Daniella Waddoup

d.waddoup@doughtystreet.co.uk

Year of Call

2014
Daniella Waddoup
Profile

The focus of Daniella’s practice is criminal justice and mental health and capacity. In addition to a busy trial practice in the criminal courts, she undertakes work in related areas, including prison and crime-related public law and mental health law. She also appears regularly in the Court of Protection. In May 2017, Daniella was recognised for her commitment to representing vulnerable young people by the Youth Justice Legal Centre and was presented with the ‘Rising Star in Youth Justice’ award. Daniella is a founding member of Project EPIC, which provides pro bono legal advice and representation for children and young people in custody with special educational needs, in order to ensure that appropriate educational support and provision is made both during and after detention.

 

Recent instructions range from defending serious allegations in the Crown Court, both on an individual and led basis, to acting for Just for Kids Law as an intervener in the landmark Supreme Court/Privy Council joint enterprise appeal in R v. Jogee; R v. Ruddock.  

 

Prior to joining Chambers, Daniella was a research assistant in the Law Commission’s criminal law team, where she worked primarily on reform of the insanity defence and fitness to plead procedure. She has provided research and editorial assistance for the most recent editions of Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law and Smith and Hogan’s Text, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law. She has also volunteered as a paralegal in the strategic litigation department of Just for Kids Law, as a welfare rights worker for St Mungo’s Broadway and as a mentor for young people with learning disabilities taking part in restorative justice.

 

In 2016-17, Daniella was judicial assistant to Lord Mance JSC. During that time, she was closely involved in many of the leading cases before the Supreme Court and Privy Council in her current areas of practice.

Publications

“Readjusting the Boundaries: Reforming the Criminal Defences of Insanity and Automatism”, Counsel (October 2013);

“Contempt in the News”, Criminal Bar Quarterly (Spring 2013);

“Blowing in the Wind? A Legal Settlement for Environmental Migrants in Africa”, Think Africa Press (June 2011);

“Press Freedom in Rwanda”, Think Africa Press (18 Feb 2011).

Crime

Daniella has a busy criminal practice in the Magistrates’, Youth and Crown Courts representing clients accused with a wide range of criminal offences. She is equally at home with trial advocacy as she is using her academic grounding in criminal law to argue varied and complex points of law. Recent instructions in the crown court include:

  • R v SM and others (Central Criminal Court, led by Tim Moloney QC) – terrorism (conspiracy to murder a police officer and/or soldier by means of a drive-by shooting).
  • R v AD and others (led by Rupert Bowers QC) – conspiracy to cheat the public revenue and transferring criminal property. On the prosecution case, AD led the seven other defendants in establishing a multi-million pound tax evasion scheme in the construction industry. After a week of legal argument, the prosecution accepted a favourable basis of plea with a dramatically reduced agreed loss to HMRC of £169,000. 
  • R v TM  – possession with intent to supply Class A drugs. The defendant was acquitted.
  • R v RJ  – theft. The case involved evidence of identification which was challenged for breach of Code D of PACE 1984. The defendant was acquitted.
  • R v CO  – s. 20 GBH. The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence. 
  • R v BA – benefit fraud. The defendant received a suspended sentence.
  • R v S – sexual assault against four school girls by a defendant with schizophrenia and moderate learning disability. The defendant received a community order.
  • R v O – sexual assault by a defendant with complex and partially undiagnosed mental disorder; ongoing application for transfer to a secure hospital.
  • R v JME – several counts of PWITS Class A and B. A custodian basis of plea was accepted. Despite the large quantity of drugs and the fact that the offences were committed during the currency of a community order imposed for like offences, the defendant avoided custody and was sentenced to a suspended sentence. 

Daniella has had considerable success in the Magistrates’ Court, often on the basis of legal argument:

  • R v BB – motor vehicle interference. The defendant was acquitted after an application to exclude evidence of identification obtained in breach of PACE 1984, Code D.
  • R v GL – common assault. The defendant was acquitted after a trial in which hearsay evidence of one of the complainants (deceased) was admitted.
  • R v AH – outraging public decency. The defendant RAF sergeant avoided custody after admitting to covertly filming intimate clips of a sexual nature of women over a twenty-year period.
  • R v FO – assault PC. This was a sensitive case giving rise to issues of fitness to plead and effective participation in which the Crown eventually decided not to proceed following a successful application for an adjournment made on the day of trial.
  • R v NG – common assault. The Crown offered no evidence after a successful application to exclude admissions made in interview.
  • R v GW – ongoing confiscation enforcement proceedings following the defendant’s conviction for importing half a tonne of cocaine into the UK. 

Daniella has a particular interest in representing children and young people. She combines her experience of working in schools and educational settings with an in-depth knowledge of the law of youth justice in order to achieve positive results and to ensure the effective participation of children and young people in proceedings against them. Recent instructions include:

  • R v B (Crown Court) – s. 18. A plea to s. 20 and possession of a bladed article was accepted.
  • R v KA-B (Crown Court) – sentence of an 18-year old for possession with intent to supply Class B drugs and possession of an offensive weapon. He had several previous convictions for similar offences and had committed the present offences during the currency of a Youth Referral Order. The Court imposed a suspended sentence. 
  • R v IC (Youth Court) – sentence of a youth for a joint enterprise robbery in which a knife was used to threaten the complainant. Despite a previous conviction for possession of an offensive weapon, the Court sentenced him to a Youth Referral Order with a requirement of intensive supervision and surveillance.
  • R v SB (Youth Court) – a serious case in which the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted s. 18 GBH and using a knife to threaten on school premises. Following detailed submissions, the Youth Court retained jurisdiction for sentence. The Court found that it would be “unjust” to apply two sets of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and sentenced the defendant to a Youth Referral Order instead of detention.

Criminal Appeals

During pupillage, Daniella assisted her supervisor Richard Thomas in numerous appeals against conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal, Privy Council and European Court of Human Rights. She was involved, for example, in Timothy Hunte and Shazad Khan v The State [2015] UKPC 33, a death penalty case with wide implications for the jurisdiction of the Privy Council to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment. She also gained significant experience of applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, particularly in relation to convictions of refugees for identity document offences and convictions of victims of human trafficking.

In tenancy, Daniella has represented clients in appeals against conviction and sentence in the Crown Court. She welcomes instructions to provide written advice on the merits of appeals.  

Daniella has also been instructed as a led junior in appeals before the Supreme Court, Privy Council, and Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago: 

  • R v Jogee; R v Ruddock (led by Francis Fitzgibbon QC and with Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Joanne Cecil, for the intervener Just for Kids Law). Submissions were made specifically on the impact of the law on young defendants. The Court held that the common law had taken a “wrong turn” and misapplied for 30 years.
  • Pitman & Hernandez v The State [2017] UKPC 6 (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC, Paul Bowen QC and Ruth Brander) – a Privy Council appeal concerning the constitutionality of sentences of death imposed on those suffering from intellectual disability.
  • Albert Edwards v The State (with Richard Thomas). Following written submissions in an appeal against a murder conviction on the basis of fresh evidence about the bad character of a prosecution witness and a misdirection on joint enterprise murder, the conviction was quashed. A conviction for manslaughter was substituted, leading to the appellant’s immediate release.

Prison and Crime Related Public Law

Daniella represents prisoners, including lifers, before the Parole Board. She has a particular interest in representing mentally disordered prisoners and advising in relation to transfer to secure psychiatric settings for treatment. During pupillage, Daniella assisted her supervisor Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC in a number of prison-related judicial reviews, including in relation to prison adjudications and the separation of mothers and babies.

Recent instructions in the area of crime-related public law include:

  • R (DC) v CCRC (led by Rebecca Trowler QC) – Renewed application for permission to judicially review the decision of the Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer the applicant’s murder conviction to the Court of Appeal.
  • R & others v CCC & Commissioner of the City of London Police (led by Rupert Bowers QC) – Challenge to the application for and execution of a search warrant where the court was not informed that the officers executing the warrant would be accompanied by a documentary film crew. The case settled in the claimants’ favour following detailed written submissions.
  • S v UK (led by Rupert Bowers QC): Written submissions requesting a referral of the applicant's case to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR on the basis that the procedure for hearing applications for warrants of further detention under Sch. 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – which allows evidence to be given in closed session and makes no provision for special advocates – amounted to a breach of Art. 5(4) ECHR.
  • R (JH and JH) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 4093 (Admin) – Daniella made submissions that s. 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 should not apply in circumstances where the defendant had breached his public sector equality duty but the claim failed in all other respects. 

Civil Actions Against the Police and Other Public Authorities

In light of her overlapping experience of criminal and human rights law, Daniella is well placed to advise in civil claims against the police. She has experience of providing advice, drafting and advocacy in relation to a range of claims, including for false imprisonment, assault, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 and violations of the Human Rights Act 1998. Recent instructions include:

  • KN v Lord Chancellor – Claim for breach of Article 5 ECHR arising from the court’s failure, when sentencing the claimant, to give credit for time spent on a qualifying curfew.
  • AB v MoJ – Claim for negligence and breach of Article 3 ECHR in respect of the defendant’s alleged failure to treat the claimant’s injuries while he was in prison.
  • FJ v CC of South Wales – Advice as to whether the claimant’s detention pursuant to s. 2, MHA 1983 following his arrest amounted to a breach of his Article 5 and 5 ECHR rights. 

Inquests and Inquiries

Daniella has experience representing bereaved families in inquests. She has acted in inquests into the deaths of neonates following failures by healthcare staff during pregnancy and delivery, vulnerable adults in hospital following clinical negligence, and prisoners in custody.

During pupillage, Daniella worked on an inquest into the death of a 17-year old in police custody. The jury concluded that his suicide was contributed to by an anomaly in the law which resulted in him being treated as an adult while in the police station, despite being recognised as a child by national and international legal standards. 

Mental Health and Court of Protection

Daniella has an in-depth knowledge of the law and procedure governing defendants’ fitness to plead and stand trial, having worked on a Law Commission law reform project on the topic. Her interest in mental health and capacity law spans both criminal and civil cases, as well as the area of overlap between the two. She accepts instructions in the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) to represent detained patients.

Daniella is regularly instructed in Court of Protection proceedings on behalf of local authorities, individuals and the Official Solicitor, including in respect of s. 21A, MCA 2005 (deprivation of liberty) applications and best interests decisions concerning the care, residence and treatment of individuals lacking capacity. More complex instructions have included: a challenge to the detention of a protected person with alcoholism and a diagnosis of Korsakoff's syndrome (a neuro-cognitive disorder secondary to heavy alcohol abuse); acting on behalf of the Official Solicitor in a case in which the local authority sought to prevent the protected person from travelling abroad to marry a man she met on the internet; and a case concerning the scope of interim restrictions on a young woman’s decisions in relation to relationships, consent to sexual relations and marriage.

During pupillage, Daniella worked with her supervisor Ulele Burnham on a number of cases concerning challenges to mental health detention, including under Article 5 ECHR. 

Education Law

Before joining Doughty Street, Daniella volunteered in schools teaching music, special educational needs and English as a foreign language. She continues to maintain her interest in the education of children and young people by accepting instructions, including on a pro bono basis, in the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). She is a founding member of Project EPIC, which provides pro-bono legal advice and assistance for young people who have, or may have, special educational needs, and who are detained in custody.

Daniella has acted in matters involving challenges to statements of special educational needs and, more recently, education, health and care plans (“EHC plans”). She accepts instructions to represent children and parents in school admission or exclusion appeals before the Independent Appeal Panel. She also has experience of disability discrimination claims in an education context. Daniella’s experience in both criminal and education law means she is well placed to represent parents charged with failing to ensure the regular attendance of children at school. Recent instructions include:

  • GK v LB of Bromley and TB v LB of Bromley – two separate appeals by young adults against EHC plans. In both cases, their residential placements were extended to include termly boarding. The cases raised difficult and novel issues about the distinction between educational and non-educational provision in the case of young adults under the new Children and Families Act 2014 regime.
  • AK v WF Primary School – a case alleging various forms of discrimination against a severely disabled child. The FTT held that the child hitting out or scratching others did not amount to a tendency to physical abuse so as to exclude him from the protection of discrimination legislation. 

Memberships

Criminal Bar Association

Human Rights Lawyers Association

Howard League for Penal Reform

Liberty

Police Action Lawyers Group

 

Education

BA, Law with Law Studies in Europe, Oxford University (First Class)

LLM, Human Rights and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University (First Class)

BPTC, Kaplan Law School (Outstanding)


Scholarships and awards

Criminal Bar Association/Archbold award (2014);

Kaplan BPTC advocacy scholarship (2013);

Inner Temple major scholarship and Duke of Edinburgh award (2012);
Runner-up in the Cambridge University Brick Court Moot (2012);

William Wade award for the highest mark in the LLM Civil Liberties and Human Rights exam (2012);

Arts and Humanities Research Council LLM scholarship (2011);

Wronker award for the highest mark in the BA Jurisprudence exam (2010);

New College scholarship (2008);

New College exhibition (2007).
 

Languages

German (fluent)

Publications

About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)