Karol Hart

Karol has an abundance of experience in Criminal law, Extradition law, Council Prosecutions, POCA Confiscation, and Enforcement proceedings. Karol is a regular tends at Crown and Magistrates Courts as Advocate and is a pro-active Litigator. Karol also attends investigation stage interviews. He has been a Solicitor Advocate since 2011, having initially completed the Bar Vocational Course during 2005 and worked in the general Criminal Law field until cross qualifying.

Karol has dealt with a wide range of cases as Advocate and Litigator including offences of Murder, Serious Sexual offences, Serious Fraud offences and a wide range of other criminal allegations. He has also been involved in advising on, and drafting grounds of Appeal for cases heard before the Court of Appeal, High Court Criminal Division, and High Court Administrative Division. Karol is known for his painstaking preparation in all cases he deals with as both Advocate and Litigator.

Karol has experience of defending individuals prosecuted by Councils for alleged breaches/offences committed contrary to the Housing Act 2004 including those related to Houses of Multiple Occupancy, improvement notices and Licencing breaches. He has successfully challenged orders made by organisations under a range of legislation including Town and County Planning Act, Public Health Act and Health and Safety regulation.

While working at Freemans Solicitors, Karol has developed a particular interest in Driving Cases. He has successfully contested hearings involving technical defences in a wide range of Driving allegations including Dangerous/Careless Driving and Drink/Drug Driving allegations. Karol has also successfully argued Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship arguments in Court.

He has a developed a practice in Extradition Law and has been involved, as Advocate and Litigator, in successfully challenging European Arrest Warrants at Westminster Magistrates Court and in appeal decisions at the High Court (Administrative Court). He has represented individuals in alleged offending relating to both accusation and conviction warrants from all over Europe and has had warrants discharged from Countries including Spain, Poland, Romania and Finland.

He has established a practice in challenging Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings, including post criminal conviction and civil proceedings. He has acted as Advocate and Litigator for individuals at disputed full hearings, Seizure and Detention hearings, Forfeiture Hearings and during Enforcement proceedings.

Karol also regularly attends at investigation stage interviews and has advised on proceedings conducted by Police, Local Authorities, Trading Standards, Department of Work and Pensions, the Serious Fraud Office and National Crime Agency.

Karol also undertakes Regulatory Law work including advising clients on, making written and oral representations to the Disclosure and Barring Service. He also represents clients during proceedings brought by the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Dental Council and all other regulatory organisations.

Recently Karol completed an L.L.M. in International Economic Law, Justice and Development at Birkbeck University.

Notable Cases

Criminal Litigation:
R v DK: Allegation of Rape by two previous ex-partners. The CPS discontinued the case off the back of the strength of a Defence Statement

R v AC: Allegations of fraud and possessing false identity documents. Client entered guilty pleas following extensive negotiations with the CPS and was sentenced to a significantly shorter sentence than expected

R v MRK: Client was alleged to have committed numerous offences of GBH with intent, possessing a firearm and discharging it in a residential street during the late afternoon, kidnaping a member of a rival group and seriously assaulting that individual.

R v H: Two clients were alleged to be involved in a conspiracy to Handle stolen bags from a Louis Vuitton store that had been burgled. Both were acquitted after trial.

Criminal Advocacy:
R v BM: Allegations included sexual assault of a female while at a home party. The client was acquitted of all charges.

R v AH: Instructed as Junior in a murder case where the client had fled the country before being arrested resulting in his extradition back to the UK.

R v DS: Client had entered guilty pleas to possession of false identity (Driving Licence) when represented by another lawyer. The prosecution indicated the case fell to be sentenced on the scale outlined in the case of Ovieriakhi. It was successfully argued this was not similar to the Ovieriakhi case and the client was sentenced to a community order.

R v BM: Allegations that a nurse had stolen money from an elderly patients bank accounts, which was only noticed following his death. Case disputed by the Defence and CPS decided to discontinue.

R v NA: Client pleaded guilty to Dangerous Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol causing her vehicle to collide with another. Guidelines suggest a custodial sentence however successfully argued for a suspended sentence.

Extradition:
R v MS: A Spanish judicial authority sought to extradite this elderly client who was alleged to have committed an offence related to the selling of property in breach of a Spanish Court Order. The Extradition Order was discharged as the offence was not an Extradition offence.

R v NF: A Finnish Judicial Authority sought the extradition of this client who had given birth months before her arrest. The client had previously stood trial for, was convicted and served a custodial sentence in Finland and the defence argued it would be disproportionate given she had recently become a mother to extradite her. The case was appealed to the High Court at which point the Judicial Authority decided not to pursue the warrant.

R v IC: Romanian Judicial Authority sought to extradite this client who had been convicted of driving a motor vehicle without a licence. His partner was due to give birth three months after his arrest. It was successfully argued that the Romanian Authority prison conditions were not Article 3 ECHR compliant and no assurance had been provided, so the warrant was discharged

Driving Offences:
Police v AS: Police had brought a case against the client for three offences when the client had previously been offered and accepted a conditional offer. The case was set down for an abuse of process argument and eventually dropped after representations that the prosecution was unlawful.

R v LD: Client charged with Dangerous Driving and the case went to trial. A successful submission of no case to answer resulted in the Dangerous Driving charge being dismissed.

R v MM: Successfully argued Special Reasons argument for no insurance

R v JM: successfully argued special reasons totting triggered by the offence of speeding

Council Prosecutions:
R v RVC: A Local council decided to prosecute a company Director, who had a workforce of approximately 70 individuals, for a dishonesty offence under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. If found guilty he would have undoubtedly been disqualified from performing his duties and banned from being a Director. Representations to, and further negotiations, with the council, led to them accepting to issue the client with an administrative penalty. The alleged fraud amount was far beyond the national administrative figure of £2000.

R v LR: A Local Council had brought an action against this client concerning Fraud and offences under the Public Health Act. The client had instructed two previous firms, and both failed to notice one of the charges was time-barred. Karol was instructed only weeks before the trial and made representations to the Council leading to the entire case being dropped.

Police Bail:
R v DD: Successfully argued in written representations that bail should not be extended as the reasons presented by the Police were irrational, and Court agreed

R v LB: Successfully argued at an oral hearing Police bail should no longer be in force as Police not acting diligently and expeditiously and bail conditions no longer bring necessary and proportionate

R v JL: Successfully argued at an oral hearing that Police acted outside their powers in extending bail by re-arresting the client for the same offence and then starting the Police Bail process over again