Sally Hobson

Practice
Sally is an experienced criminal practitioner with a practice consisting predominantly of serious criminal matters. She prosecutes and defends on the South Eastern and Midland Circuit and has extensive experience of  fraud and money laundering, drug conspiracies, homicide, rape and serious sexual allegations against children. Sally is frequently instructed in difficult cases involving the use of expert witnesses and is able to advise at an early stage of the proceedings as to the suitability of a particular expert.

She has, for many years, been instructed by local authorities in respect of trading standards, health and safety, licensing and benefit fraud. She was leading counsel in Cambridgeshire County Council’s largest car clocking fraud. Sally has the ability to quickly digest the evidence and present it in a jury friendly manner and is particularly experienced in respect of costs applications. 

She is becoming increasingly sought-after due to her substantial experience of difficult and complex sexual cases involving both contemporary and historic allegations and is excellent in dealing with defendants and witnesses with mental health issues and other vulnerabilities. Although sensitive to the needs of the vulnerable, she has been described as ‘ferocious’ in her cross-examination of witnesses.

In addition to her mainstream criminal practice, Sally has experience of appearing at adjudications and parole hearings within the prison system. She is also instructed to represent interested third parties within Proceeds of Crime Applications, in particular where there are divorce proceedings subsequent to the making of a confiscation order.

Notable Cases

R v Gallucci and others
Cambridge Crown Court - conspiracy to defraud, this was Cambridge Trading Standards biggest prosecution in terms of evidence gathering and value. Costs of £25,000 were recovered. Leading Junior. Prosecution

R v Singh
Derby Crown Court - a solicitor/conveyancer was charged with £1 million fraud from his client accounts. Separate and complex confiscation proceedings followed conviction. Junior for the Prosecution

R v Canaj and Others
Cambridge Crown Court - defendant charged with rape, kidnap and running a brothel. The defendant was a Lithuanian national who, along with 4 others, was alleged to have kidnapped a Russian girl and raped her whilst forcing her to engage in prostitution. The complaint was blown out of the water by tracing a respectable business man through close examination of unused telephone records and using him as an anonymous witness. The Trial Judge later described this to the jury as "Miss Hobson pulling a rabbit out of the hat"

R v Teague
Lincoln Crown Court - defendant charged with historical sexual abuse upon his sister some of which was admitted. The defendant was acquitted of the most serious allegations. The immediate custodial sentence imposed was overturned on an expedited appeal. Junior for the Defendant

R v Slater and Slater
Cambridge Crown Court - female defendant jointly charged with husband of rape. Due to the mental health issues suffered by the defendant the Trial Judge allowed an application for her to be assisted by an intermediary when giving evidence. This was the first time a defence intermediary was used in Cambridge. Junior for the Second Defendant.

R v Wright
Norwich Crown Court - defendant charged with recent and historic sexual offences against mentally disabled step-daughter. Advice was given as to the use of psychologist and psychiatrist at trial. Junior for the Prosecution

R v Ali
Divisional Court - instructed by the DPP to make written representations in respect of the minimum term of a mandatory life sentence imposed for murder.

R v Heneghan
Parole Hearing for prisoner serving life sentence for murder. The proceedings were complicated by fact that the defendant escaped during his sentence. He fled to France and was convicted of serious sexual offences. Advice was given as to what further steps could be taken if the Prison Service continued to refuse to provide the facilities for his rehabilitation. The Prison consented to do so. HMP Shepton Mallett 

R v VICTOR COX (2008)
A confiscation order with a period of five years in default of payment was reduced to four years in default of payment following the statutory default guidelines for the relevant amount as it was not correct to increase the default period to reflect the seriousness of the offence.

SENTENCING
[2008] EWCA Crim 3007
CA (Crim Div) (Thomas LJ, Pitchford J, Recorder of Brighton & Hove) 25/11/2008
References: LTL 25/11/2008 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No.: Case Law - AC9700610

 
Reported Cases

Murder

R v MELVIN TERRENCE SULLIVAN : R v MARTIN GODWIN GIBBS : R v BARRY ELENER : R v DEREK ELENER (2004)
When sentencing an offender for a minimum term under a mandatory life imprisonment for murder where the offence was committed after May 2002, the judge should refer to the May 2002 Practice Direction and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schs. 21 and 22 only, and not the Lord Chief Justice's letter of December 2002.

SENTENCING - PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
[2004] EWCA Crim 1762
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Judge LJ, Holland J, Astill J, Gross J) 8/7/2004
References: LTL 27/8/2004 : (2005) 1 Cr App R 3 : (2005) 1 Cr App R (S) 67 : Times, July 14, 2004
Document No.: Case Law - AC9100356
Miss Sally Hobson Junior for the Prosecution R v Sullivan

Harrassment

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v ROBERT JOHN DUNN (2000)
A charge contrary to ss.1 and 2 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could be free of duplicity even though the conduct complained of was not necessarily directed at all of the complainants together on the same occasions.

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING
DC (Pill LJ, Bell J) 4/10/2000
References: LTL 1/11/2000 : (2001) 1 Cr App R 22 : (2001) 165 JP 122 : (2001) Crim LR 130 : Times, November 1, 2000
Document No.: Case Law - AC0100118
Prevalent Offences

R v (1) STEPHEN LANHAM (2) DANIEL WILLIS (2008)
Although, in sentencing, a judge was entitled to take into account the prevalence of a particular offence in his local area, before he did so it was essential that he should have supporting evidence from an external source to justify any claim of prevalence.

SENTENCING
[2008] EWCA Crim 2450
CA (Crim Div) (Owen J, David Clarke J) 2/10/2008
References: LTL 15/4/2009 : (2009) 1 Cr App R (S) 105
Document No.: Case Law - AC0120546
Bladed Article

R v SEAN GILES (2003)
The judge was right to direct the jury to convict for possession of a bladed article where the defendant had no specific good reason for carrying a knife, the fact the knife was a multi purpose tool and carried out of habit was not a good reason.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - CRIMINAL LAW
CA (Scott Baker LJ, Sachs J, Judge Fawcus) 6/2/2003
References: LTL 6/2/2003 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No.: Case Law - AC9800038

Aggravated Trespass

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v ROWAN TILLY & ORS (2001)
In order to establish an the offence of aggravated trespass contrary to s.68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it was necessary to prove that the defendant had committed the act or acts complained of in the physical presence of a person engaged or about to engage in the lawful activity with which the defendant wished to interfere.

CRIMINAL LAW - AGRICULTURE - TRESPASS
[2001] EWHC Admin 821
QBD (Admin) (Rafferty J) 16/10/2001
References: LTL 27/11/2001 : (2002) Crim LR 128 : Independent, December 10, 2001 : Times, November 27, 2001
Document No.: Case Law - AC0102259

back to top