Ed Wylde

Ed Wylde is a second-six pupil, who accepts instructions in crime (Crown Court, Magistrates Court, and Youth Court), courts martial, regulatory law and road traffic law.

Ed is swiftly developing a reputation as an effective and persuasive advocate, with an eloquent court demeanour paired with detailed preparation and an engaging client manner.

Prior to pupillage, Ed gained experience of international financial regulation whilst working at a major global investment bank, with particular reference to the specific impact and professional requirements of the MiFID II directive.

Ed then spent two-and-a-half years at the Nursing and Midwifery Council, developing his first-hand understanding of a tribunal environment on a daily basis. He presented cases on behalf of the NMC in front of the Investigating Committee for some 18 months.

Ed has also spent time volunteering with the South Westminster Legal Advice Centre and contributes to the preparation of the New Journal of European Criminal Law.

Case Examples:

• R v C: Instructed by Tang, Bentley & Jackson. Allegation of coercive and controlling behaviour in an intimate relationship (5-day trial at Portsmouth Crown Court). Not guilty verdict.
• R v JR: Instructed by Christob Solicitors. Persuaded the Court to depart from the mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ custody in a “third-strike” (dwelling) burglary case.
• R v L: Instructed by Waters Moore Solicitors. In respect of two counts of PWITS (Class A); persuaded the Court to impose a community order.
• R v N: Prosecuting. Successful on all points at issue in the protracted legal arguments prior to the opening of the case; handled the vulnerable witnesses tactfully, leading to a conviction in a domestic abuse context.
• R v E: Defending, possession of bladed article in public space. Persuaded the Court that the uncharged allegations of domestic abuse (including threats to kill and the waving around of a kitchen knife), alleged to have taken place just prior to the client’s arrest and outlined only through hearsay evidence, could have no bearing on the Court’s decision on the single matter at issue in the case.
• R v B: Transport law, re-opening of a “totting up” speeding case where 3 points were required to be added to the 9 on the client’s licence at the time of the offence. Despite this, persuaded the Magistrates to impose no period of disqualification, nor a fine, nor a costs order.
• R v N: Prosecuting, two-day trial. Successful in rebutting a persuasive No Case to Answer submission; also successful in adducing the Defendant’s bad character under section 101(1)(g) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when accusations of police misconduct were made in the course of his examination-in-chief. After five minutes of cross-examination, the Defendant refused to answer any more questions – a modified adverse inference direction was thereafter given. The Defendant pleaded guilty to a number of charges prior to and during the trial; further convictions were secured for possession of controlled drug (Class A) and failing to provide a specimen.