Just like that, only a month to go until I am on my feet – pupillage really does go by in a flash! Month 5 was another busy month marked with observing more trials, a bit of Magistrates work, marshalling a Circuit Judge and completing the pupillage advocacy weekend with Lincoln’s Inn.

---

S. 25 Facilitation Trial

I had the opportunity to observe a trial where the defendant was charged with assisting unlawful immigration under s. 25, Immigration Act 1971. The novel thing in this case, thought by the learned judge to be the ‘first of its kind’, was that it involved a small boat crossing the channel, rather than a lorry driver. Usually, those on boats are charged with the simple offence of illegal entry under s. 24 of the same Act.

In summary, the evidence contained photographs of the defendant with his hand on the tiller of the boat. The boat had 79 individuals, none of whom had any legal right to enter the UK. There were text messages on the defendant’s phone which appeared to show exchanges between him and those who organised the crossing. The Crown’s case was that the defendant was a part of the organisation of the crossing and was always going to be the pilot of the boat. The defendant’s case was that he was just like any other passenger and then was thrust into the role of piloting the boat to save the lives of those on board.

Strictly speaking, all elements of the s. 25 offence were made out:

1. The defendant did an act;
2. Which facilitated (made easier) the commission of a breach of immigration law by individuals who were not citizens of the UK;
3. At the time, they knew or had reasonable cause for believing:
   • That the act facilitated the commission of a breach of immigration law by those individuals; and
   • That those individuals were not citizens of the UK.

There were two things for the jury to consider. The first, and less interesting point, was one of necessity. It would be a defence for the defendant to prove that piloting the boat was necessary in order to prevent serious injury or death to himself or another. It will only be necessary if a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would consider the action of piloting the boat to be a reasonable and proportionate response to the harm which was attempting to be prevented.

The second, and fairly novel point, was the manner in which the Crown’s case was put. Whilst, as a matter of law, the defendant is guilty of the offence under s. 25, the Crown invited the jury to convict the defendant on the basis that he was always going to be the pilot of the boat and to some degree, was involved in the organisation of the trip. These are not parts of the offence, however, as a matter of CPS policy and fairness, was an appropriate issue for the jury to consider. A defendant should not be convicted and sentenced on a basis which does not accurately describe the alleged conduct (which on any view, would have required a not insignificant period of immediate custody).

N.B. The above ‘blind spot’ has, to some extent, been resolved.  An offence of Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom has now been introduced under s. 21, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. This was passed into law after the date of the index offence and therefore, the defendant was charged under s. 25 as above instead. However, if committed today, the defendant would have almost certainly been charged under this new offence.

---

Assault by penetration trial

I had the opportunity to observe an assault by penetration trial which was being defended by my supervisor. The assaults were alleged to have taken place at various points, in various locations, over the course of the relationship. There were a few other counts on the indictment, including a common assault which the defendant had pleaded guilty to at the PTPH.

The jury returned a not guilty verdict on all counts after 34 minutes in deliberation. I think this was in part due to powerful evidence my supervisor managed to adduce under s. 41 YCEA – which I have highlighted in previous blog posts, but in short, tightly controls the admissibility of evidence relating to the sexual behaviour of complainants – and in part due to an important lie relating to the drug use of the complainant.

This illustrated the importance for me of full and proper disclosure, and full and proper consideration of that disclosure – the ‘nuggets of gold’ for this defendant’s case were hidden deep within the unused material and it is quite possible that the jury may have reached a different conclusion without this evidence.

---

Marshalling

I spent a day marshalling HHJ Simon Taylor KC, the deputy resident judge at Canterbury Crown Court. It was an invaluable experience. Walking around the jury rooms, the judge’s chambers and sitting on the judge’s bench for the day is such an interesting and insightful experience – it gives you a whole different perspective on the criminal justice system. As an advocate, your head is in your case and you know it inside out (hopefully) but as a judge, you are juggling so many different types of hearing and different types of case in one day – especially in Court 4 at Canterbury – it is hard to keep up. I have definitely taken away a new deal of respect for the work circuit judges deal with every day.

Beyond the experience of sitting on the bench, was the opportunity to get a judge’s insight on what they actually want from the advocates in their court. Tips on CCDCS, sentencing notes, witness handling, agreed facts, the list goes on. Really valuable stuff, especially when it comes from a judge who was a very successfully barrister and silk on the circuit prior to being uplifted to the bench. Beyond that was the learned judge’s genuine love and passion for the criminal bar which I am bound to say is infectious and inspiring. I hope every pupil can have this experience.

---

Written work

I have completed further sets of trial documents for various members of chambers as well as two defence statements for offences of s. 18 GBH (causing grievous bodily harm with intent) and assisting unlawful immigration to the UK.

I have also assisted in drafting a s. 8 request for specific disclosure under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

Finally, I drafted a set of written representation to the CPS for a s. 5, Public Order Act 1986 offence (harassment, alarm or distress).

---

Conclusion

Month 5 has been one of those periods that neatly captures why pupillage is equal parts intense, absorbing and genuinely rewarding. From grappling with novel points of law in a s.25 facilitation trial, to seeing forensic preparation and careful use of disclosure unravel a serious sexual allegation, the month reinforced how much criminal practice turns on detail, judgment and fairness. Marshalling offered a rare chance to step back and see the system from the Bench, while the advocacy weekend was a timely reminder that solid preparation underpins everything we do as advocates.

With just one month left before being on my feet, this stage of pupillage feels like a final tightening of the bolts: consolidating skills, absorbing good habits from supervisors and building the confidence to take responsibility for cases. Month 5 has been challenging, instructive and motivating in equal measure—and if it’s a sign of what lies ahead in the second six, I cannot wait to get started.