Keima Payton

Criminal Defence Solicitor & HCA Payton's Solicitors 0207 405 1999

[Keima Payton @KeimaPayton]

@MPSSouthwark I am a solicitor and urgently need to speak to an Officer regarding my client having his passport returned. He has a booked holiday tomorrow.

Can someone please reply?

[Keima Payton @KeimaPayton]

Please can someone contact me urgently? https://t.co/JiREbCXVN1

[Keima Payton @KeimaPayton]

@metpoliceuk I need to email the Borough Commander can you provide an email address please.

I have a client who was supposed to pick up his passport today to fly tomorrow - this is urgent.

[Beth Ford Music @BethFordMusic]

Finally reopening commissions after sadly losing Mom in August 24 . She was my number 1 fan , and it’s taken me a long time to try to readjust to life without her .
I know she would want me to carry on with what I loved - pleas spread the word . Beth xx

[The CBA @TheCriminalBar]

A sitting judge says:
Sir Stephen Mitchell is correct when he says that the restriction of jury trials will fail to cut the staggering backlog of crown court cases (“Judges are being silenced on vandalism of curbing jury trials”, Apr 26).
Joanna Korner KC
The Hague, Netherlands

[CrimeLine @CrimeLineLaw]

Bottarelli [2026] 𝐄𝐖𝐂𝐀 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦 383

The Court of Appeal dismissed Matteo Bottarelli’s appeal against conviction for attempted murder and refused leave to appeal his 30-year sentence, save that it corrected the disposal on two alternative counts by ordering them to lie on file.

Bottarelli had pleaded guilty to two counts of wounding with intent, affray, and possession of an offensive weapon, but was tried on counts including three attempted murders.

The attacks took place at Central Middlesex Hospital in June 2023, where he assaulted three colleagues using a mattock and a scalpel.

His case on appeal was that the trial judge had failed adequately to direct the jury on voluntary intoxication when considering specific intent for attempted murder.

The Court of Appeal accepted the legal principles on intoxication in specific intent offences, including those discussed in R v Sheehan and Moore (1974) 60 Cr App R 308 and R v Aidid [2021] EWCA Crim 581.

However, the court held that, on the facts, no further intoxication direction was required because Bottarelli had clearly accepted in his guilty pleas and defence statements that he knew what he was doing and intended to cause really serious harm.

The court found there was no real evidence that intoxication prevented him from forming the intent required for attempted murder.

In any event, even if a more explicit direction had been appropriate, the omission did not render the convictions unsafe.

On sentence, the court held that the judge had properly considered the psychiatric evidence, including his addiction and likely underlying psychotic illness, and that the 30-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The only correction made was procedural: on the alternative counts of wounding with intent, the trial judge should have ordered them to lie on file rather than imposing “no separate penalty”, following R v Butler [2023] EWCA Crim 676.

https://t.co/LnbXyZY7E3

[CrimeLine @CrimeLineLaw]

Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained – Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

https://t.co/mjxITsFAny

[Keima Payton @KeimaPayton]

@kriekstina Kate, GCKC was my first Head of Chambers... I have instructed him on cases & he is an amazing orator. One of the best.

He is also whip smart, principled & kind. This speech is pure Geoffrey, delivered in rich tone.

I am furious that Lammy lounged and laughed... how dare he.

[CrimeLine @CrimeLineLaw]

Yet another one. Until prisoner governors are sent to jail for contempt they will just continue to ignore clear laws. https://t.co/5l44WuAXzd

[SophieSpring97 @SophieP25397]

If you think the proposed curtailing of right to a jury is "helping victims" Sir Alan Bates would have had his fate decided by a Magistrate. He would have had no right to appeal. We would never have known of the Post Office scandal.

[Tony Kent @TonyKent_Writes]

Look at the smirking imbeciles on the other side of this masterclass in oratory, giggling at a demonstration of an ability none of them could ever hope to possess.

This is why they dismiss and undermine the world class justice system we once had. Because it was beyond them.

[Keima Payton @KeimaPayton]

I love this post. Read it!

It makes sense, and it's amusing, but also terrifying!

Losing jury trials scares me and
every
single
criminal
lawyer
I
know!

[Joanna Hardy-Susskind @Joanna__Hardy]

Suggesting that Judges decide verdicts in thousands of cases is Peak Starmer.

Lawyer MPs recommending that other lawyers decide things under the leadership of a lawyer leader.

Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers.

Above ordinary people.

Well, let me tell you a secret about lawyers… 🧵

[David__Osland @David__Osland]

Crown Courts have a backlog of 80,000 cases because the justice system has been underfunded for decades. Not because people have the right to a jury trial.

[Tony Kent @TonyKent_Writes]

As ever, Joanne makes the point more eloquently & with far more class than I could achieve. Please read

But know this as you do: in 24 years at the Bar, I’ve overturned 3 jury convictions on appeal

In my first 2 years, I overturned 14 magistrates convictions

Which seems safer?

[Bethel @Bethelofenugu]

Tolerating always turns to resentment. At first, you call it patience, then love. But what it really is, is self-abandonment. Every time you swallow a boundary, excuse a pattern, or silence your discomfort, something inside you keeps score. And eventually, the bill comes due.

[Joanna Hardy-Susskind @Joanna__Hardy]

🚨 Judge Only Trials 🚨

The law of unintended (👀) consequences.

An old-fashioned long thread.

And a prediction.

👇🏼🪡 🧵

[The Secret Barrister 🦋 @BarristerSecret]

No MP should be allowed to vote on the government’s plan to abolish trial by jury in thousands of cases until and unless they have read this thread. 👇

[Nikki da Costa @nmdacosta]

10 days till MPs vote to remove the right to trial by jury.

10 days till MPs vote for serious and complex trials to be dealt with by Magistrates in just 4 hours.

[The CBA @TheCriminalBar]

Just like magic, the work will disappear!
The Impact Assessment for the Courts Bill 2026 claims that the Magistrates' Courts will be able to complete cases THREE TIMES FASTER than the Crown Court. It assumes that work which is currently taking 24,000 sitting days in the Crown Court, staffed by professional judges, will be completed within 8,500 sitting days in the Magistrates' Court, staffed by volunteer magistrates. How can that be so?
Well, the IA goes on to say that it is assumed that magistrates will be able to complete the more serious and complex trials which would now been allocated to them within an average of 4 hours. Guilty pleas will take 30 minutes.
So under this new system a defendant will have 4 hours to challenge the case against them (including time for resolving applications such as disclosure, bad character, hearsay, s.41 etc), when facing a prison sentence of 18 months or 2 years.
Either this is going to be rough justice, or the assumptions in the IA are deeply flawed.