They examine the Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 22 January 2026 and outlines the key provisions set to reshape sentencing law.
Clerk Details
- Clerk Name: Ellie Bloomfield
- Clerk Telephone: 01202 292102
- Clerk Email: [email protected]
Crime and Regulatory Crime
Juliet Osborne is completing her crime pupillage with 3PB, having worked for twelve months as a pupil barrister with a criminal defence solicitors' firm on the South Coast.
Recent cases include:
R v JK (2026, Southampton Magistrates’ Court): Defending, trial. The Defendant was charged with causing criminal damage to a shop in a widely reported case involving the dumping of hare carcasses. The identification of the Defendant was challenged. The Defendant was acquitted of causing criminal damage. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3ygj4d94o
R v GS (2026, High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court): Defending, trial. The Defendant, who was of good character, was charged with 4 dangerous dog offences. If convicted, a destruction order for the dog would have been made upon sentence. The Defendant was acquitted on all charges.
R v AP (2026, Southampton Magistrates’ Court): Defending, trial. The Defendant faced 4 charges of assault. The case was dismissed following a successful submission of no case to answer.
R v CH (2026, Weymouth Magistrates’ Court): Defending, sentence. The Defendant faced disqualification from driving as a ‘totter’. A successful exceptional hardship argument was advanced and the Defendant retained her driving licence.
R v JB (2026, Southampton Youth Court): Defending, sentence. The Defendant was charged with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Successfully persuaded the Court to give a conditional discharge.
R v SC (2026, Salisbury Crown Court): Defending, sentence. The Defendant was to be sentenced for breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and failing to comply with notification requirements. The convictions put the Defendant in breach of a suspended sentence order. Successfully persuaded the Court not to activate the suspended sentence.
R v DJ (2026, Bournemouth Crown Court): Defending, sentence. The Defendant was to be sentenced for s20 GBH and faced up to 5 years imprisonment. Advanced mitigation and successfully persuaded the Court to suspend the sentence.
R v MC (2026, Bournemouth Crown Court): Defending, sentence. The Defendant was to be sentenced for 4 offences, including possession of bladed article which, as a second offence, attracted a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months imprisonment. Successfully persuaded the Court that there were exceptional circumstances to justify not imposing the mandatory minimum sentence.
R v LF (2025, Bournemouth Crown Court): Defending, the defendant was initially charged with a serious head-stamping ABH. After successful representations, the prosecution accepted a lesser plea, resulting in the defendant receiving a 16-day community sentence.
R v AK (2025, Bournemouth Crown Court): Defending, sentence - PWITS A and possession of a bladed article. Mitigated sentence down to 2.5 years.
R v BP (2025, Southampton Crown Court): Defending, sentence - £2m conspiracy to steal and conspiracy to handle stolen goods. BP’s role distinguished from that of his co-defendants. Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Two co-defendants received significantly longer sentences.
Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v IF (2025, Northampton Magistrates’ Court): Defending, contested application for Sexual Risk Order – Allegations of grooming and multiple acts of a sexual nature towards IF’s stepdaughter. Evidence included WhatsApp messages spanning a two-year period. Application refused.
R v SR (2025, Poole Magistrates’ Court): Defending, acquittal - Successful argument against the admission of ‘res gestae’ evidence. The evidence was excluded and the case was dismissed.
R v HD (2025, Poole Magistrates’ Court): Defending, sentence - HD could be seen on CCTV breaking a bottle and making repeated stabbing actions towards the victim, who ultimately only suffered minor injuries and did not provide a statement to Police. CPS charged ABH, but relied upon the CCTV in the sentence hearing, emphasising that an attempt s.18 would have been charged had the victim provided a statement. After hearing mitigation on HD’s behalf, the court was persuaded to suspend the sentence.
-
Articles -
A New Suspended Reality – Significant Reform to Suspended Sentence Orders
23rd Mar 2026View Article
-
-
Recommendations "Juliet represented me in an initial hearing. She was clear, fair and understanding of my situation and circumstances. She was also very realistic. She gave me hope and a sense of real closure. I am very impressed with her understanding and help in all this and how good she was at being a persuasive advocate. I highly recommend Juliet. Awesome." Lay Client
"I am very grateful for all the support and guidance I received throughout my case. Ms. Juliet Osborne was professional, patient, and explained everything clearly. Thanks to her help, I felt informed and supported at every step. I would give her a full 5-star rating and highly recommend her services!" Lay Client
"We would like to thank you for your invaluable help throughout our court trial. You are a star." Lay Client
"Very happy with the outcome and what you have done for me. Thanks a lot. Criminal Defence Solicitor
Related News
-
3PB's second six pupil barrister, Juliet Osborne, and criminal law barrister, Nate Lara, have written an article titled ‘A New Suspended Reality – Significant Reform to Suspended Sentence Orders’. In this piece, they examine the Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 22 January 2026 and outlines the key provisions set to reshape sentencing law. They explore how these reforms aim to address the ongoing pressure on the UK’s prison system, both by reducing...
Continue reading
