The secure CJSM email is:

pamela.rose@1mcb.cjsm.net

Pamela practises in all areas of criminal defence, including serious crime and offences alleging violence (attempted murder, section 18 and section 20 offences), drugs, firearms, robbery, animal welfare, abuse of process submissions and confiscation. She has appeared before the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions. She has significant experience in public order law and offences arising out of protests, having represented miners during the 1980s, anti-poll tax and anti-war protestors more recently. She has been noted for dealing with difficult and sensitive cases over the years. She has been led in cases ranging from murder to confiscation and RIPA and been both led junior and junior alone in the High Court in dangerous dogs cases.

Dangerous dogs & animal welfare

Pamela has extensive experience in dangerous dogs law and has appeared, been consulted, and advised in numerous cases since the ‘draconian’ Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was first enacted. Her work in this area is both under criminal and civil proceedings (Dogs Act 1871) and the work includes section 1 breed type, and section 3 aggravated and non-aggravated offences.

She has appeared on many occasions in both the magistrates’ courts (which include some of the ‘amnesty cases’ in Liverpool) and Crown Court.

Pamela has responded to consultations issued by DEFRA and the Sentencing Council. She has also done extensive research into The Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 No 764 (N.I.8) and Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001

She has written frequently on dangerous dogs law and its interpretation.

Recent cases

  • R v Rodney Haynes [2003] EWCA Crim 3247 – the Appellant could agree undertakings and appeals against destruction and disqualification orders;
  • An important and successful appeal on keepership/ ownership under s.1 Dangerous Dogs Act (a referral from the CCRC 00611/2005 Re Ashman to the Crown Court) which required extensive research and paperwork into Home Office circulars and statutes;
  • Appeals have also been by way of judicial review and case stated;
  • The Queen on the application of Sandhu v Isleworth Crown Court [2012] (EWHC) 1658 (Admin): the court has no power under the Dangerous Dogs Act to direct where a prohibited dog (Section 1, DDA) lives as there is no power in the Act to impose conditions, whereas the court does have a power if the charge is under Section 3 of the Act. When considering if the dog is a danger to public safety it is the dog that the court must consider and if the court decides that the dog does not present a danger to public safety and makes a contingent destruction order, the dog shall be exempted provided the conditions set out in the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991 (amendment in 1997) are satisfied. A person other than the owner can be keeper of a dog, this is not a transfer of ownership and therefore is not in contravention of Section 1(2)(c) of the DDA 1991;
  • R v Canterbury Crown Court 2012: By virtue of section 4A(5) an order for destruction may be contingent on measures for its control specified by the court. This can include the court having power to direct where the dog can reside.

Crime

Pamela practises in all areas of criminal defence, including serious crime and offences alleging violence (attempted murder, section 18 and section 20 offences), drugs, firearms, robbery, animal welfare, abuse of process submissions and confiscation. She has a tenacity when defending her client, both in her preparation for cases and in her advocacy.

Recent cases

  • R v Y & 3 Others Multi-handed importation of class A drugs with intent to supply at Woolwich Crown Court;
  • R v O & Others: Anti-war protestors at Hove Crown Court who successfully relied on defences under s.3 Criminal Law Act, reasonable excuse under Criminal Damage Act 1971 and necessity.

Education

  • Law Degree
  • Bar Vocational Course

Hobbies & interests

  • Border collies
  • Photography
  • Civil liberties
  • Jazz
  • Cinema
  • Animal health and welfare
Menu