Edward Heman

Qualifications: LL.B (Hons)

Joined BSB: March 2003

Career: Edward commenced his career in law working for Saunders & Co Solicitors (Harrow Road) as a managing clerk in 1995, undertaking clerking, case preparation and running his own caseload in crime, housing, welfare and immigration. He has varied extensive experience in judicial review cases in connection with some of the aforementioned areas of law. He was accredited as a police station adviser in 1996. Thereafter, he worked for various law firms as an accredited police station adviser and caseworker including Lawrence and Co, Peter Kandler, Mathis & Co and Attridge Solicitors.

Edward heads our police station department. He has advised numerous suspects/defendants in police, customs and immigration interviews. He has experience in a variety of cases involving prison rioting, violent disorder, kidnapping, drug importation, drug supply, conspiracy to defraud/money laundering, possession of explosives, terrorism, indecent images/child pornography, murder, sexual assault/rape, robbery, assault, political protest/public order, ASBO’s and a variety of youth offences.

To contact Edward please click HERE.

Notable Cases Include

In R v E, the defendant was arrested for importing a white powder ( Phenacetin) believing it to be cocaine. The defendant was charged under the s.3(1)Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in conjunction with s.170(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. She was advised to exercise her right to silence after submitting a short prepared statement that she did not know or believe it to be cocaine. As the defendant did not answer police questions, they could not prove mens rea intention. Two trials by the prosecution had the same outcome which was the jury could not agree on a verdict. The defendant was found not guilt as prosecution did not offer any further evidence. This case was interesting in that the customs & excise had convicted in every single case they had brought before the court of this specific type of offence.

In R v K, the defendant was arrested for GBH following the mention of a name which is commonly used within the community of Albanians. On arrival at the police station a 1st description by the victim was served and ID parade conducted prior to the interview of our client.

Under protest, client was advised to consent to ID parade to avoid adverse inferences at a subsequent trial. The witness was unable to positively identify her assailant, after 11 times of asking by the ID inspector. On the 12th request, the witness reluctantly identified our client who was one of two she had contemplated on each attempt. The victim then made a further comment to the effect that she was unsure after identifying our client, but the ID inspector failed to record the comments made, but Edward duly made a record of it.

A request was made to the prosecution to forward a copy of the video recording of the ID parade procedure when the victim was a witness. The defence were told that the police had no video record of the parade and that they were not obliged to do so, since there was a solicitor at the parade. The defence contested the record made by the ID inspector of what was said by the witness as his was inconsistent with that made by Edward. The prosecution offered no evidence on the 11th hour of the day of the trial.

The issue whether the police were under a legal duty to record ID parades with or without a solicitor present was undecided as the prosecution caved in on the 11th hour.