Leanne Woodman

R v G Bristol Crown Court: junior counsel in this high profile conspiracy to produce class A drugs in Bristol. The criminal group had planned an industrial sized chemical lab to produce crystal meth and MDMA. This was the largest case of its kind in the UK. The Crown relied on covert audio recordings and challenge was made of the admissibility and integrity of covert device.

R v P Winchester Crown Court: junior counsel in a conspiracy to supply class A in the Aldershot area. Case involved substantial telephone and cell site evidence.

R v F Winchester Crown Court: successfully represented a defendant who had pleaded guilty to production of cannabis. Secured a sentence of a fine due to personal mitigation.

R v M Oxford Crown Court: secured an acquittal for a defendant charged with possession with intent to supply class B.

R v P – Successfully defended an 18-year-old male charged with s.20 GBH whom maintained he was acting in self-defence. Successfully applied for the defendant to be assisted by an intermediary throughout the trial.

R v AH – Counsel for an 18-year-old male charged with a violent Robbery in the complainant’s home. Crown accepted pleas to theft and ABH resulting in a substantially reduced prison sentence.

R v M – Successfully represented a youth defendant charged with possession of an offensive weapon on the basis of the reasonable excuse, namely defence of another.

R v W – Successfully defended a client charged with s.18 GBH within a domestic setting.

R v M – Counsel for a defendant charged with s.20 GBH, one punch, resulting in life-changing injuries.

R v M – Successfully represented the defendant charged with assault, case involved the cross examination of a four-year-old complainant.

R v P – Secured an acquittal for a defendant charged with s.20 GBH, concerning an allegation of a glassing, resulting in permanent facial injuries.

R v H – Secured an acquittal after a two-day trial concerning allegations of harassment of an ex-partner.

R v H – Secured an acquittal for a serving prisoner charged with assaulting two prison officers and the prison governor. Cross examination of six prison officers on the use of force and appropriate restraint.

R v G – Represented a defendant jointly charged alongside his elderly mother with perverting the course of justice. The allegation being that the mother had removed her son from the legal title to her property to avoid property being seized following POCA proceedings. Expert evidence from a conveyancing solicitor resulted in the crown offering no evidence.

R v W – Successfully represented a defendant charged with dwelling burglary. Secured an acquittal despite the admission of the defendant’s numerous convictions for non-dwelling burglaries.

Prosecution work:

R v S & others [Operation Midas] – Disclosure counsel for the prosecution of six defendants charged with fraud in connection with £5m of grants obtained from the EU and Welsh Government, in connection with the development of rag worm production facilities in Carmarthen.

R v L – Prosecuted defendants charged with multiple counts of theft and handling stolen goods. Subsequent POCA proceedings resulted in a confiscation order in the sum of £50,000.00.

R v W – Prosecuted a defendant charged with a night time, dwelling house burglary of an elderly woman.

R v B – Prosecuted a defendant charged with a dwelling burglary.

R v M – Successfully defended a young person charged with sexual assault. The defendant required the assistance of an intermediary. Cross-examined a young complainant and young witnesses.

R v T – Successfully represented a defendant charged with five allegations of rape and sexual penetration of his former partner. Cross-examined a vulnerable witness relying on unused material and previous inconsistent statement.

R v B – Counsel for a vulnerable defendant charged with gross indecency in the presence of his children. The defendant required the assistance of an intermediary as both complainants were vulnerable.

R v R – Represented a young driver charged with careless driving. Advised on the instruction of a collision expert and vehicle examiner. The collision expert completely undermined the prosecution witness evidence, which resulted in the crown offering no evidence.

R v L – Defended at trial, an HGV Lorry driver charged with careless driving. Lengthy cross examination of experts regarding the use of a Forward Collision Warning system in the defendants Lorry. Although convicted, the defendant’s personal mitigation resulted in him maintaining his licence and consequently, his employment.

R v P – Defended lorry driver charged with dangerous driving following a collision with a stationary vehicle on the hard shoulder of a motorway.