) Prosecution. Court of Appeal. Successfully resisted appeal against conviction. Appeal involved absence of identification procedures where presence admitted but participation denied.
  • R(D)-v-Nottingham Crown Court (2005) Prosecution.  High Court Divisional Court. Successfully opposed application for Judicial Review. Court held that delay of trial caused by VHCC “strike” amounted to “good and sufficient” reason to extend custody time limits. Applicant argued that state failed in its obligation to provide sufficient remuneration for Defendant’s proper representation. Instructed by CPS Nottingham solely in Judicial Review case.
  • R-v- Y (2005) Defence. Court of Appeal. Successful appeal against sentence on basis that sentence imposed upon Defendant who pleaded Guilty to theft during aftermath of robbery was insufficiently lower than that imposed on robber.