A drug baron whose solicitors and counsel withdrew before his trial has lost his appeal on the basis that he had effectively sacked his legal team in an attempt to ‘manipulate the trial process’.

Jamie Hanna was tried and convicted of drugs and money laundering offences at Woolwich Crown Court in 2022. He was jailed for 25 years. On appeal, he argued Judge Jonathan Mann KC was not entitled to conclude that his trial could proceed after his solicitors withdrew and that his trial was thus unfair. 

The court heard Hanna had first instructed Brian Swann of The Stokoe Partnership, ‘a highly experienced criminal solicitor’ whose firm specialises in this type of case. Stokoes had withdrawn as Hanna’s representatives after a conference at which the firm’s preparation had been criticised. 

The Court of Appeal said it was ‘clear’ Hanna went into the consultation ‘with a set agenda’. 

Trevor Burke KC, counsel who attended the conference, said: ‘Faced with the inevitability of a trial and an almost certain conviction, and no prospect of an adjournment, Mr Hanna wanted his solicitor to accept he had misled his client and the court and withdraw, leaving Mr Hanna [in a position where he could say he had] no lawyers to represent him through no fault of his.’

Swann spoke to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s ethics team which advised him that if his client would not sack him but insisted on making criticisms of his representatives a cornerstone of his defence, Swann was obliged to withdraw. He did; Burke also withdrew.

On appeal, Hanna argued it was unfair for the judge in the Crown court to have told the jury he ‘sacked’ his legal team when that was not what happened.

But Mr Justice Saini and Mr Justice Foxton - in a unanimous Court of Appeal ruling - said: ‘The way in which Jamie Hanna manipulated the departure of his legal representatives amounted in substance to a sacking. We also consider Mr Burke and his junior were right to withdraw. Jamie Hanna’s case which he wished counsel to advance was that his former solicitors were responsible for failing to prepare his case properly.

'Counsel knew that these criticisms were without substance and an attempt to manipulate the trial process, and then acted in accordance with advice they had received from the Bar Council Ethical Enquiries line.'

The appeal was dismissed.

 

This article is now closed for comment.