Real cases. Real grounds. Real reductions in sentence.

Bradley's family had already paid a top-tier law firm in excess of £40,000 to review his case papers and advise on an appeal. They were told there was little that could be done.

Unconvinced, the family instructed us to carry out an independent review at a fraction of that cost. Our senior reviewers went through every page of the sentencing remarks, charge sheets, pre-sentence report and trial bundle.

We identified clear arguable grounds of appeal that the previous firm had missed — including issues with how the sentencing guidelines had been applied and the categorisation of the offence.

M had been sentenced to 8 years following a guilty plea. The family felt the sentence was disproportionate compared with similar cases reported in the press but did not know where to start.

Our team analysed the offence against the Sentencing Council guidelines, the basis of plea, and the personal mitigation that had been advanced (and not advanced) at the original hearing.

We identified that the starting point had been set in the wrong category and that significant mitigation had not been given sufficient weight.

S was awaiting trial in the Crown Court and terrified about what sentence he might receive if convicted. His own solicitor had given only vague answers about 'possible custody'.

We reviewed the charge sheet and prosecution case summary and worked through the relevant sentencing guidelines step by step. We set out the realistic sentencing bracket on conviction, and the credit available for an early plea.

Armed with that information, S and his family could make a properly informed decision about plea and instructions — rather than guessing under pressure.

R's wife instructed us as he approached his release date. The family had been given conflicting information about licence conditions and what might happen if any of them were breached.

We reviewed the sentence calculation, release paperwork, and the recall framework. We explained — in plain English — exactly what R could and could not do on licence and the realistic risks involved.

L was sentenced after a guilty plea but felt the judge had not taken into account a long history of coercion and exploitation that underpinned his involvement.

His previous legal team had not obtained the right medical and social-work evidence, and the mitigation had been dealt with in a single paragraph.

We reviewed the sentencing remarks, the basis of plea and the pre-sentence report, and identified a stronger line of mitigation that could be put before the Court of Appeal.

P had been convicted several years earlier and had long since missed the 28-day appeal window. He believed fresh evidence existed but did not know whether the Criminal Cases Review Commission would look at it.

We examined the original trial papers, the Court of Appeal judgment, and the new material he had obtained. We then explained the CCRC test in plain English and identified which parts of the new evidence were most likely to be relevant.

Rather than promising a result, we produced a step-by-step plan and a draft chronology to support a future application.

K had been sentenced for a drugs offence and was told the category had been set correctly. His family asked us to check the guidelines and the arithmetic on time already served on remand.

We found that the wrong Sentencing Council category had been applied, inflating the starting point, and that not all the time spent on qualifying remand had been credited.

We set out the calculation line by line so the instructed solicitor could raise it immediately with the prison and, if necessary, the Court of Appeal.