Jared McNally

R v JS – 2022 – representing Defendant as Islweorth Crown Court accused of the importation of over 200 kg of class A drugs. This case is related to operation Venetic. In 2020, the National Crime Agency announced that it had infiltrated the secure messaging system ‘Encrochat’, said to be used exclusively by people engaging in criminal activity. Operation Venetic has so far resulted in around 750-800 arrests.

R v RO – 2022 – representing an ex Choir master accused of historic sex offences spanning a period of 30 year.

R v KA – 2022- representing 1 of 6 Defendants accused of manslaughter and conspiracy to burgle.

R v AR – 2022 – representing lead Defendant in a multi handed allegation of supplying in excess of 70kg of class A drugs.

R v MD – 2022 – representing a Head teacher, at Southwark Crown Court, accused of operating an unregistered school.

R v KL – 2022 – representing a paramedic accused of causing death by dangerous driving x2 whilst on duty driving an ambulance.

R v IA – 2021 – representing Defendant accused of being a member of an organised crime group in South Manchester involved in a conspiracy to endanger life.

R v AM – 2021 – representing student accused of serious sexual offences.

R v JH 2020 – representing Defendant accused of conspiracy to handle stolen goods to the value of £2,250,000.

R v MS – 2020 – representing Defendant accused of conspiracy to steal to the value of £500,000.

R & CA – 2020 – representing a Head teacher accused of breaching the Coronavirus regulations.

R v AB – 2020 – representing football fan accused of racially abusing a Manchester United footballer.

R v AH – 2020 – representing Defendant at Manchester Crown Court accused of being involved in the supply of over 20 Kg of class A drugs and firearms.

R v JA – 2019 – successfully defended a senior prison officer accused of Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Health & Safety offences. After a 4 week trial, the Defendant was acquitted of all charges by the jury who took less than 2 hours to reach their verdicts of Not Guilty.

R V CT – 2019 – represented an alleged prominent member of the notorious ‘A Team’, a Serious & Organised Crime Group from Salford. The case involved drugs, violence and extortion and revenge for the “execution” of Salford “Mr Big” Paul Massey. The Defendant was acquitted of conspiracy to murder.

R v MA – 2019 – acted on behalf of a care worker accused, with other nurses and senior managers, of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The prosecution relied on a ‘whistle blower’. The Crown, after cross examination of their witnesses, offered no evidence against the Defendant and she was acquitted.

R v GT – 2019 – represented the only Defendant to be acquitted of conspiracy to kidnap which involved an Organised Crime Group in Preston and Wales who hired the services of an ex SAS soldier to track down and kidnap a rival gang member.

R v DL – 2018 – successfully defended a teacher accused of having a sexual relationship with a pupil  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5625827/Teacher-Deborah-Lowe-cleared-having-sex-teenage-pupil-35-years-junior.html

R v JT – 2018 – successfully defended a prison officer accused of Gross Negligence Manslaughter at the Central Criminal Court in London.  The 1st case of its kind in the UK.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-42878661

R v AG – Acted on behalf of a senior prison officer charged along with two other prison officers with misconduct in public office following the death of a prisoner. The prosecution followed investigations conducted by HMP Service, Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and two police forces. Successfully excluded critical expert evidence and submission of no case to answer upheld – acquitted.  https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/three-hmp-nottingham-prison-officers-921632

Bank manager accused of fraud

Midwife accused of Gross Negligent Manslaughter arising out of the death of a baby at a hospital in Leeds.

Prisons officers accused of Misconduct in Public Office and Gross Negligence Manslaughter following the death of inmates at HMP Preston, HMP Leeds, HMP Nottingham, HMP Woodhill, HMP Preston, HMP Belmarsh, HMP Low Newton, HMP Swaleside and HMP Preston.

R v G – representing defendant charged with the unlawful killing of her father.

R v T – successfully defended a mental health nurse before Liverpool Crown Court in relation to allegations of serious sexual abuse.

R  v AJ – successfully defended a nurse accused of Fraud before Sheffield Crown Court.

R & P –  teacher accused of a series of violent assaults upon pupils.

R & L – successfully represented a safe guarding teacher accused of child neglect and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

R v S – G4S officer accused of misconduct in a public office.  This case featured on BBC’s panorama documentary and involved allegations of misconduct, assault and neglect at Medway Secure Detention Centre.

Operation Seabrook – prison officer accused of a series of violent assaults at Medomsley Detention Centre, County Durham, principally in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Operation Elveden – instructed to represent a public official accused of selling stories to journalist. This was a Metropolitan Police Service investigation that revealed the payments made to public officials by journalists for information. It followed two parliamentary committees and the Leveson Inquiry which revealed serious questions over the techniques used by some which may have amounted to systematic and flagrant breaches of the law. The range and circumstance of this activity was of a scale not previously encountered by police or CPS.

Murder Cases

R v EF – 2019 – acted for the lead Defendant in a multi handed murder at Manchester Crown Court.

R V CT – 2019 – represented an alleged prominent member of the notorious ‘A Team’, a Serious & Organised Crime Group from Salford. The case involved drugs, violence and extortion and revenge for the “execution” of Salford “Mr Big” Paul Massey. The Defendant was acquitted of conspiracy to murder.

R v G – defended in an attempt murder involving complex psychiatric and toxicology evidence.

R v D – represented a vulnerable Defendant in a 2 handed ‘cut throat’ case involving complex issues of causation and medical evidence.  Described by the police as “one of the most brutal and appalling” cases they had investigated.

R v J – Preston Crown Court; defended in murder allegation where defendant was extradited from Spain for his alleged role in murder of a drug dealer whose body has never been recovered. Extensive issues of PII raised.

R v Z – represented 17 year old youth accused of a gangland murder outside a Manchester Pub.

Conspiracy Cases

R v JH – 2020 – representing Defendant accused of conspiracy to handle stolen goods to the value of £2,250,000.

R v GA – 2020 – conspiracy to supply class A drugs before Exeter Crown Court.

R v SH – 2020- conspiracy to supply class A drugs involving 19 Defendant’s in a multi-million pound cross-Pennine operation.

R v MS – 2020 – representing Defendant accused of conspiracy to steal to the value of £500,000

R v IA – 2020 – representing Defendant accused of being a member of an organised crime group in South Manchester involved in a conspiracy to endanger life.

R v AH -2020 – representing Defendant at Manchester Crown Court accused of being involved in the supply of over 20 Kg of class A drugs and firearms.

R v JS -2020 – representing Defendant as Islweorth Crown Court accused of the importation of over 200 kg of class A drugs. This case is related to operation Venetic. In 2020, the National Crime Agency announced that it had infiltrated the secure messaging system ‘Encrochat’, said to be used exclusively by people engaging in criminal activity. Operation Venetic has so far resulted in around 750-800 arrests.

R v GT – 2019 – represented the only Defendant to be acquitted of conspiracy to kidnap which involved an Organised Crime Group in Preston and Wales who hired the services of an ex SAS soldier to track down and kidnap a rival gang member.

R v M – Operation Optica, case involved two rival criminal gangs and a number of ‘shootings’ in the Salford area.

R v P – Operation Dauntless, advanced fee inheritance fraud with a value in excess of £850,000.

R v R – Operation Supola, Organised Crime Group from Liverpool involved in the supply of class A drugs.

R v H – defended in Manchester gang land drugs and firearms conspiracy.

R v S – Operation Anneal; defended in multi handed conspiracy to supply cocaine involving a serious & organised crime group from Manchester.

R v P – Teeside Crown Court; 14 Defendant trial alleging conspiracy to supply Class A drugs to the North East.

R v M – Manchester Crown Court; multi handed conspiracy to commit robbery.

R v S –Manchester Crown Court; represented 1 of 24 Defendants in relation to an allegation of conspiracy to steal.

R v C  – Manchester Crown Court; conspiracy to commit robbery.

R v A  – Operation Yonside; represented 1 of 31 Defendants before Caernarvon Crown Court.  Case involved an organised crime group involved in the supply of large quantities of cocaine & cannabis over an 8 year period.

R v S – conspiracy to commit fraud; case prosecuted by Trading standards involving ‘clocking’ of motor vehicles.

R v H – Liverpool Crown Court; Defendant charged in large scale cocaine supply conspiracy (22 tonnes of class A & B drugs) involving covert recordings and international agencies. Described by the Judge as the “largest multi commodity conspiracy in the UK to date”.

R v H – Plymouth Crown Court; multi million pound conspiracy to supply class A drugs to the South.

R v J – Operation Kenya, represented Defendant who plotted to carry out a series of robberies across the North West.

R v L – Represented one of several Defendants’ charged in connection with an international conspiracy to import substantial quantities of cocaine using private aircraft owned by the conspirators.

Sexual Offences Cases

R v DL – successfully defended teacher accused of sexual activity with a child

R v JM – successfully defended elderly Defendant accused of historic sexual offences upon a family member.

R v  R – defended high net worth individual accused of serious sexual offences.

R v S – successfully defended teacher accused of voyeurism.

R v L – historic sexual offences.

R v T – successful defence of 21 allegations of historic sexual offences.

R v G – Operation Routh – Represented Defendant linked to the Rochdale child sex grooming investigation.

R v C – successfully defended teacher accused of rape.

JC & Mckenzie – represented a probation officer accused of multiple failings in relation to the supervision of an offender who went onto to commit murder.

AC – representing the father in respect of an inquest touching upon the death of his 1 year old daughter who was murdered by the partner of the child’s mother.

The Brookhouse Inquiry.  We represented 3 members of staff. This Government Inquiry was set up to investigate the decisions, actions and circumstances surrounding the mistreatment of individuals who were detained at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) shown in the BBC Panorama programme “Under-Cover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets”, aired on 4 September 2017

JW & Local Authority, NHS Trust & others – Represented the family throughout the Inquest process and subsequent Civil claims. Investigated systematic failures in care received from local authority care home, NHS Trust and contractors regarding the risk of falls and equipment used for an admitted patient with limited mobility. The Coroner found the cause of death was an accident contributed to by neglect received at the care home and ordered a national investigation into the use of bed levers.

JW & Cheddle Lodge, Stockport Council & Others – Represented the family regarding failings in the care home management of a vulnerable patient with cerebral palsy and epilepsy. The Coroner concluded with a narrative conclusion, that JW was unobserved and not actively monitored by the care home.

R & C – currently representing a probation Officer who was the supervisor of an offender who, whilst released in the community, went onto commit murder.

R & Moore – represented 2 Senior Prison Officers, one of which had been prosecuted and then acquitted of misconduct in a public office. Successful submissions prevented the jury from considering the evidence in relation to the 2 prison officers.

R & Harvey – represented a Senior prison officer employed at HMP Woodhill, subsequent to him being found not guilty of Gross Negligence Manslaughter at the Central Criminal Court

R & Smith – represented an Officer Support Grade employed at HMP Belmarsh in relation to the death of a prisoner.

R & Heatman – represented 2 prison officers at a 4 week Article 2 jury inquest at Liverpool Coroner’s Court.

R & Armstrong – represented 3 midwives before Warrington Coroners Court in relation to the sad death of a baby shortly after birth.

R & Streetley – represented a Care Worker before Doncaster Coroners Court touching the death of an elderly lady who choked to death in a Care Home.

R & Fields – represented the family of a RAF veteran who was murdered in December 2014.  This case raised issues surrounding Article 2 of the Human Rights Act and serious concerns as to the events leading to his very sad death.

R & Barlow – represent Macmillan nurse in relation to allegations of a criminal nature and linked proceedings before Bolton Coroners Court.

R & Cousins – represented mental health nurse before Bradford Coroners Court.

R & Foster – represented nurse in relation to a death in custody at HMP Durham.

R & Smith – represented an Officer Support Grade employed at HMP Elmley before Maidstone Coroners Court.

General Medical Council v Dr O:  We were instructed to represent Dr O, a Consultant working in the NHS, both as a substantive consultant for one Trust and a locum consultant for another.  During the Covid-19 pandemic, Dr X was required to work from home. On over 90 occasions during that period Dr O worked shifts as a locum during the same period as she undertook her substantive role. She was paid for the locum shifts whilst also receiving her salary.  The Tribunal found that Dr O had not known she was doing anything wrong and rejected the GMC’s allegation of dishonesty. Further, the Tribunal found that the double running was not, in itself, misconduct and that Dr O’s fitness to practise was not impaired. Finally, they declined to issue a warning, meaning that Dr O was free to continue to practice without any restriction or regulatory action.

https://www.lincolnhousechambers.com/simon-gurney-ensures-no-regulatory-action-consultant-accused-dishonesty-double-running-two-nhs-trusts

General Medical Council v Dr M:  We were instructed to represent an NHS Consultant referred to the GMC over allegations of dishonesty in the preparation of expert medico-legal reports in relation to minor road traffic accidents. He was accused of running a “report writing factory” with a consultation room like a “cattle market” and fabricating details in the report of a patient, claiming to have undertaken examinations that were never performed. Following a 10-day hearing the Tribunal rejected the allegation of dishonesty, accepted that the Doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired and declined to impose a warning.

General Medical Council v Dr E:  We were instructed to represent a speciality doctor in ophthalmology who was accused of sexual assault of a colleague, a fellow medical practitioner, who had also seen him as a patient. He was accused of inviting her to his home address, where he propositioned her, before forcing himself upon her when she refused his advances. The case was investigated by the Police but no charges were brought. The allegations were therefore referred to a Medical Practitioners Tribunal. The Doctor faced 50 particularised allegations. After a contested hearing lasting 10 days the Tribunal found none of the charges proved, with the result that the Doctor was free to continue practising without restrictions.

General Medical Council v Dr A: The doctor had been referred by the GMC to the Interim Orders Tribunal Panel because of findings of fact made against him in the family court, including rape.  We managed to persuade the panel to allow the Doctor to practise and impose an interim conditions of practise as opposed to suspension.

General Medical Council v Dr S: We represented an Italian Doctor who had been referred to the GMC over allegations of physical and sexual assault of a patient.  Ultimately, the GMC did not refer him to the Tribunal.

HG v Teacher Regulation Agency:  We were instructed to represent a teacher accused of using physical violence against four pupils and neglect of a fifth, during incidents that were alleged to have occurred between 2018 and 2020. The TRA referred her case to a Misconduct Panel on the basis that a prohibition order should be imposed to prevent her teaching. The allegations were based in large part on hearsay evidence, i.e. reports of the incidents from pupils who were not intended to be called as witnesses at the hearing. Detailed legal arguments led to the Panel excluding the evidence, resulting in 3 of the 5 allegations being withdrawn and a decision by the TRA not to proceed with the case any further.

GB v Teaching Regulation Agency:  instructed to represent GB, a retired teacher who was accused by the Teacher Regulation Agency, of engaging in a protracted sexual relationship with a pupil at a school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, over 20 years ago. GB had been referred by the TRA to a Disciplinary Panel, which was required to determine the veracity of the allegations made by the former pupil, who claimed she and GB had been engaged in an intimate relationship, when she was aged between 13 and 15 years old. She alleged that he had bought her gifts, grooming.  The Panel rejected the TRA’s case, concluding, on the balance of probabilities, that no inappropriate relationship ever took place.

EC v Teaching Regulation Agency:  we represented the Head of a Choir School who had been referred to the TRA because of inappropriate social media posts, which included alleged racism and child abuse.  We drafted a robust response and obtained various witness statements and testimonials.  We presented the TRA with a detailed and compelling defence bundle of documents which led to the TRA taking no further action.

PT v Teaching Regulation Agency: we represented the National Director of a Schools’ network accused of inappropriate behaviour towards a female pupil over 15 years previous.  By reviewing emails, messages, police records, and obtaining approximately 10 witness statements from ex teachers and ex pupils, we were able to demonstrate that the allegations were baseless, and that the ex-pupil was, in fact, stalking, PT.  After receiving our submissions, the TRA decided to take no further action.

GB v Teaching Regulation Agency:  instructed by a teacher who had been accused of assaulting his child some years earlier.  The police and social services were involved, which ultimately led to the teacher being referred to the Professional Conduct Committee.  We were instructed late in the day.  However, within only a few months of being instructed we successfully persuaded the TRA that their case was flawed and they withdrew their case before the hearing.

S v Teaching Regulation Agency:  instructed to represent a teacher accused of sexual misconduct in that he allegedly followed a 12-year-old girl in his car and then invited her into his car.  The teacher was arrested and then dismissed for gross misconduct.  The TRA refused to call the child as a witness and, instead, applied to adduce her evidence as hearsay.  We successfully challenged the same, which led to the TRA having no choice but to withdraw the allegations.

HCPC v HH:  instructed to represent an occupational therapist who had been convicted of serious criminal offences which led to a sentence of 2 years imprisonment.  As a result, she was struck off the register.   HH then applied, with our help, to be restored to the register. After a 3-day hearing, we persuaded the panel to allow the application and HH is now back practising as an OT. After the hearing, Counsel for the HCPC contacted our Jared McNally and told him that the application that we had prepared on behalf of HH was the best she had ever seen, or likely to see.  HH said this: “I honestly can’t recommend Clifford Johnston and Co solicitors more, and I think my feedback here won’t do justice how much respect, gratitude and appreciation I have for this firm and particularly Jared McNally.  It’s difficult to express in a review just how much I have appreciated his service, his excellent communication skills, his perseverance and his thoroughness throughout the case, whilst also having complete faith and belief in me and my abilities as his client. I actually cant thank Jared enough for what he has done for me over the past two years and the amazing result I received, which I never thought would be possible, he has honestly helped change my life’.                              

HCPC v IH:  we represented a Radiographer who had been referred to the HCPC  because a criminal conviction.  We submitted a detailed response and helped IH show the appropriate insight, reflection and remediation which led to the Investigation Committee taking no further action.

HCPC v HT:  we represented a physiotherapist accused of man handling a patient and failing to provide an adequate standard of care.  Through our written representations, we were able to demonstrate that the actions of HT were in accordance with the relevant guidance and that the allegations had no merit.   No further action was taken by the HCPC.

HCPC v MW: we represented a paramedic who had been accused of falsifying patient records, in that he incorrectly stated that Entonox had been provided to patients when it had not and that he had dishonestly concealed the fact that his colleague had, in fact, taking the Entonox.  After reviewing the evidence and medical records, we were able to show that the allegations were misconceived and that baseless.  The HCPC agreed and took no further action.

General Optical Council v GD:  we represented an Optician who had been dismissed from Specsavers and then referred to the GOC for allegedly stealing glasses, being abusive to his colleagues and posting fake online reviews.  The case was listed for a 15-day hearing.  During the hearing, we became concerned about the conduct of the GOC representatives which led to us submitting that the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process on the basis that it would be impossible to give the Registrant a fair hearing.  The Panel agreed and the case concluded with no further action.  In addition, we successfully applied for the Registrants costs.

Social Work England v SH:  instructed to represent a social worker who had been caught driving whilst under the influence of cocaine.  Initially, the SW lacked insight and denied any wrongdoing despite the strength of evidence against her.  Ultimately, SH admitted the charges and was able to show considerable insight, reflection and remediation.  The case was referred to a hearing which resulted in no action being taken.

Social Work England v MS:  MS was referred to SWE because he had breached confidentiality by  emailing a significant amount of service user records to his personal email address.  We persuaded the Case Examiners that, because of his insight and reflection, it was not necessary to refer his case to a hearing.

Social Work England v SS:  this was the social workers 2^nd referral to SWE within 12 months and having received a warning for misconduct previously.  It was alleged, and admitted, that she gave false details to the police.  However, after explaining the circumstances to SWE, the Case Examiners concluded the case with no further action.

Social Work England v SB:  the social worker had been accused of domestic violence against his wife and son, and his case was referred to a hearing.  Ultimately, we persuaded SWE to discontinue the case on the basis that they did not have sufficient evidence to prove their case.