Lily Grundy, Associate

Lily joined the firm as a trainee solicitor in September 2019 and qualified as a solicitor in September 2021.

Lily previously trained at the English National Ballet School before completing a degree at Middlesex University. She then undertook a Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and the Legal Practice Course (LPC) at the University of Law.

Before joining the firm, Lily undertook voluntary work with the Greater Manchester Law Centre and worked as a paralegal.

Lily is a Police Station Representative and regularly attends police stations to advise clients and represent them during police interview.

Lily regularly attends both the Magistrates’ Court and crown court and is involved in the preparation of cases for trial and has gained significant experience in the full spectrum of criminal defence work and regulatory law.

Lily has developed a specialism for cases at the investigative pre-charge stage of proceedings particularly those involving allegations of a sexual nature and those involving indecent images.

Pre-charge Representation

Recent cases of success include:

Client E: 2021 – Client E was arrested and interviewed under caution concerning allegations of rape and sexual assault. He was released under investigation as the police continued with their enquiries. Client E contacted Olliers only a few days following his arrest to request pre-charge representation. We swiftly proceeded to make contact with the investigating officer to establish a line of communication. We also quickly obtained the case papers from the duty solicitor whom represented Client E at the police station. For the following five months, we maintained contact with the investigating officer and regularly liaised with them regarding bail requirements and the progress of their investigation. After in-depth consideration of the police station notes and all of the information and instructions provided by the client, we disclosed some material to the investigating officer concerning the allegations. Following review by the police and consideration of their lines of enquiry, a decision to take no further action was reached thereby concluding the investigation.
Client A: 2020 – Client A was arrested and interviewed under caution in connection with historic allegations of rape. He was subsequently released under investigation pending further police enquiries. On contacting Olliers, we immediately adopted a pro-active approach and established contact with both the officer in the case and the duty solicitor who had represented Client A at the police station. Following detailed consideration of the police station notes, and on taking thorough instructions from Client A, we drafted representations against charge on his behalf. The aim of our representations was to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service that there was ‘not a realistic prospect of conviction’ as required by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The police investigation was ongoing for some time and we periodically liaised with the investigating officer to provide the client with updates. Having considered our representations, the police decided to take no further action against Client A and the matter came to a close.
Client B: 2020– Client B was arrested and interviewed under caution in relation to historic allegations of rape, sexual assault and controlling or coercive behaviour. He was subsequently released under investigation pending further police enquiries. Client B contacted Olliers shortly after his arrest. Following this, we obtained the case papers from the duty solicitor who had represented him during interview. We also established contact with the investigating officer and drew their attention to some initial points about the case which would require further investigation. As the investigation developed, we drafted comprehensive representations against charge based on Client B’s detailed instructions and relevant material he had provided. On considering our representations, the police decided to take no further action against Client B and the matter was concluded.
Client C: 2020 – Client C was a single man who lived alone. The police attended his home address and seized various electronic devices for forensic analysis. He was then arrested and interviewed at the police station for possession of indecent images of children. Following police involvement, Client C contacted Olliers. We immediately adopted a pro-active approach and established contact with the police to enquire about the progress of their investigation. We continued to liaise with the police regularly and provide updates to Client C on where the investigation was up to. Detailed instructions were taken from him and we signposted him to specialists who could help him to address his online activity and offer support. He engaged with a specialist programme and took positive steps to deal with his issues. Once the results of the forensic analysis of the devices had been obtained, we submitted detailed representations against prosecution. This was successful – Client C was not prosecuted and was instead issued with a conditional caution.
Client D: 2020 -The police attended at Client D’s address and seized various devices for forensic examination. He was not arrested or interviewed under caution at this time. He immediately contacted specialists with whom he could discuss his online activity and seek the necessary support. The police investigation continued for some time whilst Client D’s devices were being forensically examined, and he grew increasing worried about his case. At this point, Client D contacted Olliers and instructed us to act on his behalf. We immediately established contact with the officer in the case and confirmed what progress had been made with the investigation. We continued to liaise with the officer regularly and provide Client D with advice and support. Ultimately, Client D was asked to attend a voluntary interview at which we represented him. Following interview, the officer confirmed that he was to be issued with a simple caution, a successful outcome.

Other Recent Cases

R v A – 2020 – Involved in the preparation of a proceeds of crime case. On the first day of trial, the case was dropped against the client.
R v A – 2020 – Involved in the preparation of a protest case.
R v D – 2020 – Involved in the preparation of a rape case.
R v H – 2019 – Involved in the preparation of a murder case in which the accused was found to be unfit to stand trial. This led to a finding of fact hearing resulting in a Hospital Order.
R v C – 2019 – Involved in the preparation of a historic sexual assault case which resulted in the accused being acquitted following trial.
R v W – 2019 – Involved in the preparation of a people trafficking case.
R v C – 2019 – Involved in the preparation of a modern slavery case resulting in a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order. The accused was not subject to criminal proceedings.