Since qualifying as a solicitor at Sonn Macmillan Walker in 2008, Aysha has worked predominantly in the crown court department. She defends serious criminal offences such as rape, murder and serious violent crime, and she has specialised in modern slavery defences.
Aysha is accomplished in dealing with youths and vulnerable clients who have various disabilities and can only be handled by highly sensitive and experienced defence solicitors. She has specialised in defending victims of human trafficking using modern slavery defences.
She prides herself on the reputation she has built amongst clients and counsel for her client care and dedication to every case. She is extremely thorough, analysing each case for weaknesses in the prosecution evidence and actively seeking ways to strengthen her client’s defence, including through experts, witnesses and extensive investigation.
She is approachable and supports clients through daunting and confusing processes with empathy and reliability.
Aysha's recent success stories
Case Dropped Against Youth in Harrods Rolex Fraud
Aysha successfully brought the prosecution of a vulnerable child to an end.
Aysha’s 12-year-old client had entered Harrods with an adult where both attempted to purchase a £13,000 Rolex watch allegedly using a stolen credit card. The evidence against our client was solid.
However, simply having sufficient evidence to prosecute a child is not enough for the Crown Prosecution Service to justify putting a youth through stressful legal proceedings. The prosecution of a child must be in the public interest and must satisfy the requirements of the many guidelines on youth offending issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, guidelines which many prosecutors are unaware of.
Aysha assembled psychological evidence that her client suffered from a learning disability, a fact unknown to previous solicitors who had on other occasions encouraged him to plead guilty to offences.
Through dogged persistence, Aysha convinced the prosecution that it was not in the public interest to prosecute her client. The prosecution withdrew the charge.
The representation of children requires both legal acumen and patient care. Aysha’s work demonstrates the vital importance of ensuring that youths never face the prospect of a trial without first doing all that can be done to prevent them from being prosecuted at all.
Successful Defence of Youth in Drugs Case
Aysha represented a young Defendant charged with two offences of possession with intent to supply class A drugs. It was alleged that the Defendant was in the driver’s seat of a car and was found with three wraps of cocaine in his pocket and the remainder of the drugs were found in a chewing gum tub containing 35 wraps of cocaine under the driver’s seat.
Before the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing at the Crown Court, Aysha analysed the evidence and became aware that there was another passenger in the car whom the police not only did not arrest but did not speak to or obtain his details. The significance of this was that when the police asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle and searched him, they were only aware of the drugs found on him. The drugs under the seat were not found until later, by which time the other passenger had been left unsupervised sitting in the car with the drugs. The body worn footage also indicated that the drugs were handled by the police without gloves. Given these major issues with the Prosecution case and the fact that there was no CCTV in the vicinity, the phone forensics were negative and the Defendant was of good character, Aysha wrote a letter of representations to the Prosecution offering simple possession of the 3 wraps as per our client’s instructions.
The Prosecution did not respond, but on the date of the PTPH, Counsel Abigail Penny provided the Prosecutor with our letter and emphasised the issues and its significance and asked him to take a view. In Court the Prosecution offered no evidence on the possession with intent to supply charges and accepted a plea to simple possession of the 3 wraps found on him. The Defendant received a 2 year conditional discharge. Had he been convicted of possession with intent to supply the Judge would have had a starting point of 4 ½ years custody in mind.