Caoimhe Bicknell

Prior to joining Park Square Barristers Caoimhe had established a busy criminal defence practice at the Bar of Northern Ireland acting as both junior counsel and led junior.

She has represented clients charged with a range of offences from robbery, GBH, firearms, historic sexual allegations, drugs offences, public disorder and domestic abuse. Her practice spanned the Youth Court, Magistrates Court, Crown Court, administrative court and Court Of Appeal.

Caoimhe regularly represented vulnerable youth clients in both the youth and Crown court gaining experience of dealing with cases involving young and vulnerable witnesses and defendants.

Upon relocating to England, Caoimhe joined the CPS as a Senior Crown Prosecutor in the Crown Court unit. As a reviewing lawyer Caoimhe managed a vast caseload. She has managed numerous serious and high-profile cases ranging from complex homicide and firearms cases, attempted murder, drugs related operations, serious assaults, conspiracy, POCA, sexual offences, arson endangering life and fraud. Within this role she has provided expert advice to the police on complex matters, including securing material through international channels and interpreting communication and analytical evidence. She authorised charges in complex investigations. Her attentiveness to detail and ability to communicate in an approachable, calm and engaging manner ensured the progress of these cases, many of which garnered media attention.

Notable Cases

R V SH Coleraine County Court – ABH and Threats to Kill. The defendant was a mental health nurse and was accused of choking his partner and threatening to kill her after a heated argument under the influence of alcohol. The IP fled the home partially naked and was found hiding in a neighbours bush upon police arrival. The defendant raised concern in relation to the side effects of a combination of medication that the IP was taking and the impact that this had on her mental health and behaviour. He fully denied any assault and stated he was in- fact the victim of assaults from the the IP. Any conviction would result in the defendant losing his job and he was suspended whilst proceedings were ongoing. I did not represent the defendant in the magistrates court and he was convicted. The defendant appealed conviction and sentence and I was instructed to represent the defendant in the appeal. I directed expert medical evidence in relation to the impact of the combination of medication being consumed by the IP. The matter proceeded to trial and involved extensive medical evidence, from both prosecution and defence experts. The defendant was found not guilty.
R V MH Antrim Crown Court – Rape, Indecent assault. The defendant was accused of 12 counts relating to historic sexual abuse of his sister going back to a period over 25 years ago. I was junior counsel, led by Ms Eilish McDermott QC. I conducted all the initial consultations with the defendant including the drafting of the defence statement. The IP was residing in a different country and had stated that the defendant has paid her off a sum of money in order to not pursue any criminal proceedings. The case involved complex issues including delay, bad character, hearsay and cross-admissibility. There were numerous third party disclosure issues. I was responsible for dealing with most of the drafting and presentation of ancillary applica-tions relating to case management. Legal arguments arose as to the IP being physical present to give evidence, the extent of special measures and the impact that this may have on the trial. The case was prepared for trial and detailed arrangements were made for the IP to give her best evidence. On he morning of trial the PPS offered no evidence and the case was dismissed.
R V MM Craigavon Crown Court – Arson with intent to endanger life. The defendant was jointly charged with 5 other prisoners for setting fire to a section of Maghaberry prison causing £400,000 worth of damage on a joint enterprise basis.. A group of prisoners, all members of a dissident group broke into a store causing significant damage and set off a fire endangering a number of other prisoners, staff and causing extensive damage to the prison. They barricaded themselves in a section of the prison requiring specialist response officers. The case included detailed forensic analysis of the site and extensive CCTV footage. As the case pro-gressed the co-accused began to implicate each other. The case required detailed defence statements and numer-ous arguments in relation to hearsay and bad character. On the lead up to trial the co-accused pleaded guilty. The defendant always maintained that he had no part to play in the arson but had caused some criminal damage. Numerous discussions took place with counsel for the the Public Prosecution service in relation to the defendant’s role, particularly in light of the CCTV that was available. Due to the fact that the co-accused had pleaded guilty it appeared that no agreement could be reached in relation to a plea to a lesser charge. The case ran to trial. After opening statements and extensive discussions with the prosecution a lesser charge of criminal damage was offered and the defendant pleaded guilty to criminal damage.
R V ST Belfast Crown Court – Riot contrary to common law. The youth was a 14 year old girl with no previous convictions. She was charged with Riot contrary to common law for her involvement in the ‘Flag protest riots’ in Belfast city centre that brought the city to a standstill for a number of days. A large groups of adults and youths had gathered and began throwing home made petrol bombs and other debris at police officers in a 10 hour standoff. Numerous police officers were injured and tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage was caused to police vehicles and nearby buildings. The case turned on identification evidence and extensive CCTV footage. The Youth maintained that she was present at the scene but that she was not involved in any way. It was an unusual charge in that it was Brough contrary to the common law. The case involved lengthy consultations with the youth and her appropriate adult to ensure her full understanding of the court process, the evidence, her instructions and the seriousness of the charge. Careful consideration had to be given to ensure that the legislation governing youth procedures were followed whilst dealing with a youth in a crown court setting. The case involved examination and cross examination of numerous eye witness accounts and detailed arguments over identification, including the ex-clusion of a dock identification given in evidence by a youth witness. The youth was found guilty. The Crown Court Judge exercised the jurisdiction to sit as a District Judge in the Youth Court. I directed a number of reports for sentencing and consequently she was sentenced to a community responsibility order despite the seriousness of the charge.
R V MS Belfast Crown Court – Burglary x4. The defendant was charged with 4 counts of burglary over a 5 month period whilst residing in Northern Ireland. He was in custody in England for other charges. An abuse of process application for a stay was brought on grounds of delay and the stay was granted.
R V PE Belfast Crown Court – Possession of a firearm with intent. The defendant was a youth and jointly charged with his brother for threatening a delivery driver, with what ap-peared to be a gun, over a payment. I directed numerous reports. Consequently it was found that the defendant lacked capacity. The defendant was sentenced to an extensive Youth Conference Order.
R V MV Belfast Crown Court – Burglary. The defendant was charged with burglary of a house in the student area of Belfast whilst out on licence. He was stopped on the same street by the police with a bag containing the stolen belongings ten minutes after the burglary was reported with glass on his clothing. The defendant accepted presence near the scene stating that he was buying the stolen goods but denied participation or knowledge in the burglary. The defendant refused to give the names of the men that he was buying the goods from. I directed an expert report on the glass fragments found on his clothing. After receipt of the report and discussions with the PPS the charge was amended to handling stolen goods and he was sentenced to a suspended sentence.
R V AA Belfast crown Court – Section 18 GBH ( YOUTH). The defendant was aged 14 and was charged after attacking a mother of another child at a youth club, in the presence of the IP’S 8 year old son. She beat the mother unconscious and repeatedly stamped on her head. On my advice the defendant was assessed by a child psychologist and subsequently diagnosed with a number of mental health disorders and a low IQ. The defendant pleaded guilty. The Crown Court Judge exercised the jurisdiction to sit as a District Judge in the Youth Court and sentenced the defendant to a 18 months JJC order to run concurrently with other cases that had been dealt with. The defendant was a vulnerable youth and was accompanied by an appropriate adult throughout the proceedings.
R V TD Belfast Crown Court Burglary x3, possession of an offensive weapon and dangerous driving. The defendant was 15 years old. He was charged with 3 co-accused for 3 x burglary, along the same road. He was accused of threatening the occupants of the homes with a machete upon approach. All of which had children present. The defendant stole a car and was involved in a high speed police chase for 30 miles when he was eventually stopped by a police stinger in Belfast city. The defendant was an extremely vulnerable youth with an extensive criminal record and a litany of mental health and addiction problems. The defendant was found guilty of 1 count of burglary and dangerous driving after contest.
R v RM Dungannon Crown Court (pupil)– Allowing the death of a child. The defendant was charged with allowing the death of her 15 month old baby girl. Her ex-partner was co-accused and was charged with murder, GBH, and sexual assault. The baby girl suffered from severe head trauma and was brought to hospital. When she was presented at hospital medical staff discovered that she was also found to have 21 fractured ribs, some up to four weeks old, bruising all over her body, injuries to her stomach, and bruising and swelling consistent with sexual assault. The trial lasted ten weeks involving numerous legal arguments in relation to bad character, hearsay and the addition of new counts on the indictment during the course of the trial. The case involved eye witness accounts, extensive complex medical and forensic evidence, as well as CCTV evidence. The co-accused was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to a life sentence. The defendant was acquitted

Notable Cases - Administrative Court/ Court of Appeal

R v TD Belfast High Court – Judicial review. The defendant was a youth with an extensive criminal record who was remanded in a JJC awaiting trial. He was being investigated in relation to a number of other offences which he denied. A VIPER procedure was scheduled and the youth stated that he was willing to be a participant however the JJC refused to release him. I brought a judicial review and established that there was a Lacuna in the law as there was no mechanism to release a youth from a JJC for the purposes of a VIPER. This resulted in a declaration and a recommendation that the legislation be addressed.
R V DD Northern Ireland Court of Appeal– Case stated. The defendant was due to be sentenced for a number of burglary offences however the probation service provided a positive report in relation to his engagement with relevant services and his change from offending behaviour. Con-sequently the sentencing judge had decided to defer his sentence. Before the end of the deferral period the defend-ant was arrested for further offences, some of which pre-dated the offence relating to the deferral and were in their early investigative stages. The court sought to sentence in light of a perceived breach of the deferral conditions. It was argued that no breach occurred due to the offences pre-dating the imposition of the deferral. It was argued at the COA by the department of justice that the case was merely adjourned and not deferred and counter argued that it could not legally be adjourned for that period of time. The COA found that the case was indeed deferred, however due to subsequent offences committed by the defendant the matter became administrative.
R V VV Downpatrick Crown Court – Rape and Court of Appeal. The defendant was charged with rape of a friend in her home. Concern was raised in relation to the defendant’s capacity. I was junior counsel led by Mr Greg Berry QC. Two psychiatric experts were instructed to assess the defendant in relation to a defence of not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of commission of the offence. The case proceeded to trial and the defence was raised. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The defendant had been subject to ongoing mental health treatment the learned trial Judge sentenced the defendant to a Supervision Order with a Medical Treatment Requirement. This case was appealed to the Court of Appeal on non- disclosure by the prosecutor on previous false complaints of rape made by the IP.
R V MD Northern Ireland Court of Appeal– Case stated. The defendant was found guilty after contest of a number of offences including assault on police x3. During the course of the police evidence it became apparent that the proper procedure was not followed in relation to the stop and search and ultimate detention of the defendant. The decision was case stated to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal on the grounds that the presiding judge was wrong in law. I was led by Mr Mark Muholland QC. The Court of Appeal panel of 3 judges decided that despite the proper stop and search procedure not being followed the police were acting within the execution of their duty

Caoimhe regularly appeared in all tiers of the Family Courts in private law matters involving disputes including relocation and public law matters representing parents contesting public proceedings. These cases involved neglect, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, often with very vulnerable people.

Caoimhe regularly appeared in High Court representing petitioners and respondents in divorce and ancillary relief proceedings.

Notable Cases

MH V MD- High Court- This was a matter that involved a 17 year old child of the relationship with severe learning difficulties and physical disabilities. I represented the applicant father who was seeking a shared care order. Due to the particular difficulties of the subject child the matter involved the Official solicitors office. The mother had been found to be implacably hostile resulting in protracted proceedings. Following a lengthy hearing a shared care order was made.
CC V AD- (Family Care Centre and High Court Appeal) – I represented the applicant mother in relocation proceedings from NI to England. The parties were never married and shared one child. The mother was the main carer of the child ad the father had contact. The mother married and brought proceedings to relocate to England with her hus-band and new born child. In the care centre the Court’s children officer provided a report that it was in the best interests of the child to relocate. The official solicitor disagreed. The court refused the application. The matter was appealed to the High Court, amongst the grounds cited, that the judge placed too much emphasis on the official solicitor who had not met the child. The decision was appealed. The application was successful on appeal and the relocation was granted.
EA v DA- ( High Court of Northern Ireland- family Division)– I represented the wife who was the petitioner in divorce proceedings. This was an acrimonious split whereby the respondent wanted to ring fence his pension when the matter proceeded to ancillary relief – after lengthy negotiations the matter resolved without the need for a hearing by way of a pension sharing order.
ED V FG-Belfast County Court– Care Centre- I represented a respondent father in public proceedings. The respond-ent mother had 6 children to five different fathers. The trust were seeking full care orders in relation to all of the children. It was agreed with the trust that the subject child of my client could reside in a kinship placement with the paternal grandmother whilst the father was completing necessary parental work, whilst having contact at the paternal grandparents home- following the successful completion of this work the trust no longer sought a care order and the father and his mother had a residency order granted in their favour.
GF- Office of Care and Protection– I represented the mother in public law proceedings whereby the Trust were seek-ing full care orders. The parents were presenting as a couple. The father was accused of having had a sexual relationship with the mother’s juvenile sister who suffered from learning difficulties. The Judge made ex parte non-molestation Orders of her own volition in respect of the children against the father. The father contested the same, and the mother was named as a notice party. An Article 56 investigation took place highlighting numerous concerns. I had a number of lengthy consultations with the mother explaining the impact on the wider proceedings if she was to continue in a relationship with the father. The matter proceeded to full hearing and non molestation orders were made. The mother ended the relationship with the father and completed numerous parenting assessments. Ulti-mately a care order was granted. OS involved
CF V DB- I represented the applicant father in residency application proceedings- He stated that the mother was an alcoholic and frequently abused illegal substances. This was vehemently denied by the mother, who worked as a medical professional. One week before the matter was listed for hearing the mother was found deceased in hotel toilets. A residency order was made in favour of the father. An enquiry later confirmed that it was an accidental overdose.
HB V CF- I represented the respondent mother in contact proceedings. She was found to be implacable hostile and the matter was transferred to the care centre. During the first hearing at the care centre the mother threw a chair at the presiding panel and assaulted court staff. The judge requested an Article 56 investigation and in the interim the children were to reside with the respondent. The matter proceeded to hearing, whereby a shared care order was made

Career details

Notable Cases

Notable Cases - Administrative Court/ Court of Appeal

Notable Cases

Caoimhe Bicknell joins Park Square Barristers

Caoimhe Bicknell

Career details

Notable Cases

Notable Cases - Administrative Court/ Court of Appeal

Notable Cases

Contact Caoimhe 's clerks:

Dan Foulger

Claire Gibson

Emma Gibson

Kate Ingledew

Harry Dixon-Sanderson

Dan Foulger

Claire Gibson

Emma Gibson

Kate Ingledew

Harry Dixon-Sanderson

Latest from Caoimhe Bicknell

Caoimhe Bicknell joins Park Square Barristers