Welcome to the latest edition of our newsletter. 

This issue kicks off with the first of a four-part series in our 'Courtroom Advocacy' section, beginning with an analytical dive into the cross-examination techniques used during the Donald Trump 'hush money' trial. 

Additionally, we turn our focus to Dr. Tunde Okewale OBE, renowned for his legal acumen and community engagement. His story is not just inspiring but a powerful reminder of the role of justice in societal transformation.

On the legislative front, no new laws have been passed since the election was called. However, following its recent general election victory, the Labour Party has outlined its plans for reforming the criminal justice system. Key elements of Labour's strategy include:

• Restoring community-focused policing by increasing the number of police officers.    

• Introducing measures to prevent serious crimes, especially knife crime, through stricter enforcement and community engagement.   

• Reforming the justice system to prioritise the needs of victims, address delays in the legal process, and improve the handling of cases involving violence against women and girls.   

• Addressing issues within the prison system, aiming to transform prisons into environments that focus on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending rather than merely serving as punitive spaces.

The prison system certainly needs reform; in the ‘Law in the News’ section we spotlight a concerning incident that evidences the ongoing issues in the prison system and raises questions about the adequacy of current oversight and training for prison staff.

As usual, we also bring you a roundup of significant recent criminal cases. 

Cross-examination techniques in the Donald Trump ‘hush money’ trial.

In this issue's 'Courtroom Advocacy', we review the cross-examination of Michael Cohen during the trial concerning Donald Trump's alleged 'hush money' payments. Our focus is on providing an educational perspective on the techniques employed by Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead Attorney. 

Introduction to Michael Cohen and Background Context

Michael Cohen served as a personal attorney for Donald Trump and was known as his "fixer" within the Trump Organisation. Over the years, Cohen was deeply involved in various legal and business dealings on behalf of Trump, positioning himself as a loyal advocate and gatekeeper. In his direct examination, Cohen testified about the hush money payment made to silence allegations of Trump’s sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels. The payment was claimed to have been conducted with Trump’s full knowledge and at his direction. Cohen’s testimony aimed to establish that Trump was not only aware of but actively orchestrated the payment to influence the 2016 Presidential Election outcome.

Let’s consider the effectiveness of the cross-examination. 

Personalising the Cross-Examination

Todd Blanche began the cross examination by focusing on comments Cohen had made on social media about him. See extract below from page 3651 of the transcript:

Blanche: "You know who I am, don't you, Mr. Cohen?" 

Cohen: "Yes, I do." 

Blanche: "You've called me names in the press; referred to me in derogatory terms in your public appearances, haven't you?" 

Cohen: "I may have said some things." 

Blanche: "You went on TikTok and called me a 'Crying Little Shit;' didn't you?" 

Cohen: "That sounds like something I would say."

By referencing a derogatory remark made by Cohen about him personally, Blanche shifts the focus from the substantive issues in the trial, to a personal grievance. This not only risks appearing unprofessional but also may make the cross-examination seem vindictive, which could result in alienating the jury. 

Questioning should not be driven by personal feelings. Questions should be relevant to the facts in issue, issues of reliability and/or credibility of the witnesses. 

Introduction of Hearsay Evidence 

Todd Blanche attempted to introduce hearsay evidence by asking the witness about statements made by his lawyer, Lanny Davis, to the District Attorney’s Office. See pages 3656-3658 of the transcript.

Blanche's questions about what Lanny Davis communicated to the District Attorney’s Office constitute hearsay because they rely on out-of-court statements made by Davis, who is not present to testify about those statements. 

The Prosecutor correctly objected to the hearsay nature of the questions and the judge sustained the objection. Blanche should have avoided asking about statements made by Davis to the District Attorney’s Office; he should have focused on the witness's direct experiences and knowledge without referring to out-of-court statements.

Inappropriate Questions about Communications between Cohen and His Lawyer

Lawyer-client privilege is a legal principle that protects communications between a client and their lawyer. This privilege is designed to encourage open and honest communication between clients and their lawyers, ensuring that clients can seek legal advice without fear that their communications will be disclosed to others.

Blanche asked a question about communications between Cohen and his lawyer. Such inquiries are typically privileged and should not be disclosed in court unless the privilege has been waived.

See page 3658 of the transcript.

Q: So let's go one month later. So now we are in February, February 22nd of 2021. Do you remember your lawyer talking to you about something he had been told --

MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Blanche should have refrained from asking about the content of communications between Cohen and his lawyer unless there was a clear waiver of the privilege. 

Jumping Between Topics – Haphazard Structure

Blanche’s cross-examination structure was haphazard because he abruptly transitioned from discussing the witness's social media activity to questions about the binder of documents without a clear or logical connection. He simply veered from one topic to another unrelated topic and back to the social media topic. This haphazard structure can confuse the witness and make it difficult for the court to follow the line of questioning.

See pages 3670 to 3675 of the transcript.

Q: And on X, you regularly talk about President Trump; correct?

A: I speak about Mr. Trump, yes.

Q: Both in response to comments, but also when you re-tweet or when you post your own; correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, you've also commented on your Political Beat Down Podcast -- so you have Mea Culpa, and you have Political Beat Down; correct?

A: Correct.

Q: You've commented on March 19th, 2024, so before the case started, but about two months ago, that you were meeting with the Government in preparation for your testimony, which started yesterday; correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And you also, actually, displayed a binder, do you recall doing that, a binder of materials that the District Attorney had given you to study before your testimony; correct?

A: I recall that binder.

Q: What's in that binder?

A: Publicly-available documents that the District Attorney's Office provided to me.

Q: Which publicly-available documents?A: I believe my allocution, and other documents regarding the case. My personal case.

Q: So your allocution, meaning your guilty -- you had two guilty plea allocutions; correct?

A: Correct.

Q: So you mean like your guilty plea allocutions, certain materials in connection with your case; is that what you're saying?

A: Correct, yes.

Q: And they asked you to study that; correct?

A: They gave it to my attorney. I took it from my attorney to bring home to read.

Q: And you read it; correct?

A: It was a while ago, yes.

Q: Well, you were talking about it on your Podcasts, March 19th, so when you say a while ago, you mean within the past couple of months?

A: Correct.

Q: You've also talked about, extensively, on Mea Culpa, your desire to see that President Trump gets convicted in this case; correct?

A: Sounds like something I would say.

Blanche should have completed all questions related to TikTok, X, and podcasts before transitioning to document-related questions. In order to make it clear that he was moving on to a different topic, he could have used a signpost, such as: ‘Let’s move on, in terms of the binder of documents you mentioned a few minutes ago….’ 

Inappropriate Use of Compound Questions

In cross-examination, clarity and precision of questions are absolutely essential in order to control the witness. Compound questions, which bundle 2 or more questions into one, can confuse witnesses and jurors alike, leading to ambiguous responses. 

There were a number of compound questions in Blanche’s cross-examination. See extract below from pages 3684 of the transcript:

Blanche: "Well, my point is, that you had success helping the Trump Organization before you started working for them, which is, presumably, why they offered you a job; correct?"

The problem with the question is that the witness may agree with the first part of the question and disagree with the second part. So the witness might answer, “yes and no”. Which would be wholly unhelpful to the advocate and to the jury.

Breaking down the questions into simpler, single questions would not only make it easier for the witness to provide clear and specific answers but also help the jury and the court follow the testimony more effectively. Therefore Blanche could have asked:

1.   You had success helping the Trump Organization before you started working for them?
2.   Presumably, this is why they offered you a job; correct?

In each instance, breaking down the questions into simpler, single questions would not only make it easier for the witness to provide clear and specific answers but also help the jury and the court follow the testimony more effectively.

Lack of clarity regarding the nature of the defence

An advocate must effectively convey their case through cross-examination. The advocate must make evident the respective parties' positions on the issues. In this instance, the clarity of Trump's defence strategy was compromised as Todd Blanche failed to assertively present his case and put conclusions on critical issues.

Consider a specific example from the cross-examination, where Blanche transitions abruptly between topics without reaching a clear conclusion on the first topic. On page 3688 to 3689 of the transcript, Blanche explores Michael Cohen's prior favourable statements about Trump. It appeared that he was intending to highlight Cohen’s earlier support to challenge the credibility of his current, more critical testimony. However, rather than concluding this line of questioning in a way that might cast doubt on Cohen's credibility or suggest a motive for his changed stance, Blanche shifts abruptly to an entirely different subject:

Blanche: "And you’ve said -- just for some examples, in 2015, you publicly said he was a good man?"

Cohen: "Yes."

Blanche: "That he’s a man who cares deeply about this country; right?"

Cohen: "I said that."

Blanche: "That he’s a man who tells it straight?"

Cohen: "Yes, sir."

Instead of concluding this line of questioning with a statement or a question that link Cohen’s previous positive assessments of Trump to his credibility or motives for his current testimony, Blanche immediately shifts to Cohen’s involvement in financial transactions:

Blanche: "Moving on, let's discuss the payments made in 2016. You handled those transactions, correct?"

Cohen: "Yes, I was involved."

Blanche fails to conclude the first topic effectively. He does not emphasise how Cohen’s earlier positive views contrasted with his later negative statements. He therefore missed an opportunity to suggest that Cohen’s shift could be seen as opportunistic or self-serving, influenced by external pressures or personal benefits rather than genuine changes in perception. This lack of conclusion makes the first part of the testimony seem less relevant, potentially confusing the jury about its significance to the case. 

NB This is part one of a four part series on the Advocacy techniques employed by the advocates in the Trump hush money trial. 

The trial transcripts of Michael Cohen’s cross examination can be found here:

Tunde is a distinguished junior barrister recognised for his advocacy skills, particularly in serious and high-profile criminal cases. Tunde's legal practice encompasses general and serious crime, business and financial crime. His expertise extends to advising on money laundering and anti-corruption regulations, as well as brand management, contractual, and reputation issues for high-profile individuals and sports professionals. 

Tunde's achievements include overturning a wrongful conviction in a groundbreaking case and receiving awards such as Young Barrister of the Year. He is also an Football Association registered intermediary and advises athletes in various sports. Tunde contributes to legal discourse through publications and speaking engagements and is involved in significant community and international projects.

1. Choosing Law: Growing up on a council estate in Hackney, what inspired you to pursue a career in law?

My interest in pursuing a career in law was sparked by a combination of personal experiences and a deep-seated desire to effect positive change. Growing up on a Hackney council estate, I witnessed firsthand the struggles faced by marginalised communities and the lack of access to justice. I was particularly inspired by the stories of individuals who, despite their circumstances, fought tenaciously for their rights and sought justice. This ignited a passion within me to pursue a career where I could advocate for those who were often overlooked and provide a voice for the voiceless. The transformative power of law to bring about social change was a compelling motivation that drove me to this path.

2. Obstacles Overcome: What were the most significant obstacles you faced on your journey to becoming a barrister, and how did you overcome them?

One of the most significant obstacles I faced was balancing academic responsibilities with the need to support my family financially. Working multiple part-time jobs in the food and retail sectors while studying took a toll on my academic performance, resulting in a 2.2 grade in my undergraduate degree. However, my determination and resilience propelled me forward. I sought mentorship, gained practical experience, and remained steadfast in my goal of becoming a barrister. This perseverance, along with the support from mentors and peers, helped me overcome these challenges and qualify as a barrister. Each obstacle I overcame fortified my resolve and deepened my commitment to making a difference through law.

3. Motivation Behind Law: How has your background shaped your approach to your cases?

My background has profoundly shaped my approach to cases. Growing up in a marginalised community, I understand the importance of representation and access to justice. This perspective drives me to approach each case with empathy, ensuring that my clients' voices are heard and their rights are protected. I am committed to providing diligent and compassionate legal representation, particularly for those who may feel disenfranchised by the legal system. My background fuels my passion for advocacy and my dedication to achieving justice for all. It reminds me daily of the importance of fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.

4. Career Turning Point: Could you describe a pivotal moment in your career that significantly influenced your professional path?

A pivotal moment in my career was founding Urban Lawyers in 2010. This initiative was born out of a desire to educate young people from underrepresented backgrounds about their legal rights and to address diversity issues within the legal profession. The success and impact of Urban Lawyers, which has reached thousands of individuals, significantly influenced my professional path by highlighting the importance of advocacy and social justice beyond individual cases. It reinforced my commitment to using the law as a tool for positive change and inspired me to continue working towards a more inclusive legal system. Urban Lawyers has become a beacon of hope and empowerment for many young people.

5. Diverse Career Choices: What inspired you to diversify your legal practice beyond traditional criminal law to areas like sports management and financial crime?

Diversifying my legal practice was driven by a desire to challenge myself and broaden my impact. Engaging in sports management and financial crime allowed me to apply my legal expertise in new and dynamic fields. This diversification not only expanded my skill set but also provided opportunities to influence different sectors and address unique legal challenges. The variety in my practice keeps my work intellectually stimulating and enables me to make a difference in multiple areas of law. It’s about pushing boundaries and constantly evolving to make the most significant impact possible.

6. Defining Case: Is there a particular case you've worked on that you believe defines your career? What was the case and how did it impact you?

The case that defines my career is undoubtedly the overturning of Dwaine George’s wrongful conviction. This case highlighted the power of the legal system to correct its errors and the critical role of dedicated advocacy in achieving justice. It impacted me deeply by reinforcing my commitment to fighting for those who have been wronged and underscoring the importance of perseverance, meticulous legal work, and the pursuit of justice. This case serves as a constant reminder of why I chose this profession and the profound difference that dedicated legal representation can make.

7. Proudest Community Project: With your extensive involvement in community projects, which initiative are you most proud of, and why?

I am most proud of founding Urban Lawyers. This initiative has had a profound impact on educating young people about their legal rights and addressing diversity within the legal profession. It has reached thousands of individuals, providing them with opportunities, mentorship, and support. Seeing the tangible difference it has made in the lives of so many people is incredibly fulfilling and reinforces the importance of community engagement and advocacy. Urban Lawyers embodies the belief that everyone, regardless of their background, deserves the chance to succeed and make a difference.

8. Impact of Urban Lawyers Initiative: How has your experience with the Urban Lawyers initiative shaped your views on legal access and justice?

Urban Lawyers has significantly shaped my views on legal access and justice. It has highlighted the systemic barriers that prevent marginalised communities from accessing legal services and underscored the importance of education and representation. The initiative has reinforced my belief that the legal profession must be proactive in promoting inclusivity and accessibility. It has also shown me the power of grassroots efforts in driving social change and the need for continued advocacy to ensure justice for all. Urban Lawyers has been a testament to the impact that dedicated efforts can have on creating a more just and equitable society.

9. Meaning of the MBE: What does being awarded an MBE signify to you personally and professionally?

Being awarded an MBE in 2016 and an OBE in 2024 is a profound honour that signifies recognition of my efforts to promote social mobility and justice within the legal profession. Personally, it reflects my journey from a Hackney council estate to achieving significant milestones. Professionally, it acknowledges the impact of my work and the importance of diversity and inclusivity in the legal field. These honours motivate me to continue striving for excellence and making a positive difference. They serve as a reminder that with dedication and perseverance, we can overcome any obstacle and make a meaningful impact. Being awarded was a humbling honour, one that I accepted with a deep sense of gratitude and responsibility. I appreciated that such awards hold different meanings for different people, given their complex historical context. I believed that change comes from within, and recognitions like this empowered me to continue making impactful changes. This honour was not just about my journey, but a tribute to the strength and resilience of our communities. It belonged to everyone who dared to dream and work for a fairer, more equitable world. It was a powerful reminder that no matter where we start, our efforts can lead to meaningful change. I was profoundly moved and inspired to keep pushing forward

10. Life Outside the Law: What are your favourite activities or hobbies outside of your professional life?

Outside of my professional life, I enjoy reading, travelling, and spending time with family and friends. I am also passionate about sports and often engage in physical activities such as running and football. These activities provide a much-needed break from work and help in maintaining a balanced and fulfilling life. They remind me of the importance of joy, connection, and taking time to recharge.

11. Alternative Career Path: If you had not pursued a career in law, what profession do you think you would have been drawn to and why?

If I had not pursued a career in law, I believe I would have been drawn to a career as a track and field athlete. During my school years, I competed at a very high level in track and field, with many of my contemporaries going on to represent Great Britain. My passion for athletics, coupled with the discipline, dedication, and competitive spirit required in sports, would have made this an ideal alternative career path. Being an athlete would have allowed me to channel my drive for excellence and my commitment to pushing boundaries in a different but equally fulfilling way. Sports, like law, requires perseverance, resilience, and a relentless pursuit of excellence.

Metropolitan Police Charge Woman in Connection with Prison Misconduct

Linda De Sousa Abreu, a 30-year-old from Fulham, London, has been charged with misconduct in public office following the emergence of a social media video showing a prison officer allegedly engaged in sexual acts with an inmate at HMP Wandsworth. The video was filmed by another prison inmate. The Metropolitan Police initiated an investigation after the video came to light, leading to De Sousa Abreu's arrest at Heathrow Airport on June 28. She was preparing to board a flight to Madrid when arrested. The incident raises serious concerns, especially in the wake of recent critical reports about the management at Wandsworth Prison, where the alleged misconduct occurred. De Sousa Abreu is due to appear at Isleworth Crown Court on July 29th.

Editor’s Comment

There is a growing problem of prison officers having affairs with inmates. 

Evidence suggests such relationships are becoming more common, with 37 prison staff dismissed for misconduct since 2019, nearly double the number from the previous four years.

Former prison governors and experts suggest that prisoners exploit vulnerabilities in officers, leading to relationships that often result in smuggling contraband. 

The high turnover of young, inexperienced staff, combined with inadequate training, exacerbates the issue. Officers, sometimes as young as 18, receive only 10 weeks of training, compared to longer training periods in the past and in other countries like Norway.

Experts emphasise the need for better training, support for staff, and strict boundaries to prevent such relationships. The Ministry of Justice has attributed the rise in detected incidents to a crackdown by the counter-corruption unit but acknowledges the need for ongoing improvements in training and staff management to address this serious issue.

UK woman admits helping end life of terminally ill son

Antonya Cooper admitted giving her terminally ill seven-year-old child a huge dose of morphine to end his suffering more than 40 years ago. Her son, Hamish, was diagnosed at five years old with neuroblastoma, a rare cancer that mostly affects children. He was initially given a prognosis of three months. After 16 months of cancer treatment at Great Ormond Street Hospital, his life was extended but he was left in great pain, his mother said. She said her son Hamish had experienced “horrendous suffering and intense pain” as a result of his stage four cancer and “beastly” treatment.

“On Hamish’s last night, when he said he was in a lot of pain, I said: ‘Would you like me to remove the pain?’ and he said: ‘Yes please, mama’,” Cooper, 77, told BBC Radio Oxford. “And through his Hickman Catheter, I gave him a large dose of morphine that did quietly end his life.”

Cooper, made the admission to help efforts to change the law on assisted dying. Helping someone to die is illegal in England, but both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak have promised to give parliamentary time to debate the issue.

In 2015, MPs rejected moves to allow assisted dying by 330 votes to 118. But support for change has grown significantly both among MPs and the general public. Opinion polls have shown 75% of the public back legalisation of assisted dying.

Cooper is terminally ill herself, and said her diagnosis had reinforced her views in assisted dying. 

In parts of the UK and British Isles, steps are being taken towards legalising assisted dying. The Isle of Man – a crown dependency with its own legislature – could become the first jurisdiction to change the law with a bill progressing through the Tynwald. Assisted dying could be available to residents from 2025.

Jersey, another crown dependency, is also set to vote on legislation next year. If it passes, an assisted dying service for residents would likely be in place by mid-2027.

In the Scottish parliament, a bill to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults could have its first vote later this year.

Editor’s Comment

In England and Wales, suicide and attempted suicide are not criminal offences. However, under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, it is illegal to encourage or assist another person’s suicide or attempted suicide with the intention of doing so. Prosecutions for this offence can only be initiated with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) follows the principles in the Code for Crown Prosecutors when deciding on prosecutions, considering both the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest. For assisted suicide cases, these general principles are supplemented by a specific prosecution policy. This policy guides prosecutors on applying the evidential and public interest tests but does not guarantee immunity from prosecution or legalise assisted suicide or euthanasia.

There have been several legal challenges regarding assisted suicide, particularly involving disabled or terminally ill individuals needing assistance to end their lives. In June 2014, the Supreme Court examined the cases of Tony Nicklinson, Paul Lamb, and AM, (R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) (AP) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38).

The Appellants argued that the law on assisted suicide infringed their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court, by a majority of seven to two, decided against declaring the law incompatible, deeming Parliament the appropriate body to address this issue.

Following the Supreme Court decision, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed applications from Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb in July 2015, (Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 2478/15 and 1787/15)).

Female Genital Mutilation of 3 year old child – Appeal against sentence of 7 years imprisonment

On 26 October 2023 Amina Noor was convicted after a trial at the Central Criminal Court of  assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas, a girl's genitalia whilst outside the United Kingdom, (section 3 Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985). On 16 February 2024 the appellant was sentenced by the trial judge, Mr Justice Bryan, to seven years imprisonment.

The Background Facts

The appellant was born in Somalia. She left Somalia when she was 8 and went to live in Kenya. In about 2000 when she was 16 she went to the UK. She was naturalised and given UK citizenship in 2005.

In 2006, the appellant went to Kenya with a three-year-old girl, referred to as Jade. The appellant and Jade stayed at the appellant’s mother’s home near Mombasa. According to the appellant’s testimony at trial, during this visit, under significant familial and cultural pressure, she was involved in taking Jade to a location where FGM was performed. Noor claimed she was unaware of the specifics of the procedure, believing it to involve only minor physical contact, influenced by her mother’s use of terms like "gudniin" and "sunnah" which she didn't fully understand. 

In 2018, Jade, then aged 16, disclosed to a teacher that she had been subjected to FGM. Medical examinations subsequently confirmed this.

The Sentencing

At the time of sentencing, the appellant was 40-years-old and lived in London with her husband, a mechanic, and their seven children. She had no previous convictions. Her children ranged in age from 2 to over 16. She was described by her children as the foundation of their family unit. They expressed severe concerns about the implications of her imprisonment on their stability and future. 

A pre-sentence report, (PSR), outlined the appellant’s minimal education and lifelong devotion to family care. The PSR highlighted her lack of previous employment and the significant cultural and familial pressures she faced, which may have shaped her views and responses to FGM as something normalised from her own experiences. Psychiatric evaluations revealed  enduring psychological challenges, including complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from early life trauma, depressive disorders, and anxiety, exacerbated by the prospect of incarceration. Her medical history, reviewed by her general practitioner, suggested a correlation between her chronic gynaecological issues and her own early subjection to FGM. She was also diagnosed with fibromyalgia, 

Both the prosecution and defence submitted comprehensive sentencing notes to the judge. The prosecution identified key aggravating factors, such as a breach of trust and the victim's particular vulnerability, alongside mitigating factors such as the cultural pressures on the appellant, her own victimisation by FGM, and the impact of imprisonment on her children. The prosecution referenced analogous offences under the Sentencing Council guidelines, including causing grievous bodily harm with intent and failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM, to suggest a framework for sentencing. 

In determining the sentence, the judge balanced the serious physical harm suffered by the victim with the appellant's personal circumstances, noting her role as a mother and the cultural pressures she faced. He ultimately adjusted the starting point for sentencing to reflect these factors, along with a consideration of the undue delay in bringing the case to trial, which he found placed additional strain on the appellant and her family. Despite acknowledging the appellant’s difficult personal circumstances and health issues, he deemed a suspended sentence inappropriate given the gravity of the offence. Thus, the judge concluded with a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment, reflecting both the need for a deterrent in such serious cases and the specific mitigating factors presented.

The grounds of appeal

1. The judge erred when he found as a fact that the appellant was aware in 2006 that Jade was to undergo Type 1 FGM and that she assisted and encouraged that procedure.  
2. The judge used the wrong offence specific guidelines as analogous to the offence committed by the appellant. Insofar as it might have been appropriate to use those guidelines, the judge miscategorised the appellant's behaviour. 
3. The judge failed sufficiently to reflect the powerful mitigation available to the appellant. 
4. The reduction applied by the judge for delay did not properly reflect the adverse effect thereof on the appellant and her family.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, noting that the offence under Section 3 of the 2003 Act constitutes grave offending, warranting significant custodial sentences. The court found that the trial judge had judiciously applied the sentencing guidelines for analogous offences, notably those for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Although a minor error in the harm categorisation was acknowledged, it did not substantially affect the appropriateness of the 7-year sentence imposed, given the serious nature of the offence and the need for deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the imposed sentence was not manifestly excessive.