Lincoln House Chambers

Lincoln House Chambers

lincolnhousechambers.comlincolnhousechambers.comlincolnhousechambers.com
Region Area

Barristers

Search rankings
  • search
Abdul Iqbal KC
Abdul Iqbal KC
Recommended in Legal 500, 2024 - Crime (General and Fraud) “A very experienced silk who is tactically very astute” Legal 500 (2023) “His advocacy is flawless and he is very clever with a ferocious work ethic. He is fearsome in cut-throat situations. His witness handling skills are superb. ’ (Legal 500 2022 Ranked: Tier 1) “His advocacy is superb and he commands the respect of judges and fellow professionals.” The Legal 500 (2021) “Very experienced in defending in heavyweight criminal matters.” – The Legal 500 (2019) “He maintains absolute mastery over the facts.” – The Legal 500 (2017) “An outstanding silk, and a thorough and inspired cross-examiner.” – The Legal 500 (2016) “Very thorough in his preparation and management of the facts.” – The Legal 500 (2015) “Leading Silk In Crime… The Paragon Of Legal Excellence” – The Legal 500 – 2014 Abdul Iqbal KC is a favoured choice of counsel among both solicitors and lay clients. He is widely recognised for his skilful, tactical and robust advocacy in the most complex cases. He took Silk in 2014 after years of being instructed as leading counsel in high-profile cases where Queen’s Counsel had been instructed by other parties in the case. Abdul has built a very large and successful defence practice focused on the most serious criminal cases, such as homicide, high-value complex commercial fraud, serious organised crime, terrorism, and large-scale international drug trafficking. He also has specialist expertise in confiscation and deprivation of assets issues arising from these areas of criminal work. Abdul previously practised as a pharmacist, and has a particular interest in cases involving expert medical or paramedical evidence. He is noted for his ability and experience in cross-examining expert witnesses on the most complex areas of evidence. He has defended in a series of sensitive cases where professionals (solicitors, accountants, doctors, pharmacists) have been charged with criminal or regulatory offences. Court of Appeal Abdul regularly reviews serious and complex cases and advises upon the prospects of seeking to overturn, before the Court of Appeal, potentially unsafe convictions sustained in cases where he has not appeared at first instance. He also regularly reviews serious cases and advises as to whether a sentence can be regarded as manifestly excessive so as to be successfully appealed before the Court of Appeal. Approach Abdul is noted for his ability and judgment to quickly and reliably identify the real and decisive issues in ‘very heavy’ cases. He excels in offering clear, concise and tactically focused advice in the most complex and voluminous cases Notable cases Homicide/attempted murder R -v- GL [2022], Sheffield Crown Court [Operation Mason Mike]. Allegation of murder. The case involved admissions of guilt recorded by a car “dashcam” device that (unbeknown to GL) captured him making admissions of involvement in the unlawful fatal violence. The case involved a “cut throat” defence between the two defendants and their respective intent at the time of using the fatal violence. The case also involved a wide range of issues as to Jogee joint enterprise and involved complex disclosure, hearsay, bad character, and cross-admissibility considerations. GL was acquitted of murder. R -v- MAH [2022], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Paracress]. Several defendants charged with murder and attempted murder arising from large-scale public disorder in Bradford city centre. MAH, one of the youngest of the defendants, was found not guilty of murder and guilty of the lesser offence of unlawful act manslaughter. The evidence included a very large amount of evidence including complex CCTV footage, joint enterprise liability, and admissibility of bad character arguments. R -v- IR [2022], Birmingham Crown Court [Operation Sarmatic]. Group violence between organised crime groups including arson, carjacking at gunpoint and ultimately fatal violence by stabbing. Complicated chronology including complex factual and expert evidence to link various strands of the prosecution case. R -v- RD [2021], Manchester Crown Court [Operation Malachite]. Multiple defendant joint enterprise homicide involving competing gangs in Manchester. “Jogee” joint enterprise issues. RD was acquitted of murder on the basis of lack of specific intent. R -v- PB [2021], Hull Crown Court [Operation Everton]. Fatal group violence in Hull relating to drug dealing. Murder by stabbing. Admissibility of identification evidence challenged on the basis of breaches of PACE Codes of Practice. Ultimately, Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Chapter 2 agreements led to reduction of sentence. R -v- WB [2021], Leeds Crown Court [Operation Posthaven]. Murder of his own mother by WB whilst suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Complex psychiatric evidence led to the making of a Hospital Order. R -v- MIK [2021], Manchester Crown Court [Operation Landseer]. Alleged murder by shooting involving organised crime groups. Complex scientific and forensic evidence linking various defendants to the fatal violence. R -v- ZK [2021], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Filtergill]. Defendant alleged to be a hired gunman involved in multiple firearm and robbery offences including attempted murder. Cross-admissibility and severance issues. R -v- MJK [2021], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Paperpond]. Multi-handed alleged murder of a drug user during purchase of drugs. Bad character issues. Cut-throat defences involving introduction of reprehensible behaviour. Jogee joint enterprise issues R -v- AK [2021]. Leeds Crown Court [Operation Puntstoke]. Multi-handed alleged murder and attempted murder after group violence. Admissibility arguments as to alleged incriminating hearsay comments made to a third party. Jogee-type joint enterprise issues. R -v- AW [2020], Leeds Crown Court [Operation Patonabbey]. Attempted murder of six pedestrians by use of a motor vehicle after arguments at a social club. Introduction of reprehensible behaviour dating back almost 20 years as “similar fact evidence”. R -v- VC [2020], Central Criminal Court [Operation Melrose]. Conspiracy to unlawfully traffick migrants in breach of immigration law that ultimately led to the manslaughter of 39 Vietnamese migrants in Essex in October 2019. Complex international jurisdictional issues. Anonymous and sensitive witness evidence. R -v- SK [2020], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Peatminster]. The alleged murder of the victim due to an ongoing dispute. Violence over a number of hours alleged by multiple defendants. Recording of some of the violence by the defendants. Cut-throat defences. Issue of causation and Jogee joint enterprise. R -v- SD [2019], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Helix]. Conspiracy to murder. Firearms offences. Drug trafficking offences leading to revenge shooting in Newcastle. Firearms sourced in South Yorkshire. Detailed tracking of defendants across the north of England. Multiple bad character and hearsay arguments. Cut-throat defences leading to acquittal of SD. R -v- CG [2019], Sheffield Crown Court [Operation Carlton]. Murder by stabbing. Multiple defendants. Drug trafficking background. The victim was lured to the location of the fatal incident by a co-defendant and was stabbed to death on the street after a short pursuit. Jogee joint enterprise issues. R -v- UN [2019], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Panarm]. Conspiracy to murder. Animosity generated by a road traffic accident involving family members. Death threats followed by the sourcing of a firearm and shooting in the street of the victim. Issues of transferred malice and Jogee joint enterprise. R -v- SAA [2019], Preston Crown Court [Operation Sweden]. Murder. Long-term anti-social behaviour. Defendants armed with a machete and various blunt weapons attacked the victim and his family members. Large-scale public disorder. Issues of admissibility of poor quality CCTV footage. Jogee joint enterprise arguments at trial. R -v- AKK [2019], Leeds Crown Court [Operation Paddon]. Murder. Financial dispute led to hammer attack causing fatal head injuries. AKK approached passing police officers and admitted the offence. Conflicting psychiatric evidence as to the partial defence of diminished responsibility. R -v- KH [2019], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Foreville]. Attempted murder and firearms offences. The defendants were manufacturing “slam guns” by ordering and assembling component parts. A dispute over the theft of a car led to the discharge of a slam gun into the front room of the victim’s house when multiple occupants were present. Complex intelligence analysis. Legal arguments as to requisite knowledge and intent. R -v- NH [2019], Sheffield Crown Court [Operation Chlorine}. Murder. Drug trafficking background. NH used a golf club to cause fatal skull fracture. Jogee joint enterprise arguments. Complex medical evidence as to nature of injuries and nature of weapon used. Cut-throat defences. R -v- OB [2019], Birmingham Crown Court [Operation Zori]. Murder. Three Eastern European men beat to death the victim and record part of the offending. Offences committed whilst heavily intoxicated. The victim was abandoned outside the defendants’ address. Covert surveillance evidence utilised by the prosecution. Complex pathological evidence as to nature of assault and cause of death. Issues of causation and Jogee joint enterprise. R v DI [2018], Preston Crown Court [Operation Pearl]- Conspiracy to murder. Alleged revenge shooting to eliminate rival drug dealers. The defendant supposedly hired a hitman from West Yorkshire who shot the victim in the face at point blank range. Successful challenges to each strand of the circumstantial evidence implicating DI of the offence. R -v- SD [2018], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Helix] – Shooting in Newcastle alleged to be intimidation in relation to drug trafficking. Cut-throat defences involving successful admission of reprehensible behaviour of co-defendants. R -v- AA [2018], Leeds Crown Court [Operation Panderwick] – unlawful detention and murder of the defendant’s wife followed by attempted destruction of the body by burning. Complex neurological and pathological evidence as to ultimate time and cause of death. Cut-throat defences involving the utilisation of covertly recorded prison conversations. R -v- MT [2018], Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court [Operation Florence] – murder of the defendant’s mother-in-law by multiple stabbing. Medical issues as to bone density and force used to inflict fatal wounds. R v DJ [2017], Leeds Crown Court (Operation Posestoke). Allegations of double murder by arson. R v MZ [2017], Bradford Crown Court. Double murder involving the defendant fleeing the jurisdiction to Pakistan. First extradition from Pakistan to the United Kingdom to face trial in over 10 years. Complex arguments as to the legality of the Pakistani extradition proceedings. R v ZK [2016], Warwick Crown Court (Operation Bridge). Successful defence of charges of murder, wounding with intent, and violent disorder. Murder by stabbing to the neck and slashing to others within a nightclub in Coventry. R v DW [2015], Preston Crown Court, (Operation Albany) – Conspiracy to murder. Attempted execution by shooting to the head and upper body with a sawn off shotgun. Allegations of serious criminality on the part of the victim. R v JW & Another [2014], Bradford Crown Court – Attempted murder involving allegations of an ordered execution and slashing of the throat with damage close to the carotid artery. R v DI [2014], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Plummen) – Murder involving allegations of marital infidelity. Voluntary repatriation to the UK to face trial. R v BMO [2014], Leeds Crown Court (Operation Pipeville) – Revenge murder by stabbing within the Kurdish community. R v LD & Another [2014], Leeds Crown Court – Manslaughter of 4-month-old baby found with multiple fractures, bite injuries and skin burns. Complex multiple medical evidence as to causation of death. R v AH [2014], Sheffield Crown Court (Operation Koat) – Murder by stabbing and decapitation of the victim whilst she was still alive. R v AS [2013], Leeds Crown Court (Operation Pillarmen) – Pre-planned murder of an associate of the defendant by the slashing of his throat outside his family home. R v AS & others [2012], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Peranga) – 64-year-old woman charged with double murder and the disposal of the bodies in a rural location. R v AA & another [2011], Leeds Crown Court (Operation Parilla) – Conspiracy to murder. Alleged arrangement for the victim to be shot whilst she was visiting family in Pakistan. R v OR & others [2011], Stafford Crown Court – Conspiracy to murder. Group pre-planned action to execute the victim by shooting for unknown motives. R v MNA & another [2011], Leeds Crown Court (Operation Paea) – Alleged murder (during heightened racial tensions locally) by Asian men by punching and stamping to the head of the victim. R v JI [2011], Bradford Crown Court – Homicide of a vulnerable passenger by taxi driver driving away, causing her to jump to her death. R v AM [2010], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Stanton) – Triple murder of occupants of house by arson. Terrorism R -v- XX (pseudonym) [2022], Leeds Crown Court [Operation Stormable]. A child defendant charged with engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts and disseminating terrorist publications. The defendant was alleged to have, together with another male, researched the manufacture of explosive devices, and purchased weapons and other equipment in preparation for a terrorist attack. Complex social media and associated evidence running to over half a million messages alone. Complex ideology, theology, political and mindset evidence. R -v- SS [2022], Central Criminal Court. Preparation of terrorist acts, membership of a proscribed organisation, undergoing weapons training. Allegations that SS was a member of “IS” whilst in Syria and that he received instruction on the use of live firearms. Capture of SS by Turkish Armed Forces. Admissibility of comments later made by SS to Sky News about his acts. Issues of duress. R -v- LH [2020]. Allegations of far-right extremist propaganda circulated by LH involving incitement to commit crimes against various sections of the community. Issues of intent. Complex expert evidence as to computer material and its genesis. R v Kahar, Eshati and others [2016] EWCA Crim 568. Appeared as leading counsel in the guideline Court of Appeal judgment (handed down by the Lord Chief Justice in a  5-member court) relating to sentencing for terrorism offences contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (“Preparation of terrorist acts”). The judgment can be found here: R v GH [2017], Leeds Crown Court [Operation Polyamine] – Engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism. Undercover police operation seeking to infiltrate active terrorist sympathiser networks. Active support for the proscribed organisation “ISIS”. Preparation and active steps to travel to Syria to engage in active warfare. R v SC [2015], Central Criminal Court, (Operation Casebox) – Engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism. Active support for the proscribed organisation “ISIS”. Preparation to travel to Syria to engage in active warfare. Successful arguments as to dangerousness. R v AE [2015], Central Criminal Court, (Operation Bravely) – Possession of material for terrorist purposes and/or likely to be of use to persons engaged in terrorism. Purchase of over 1,000 tons of heavy gauge ammunition for $28.5 million for onward transport by air from Italy to Libya for use by the Zintan militia in the ongoing civil war. Serious fraud/financial crime/corruption R -v- MI & MMG Ltd [2023], Manchester Crown Court. Prosecution of the company directors and limited liability company for fraudulent trading linked to the operation of car parking facilities near Manchester Airport. Issues of scope of alleged fraudulent trading, quantification of loss, and categorisation of the offending for sentencing purposes. R -v- HR [2022], Leeds Crown Court [Operation Larkshot]. Allegations of at least £260 million being laundered via gold trading companies across the United Kingdom. Linked to the successful prosecution of Nat West Bank for the laundering £400 million from one customer. R-v- DD [2020], Leeds Crown Court. Practising Solicitor charged with false accounting, fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. Allegations of forged documents and false entries placed in business records. R v SI [2016], Snaresbrook Crown Court – Serving councillor charged with long-term housing scheme fraud upon the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. R –v- FH [2016], Southwark Crown Court, [Operation Kadenza] – Banking and cyber fraud valued in excess of £100 million. Lead counsel for the main defendant charged with complex multi-layered fraud and tiered international money laundering of the proceeds of the fraud. R -v- AB [2015], Teesside Crown Court, (Operation Bamburgh 2) – Large-scale national property fraud involving financial and estate agency professionals fabricating and distorting financial information so as to deceive financial institutions and legal professionals R v MA & Others [2014], Manchester Crown Court – Chartered accountant charged with fraud upon the NHS. Allegations of false accounting, complex falsification of documents, and operation of a closed market. Proceedings stayed as an abuse of process after serious prosecution disclosure failures relating to 3 terabytes of seized digital material. R v GS & Others [2014], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Bellum) – Bank fraud and money laundering involving the provision of loan facilities to fabricated or impecunious applicants by corrupt internal bank employees. R v RK & Others [2014], Southwark Crown Court (Operation Harvest) – Conspiracy to defraud (boiler-room fraud’) involving allegations of international fraudulent ‘share’-trading and money laundering by a complex corporate structure. R v DC & Others [2013], Leicester Crown Court (Operation Gain) – Mortgage, land registry and conveyancing fraud with associated international money laundering involving corrupt solicitors using the stolen identities of bona fide solicitors. R v JL & Others [2013], Nottingham Crown Court (Operation Wickerball) – Serious organised international fraud and money laundering of UK state benefits by Eastern European citizens using fake or falsified identities. R v SAO [2013], Liverpool Crown Court (Operation MFB) – Leading counsel for the defence in an international tax fraud involving over £100 million of reclaimed VAT on complex financial transactions. R v WK & Others [2012], Bradford Crown Court – Laundering of large sums of money over a decade. Large property portfolio and complex financial affairs requiring expert interpretation and reconstruction of financial affairs. R v YH & Others [2012], Hull Crown Court (Operation Ocean Breeze) – Leading counsel for the defence for the first and principal defendant; international intellectual property rights advance fee fraud (‘Duracell Energy Drink – Procter & Gamble’). R v MAJ & Others [2011], Manchester Crown Court (Operation Enigma)  – Alleged international money laundering fraud involving in excess of £170 million of funds transmitted abroad by money-services business. R v SA & Others [2011], Southwark Crown Court (Operation Podium) – Law undergraduate alleged to have defrauded the Olympic Delivery Authority of sums in excess of £2.4 million. R v SD & Others [2010], Leeds Crown Court – Large-scale alleged tax evasion on purchase of high-value cars by disabled drivers using tax-avoidance regulations. International drugs/firearms/people-trafficking R -v- MVM [2022], Manchester Crown Court [Operation Tradite North / Operation Wakeforest]. Alleged international trafficking of industrial levels class A and B controlled drugs from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom. Admissibility in the UK of covertly intercepted conversations in the Netherlands. R -v- VC [2020], Central Criminal Court [Operation Melrose]. Conspiracy to unlawfully traffick migrants in breach of immigration law that ultimately led to the manslaughter of 39 Vietnamese migrants in Essex in October 2019. Complex international jurisdictional issues. Anonymous and sensitive witness evidence. R -v- MB [2018], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Trafalgar] – Importation of multi kilo quantities of class A drugs. Covert recording devices placed in home of suspects pursuant to intrusive police surveillance. Abuse of process arguments relating to pre CPIA 1996 disclosure failings on part of prosecution. R v NK [2018], Peterborough Crown Court [Operations Trojan and Forward] – regional and national trafficking of multi kilo quantities of class A drugs involving organised crime groups operating in Cambridgeshire and neighbouring counties. Complex covert surveillance, telecommunication and financial evidence as to companies operated by the defendant. R v RA [2018], Leeds Crown Court [Operation Fillview] – Conspiracy to possess firearms, ammunition and silencer with intention to endanger life. Alleged planned gun offending related to drug trafficking. Events on 2nd January 2017 when armed West Yorkshire Police Officers shot dead Yasser Yaqub at the Ainley Top junction of the M62. The case involved complex legal argument about disclosure of police intelligence that led to the armed police response leading to the death of Yasser Yaqub. The case also involved complex disclosure, hearsay, bad character, and cross-admissibility considerations. R v AR [2018] – secured the unanimous acquittal after trial of RA who was charged with conspiracy to possess firearms and ammunition with intent to endanger life. Please click here for media coverage R v SD [2018] – secured not guilty verdicts in gun violence trial. R v IA & Others [2014], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Custard Apple) – Multiple importations of heroin hidden in wooden cargo imported via the international postal system R v WK & 2 Others [2014], Leeds Crown Court (Operation Borage) – Importation of 245kg of heroin via the international cargo delivery system. R v JM & Others [2014], Nottingham Crown Court (Operation Lineal) – Large-scale regional and national distribution of class-A drugs from the East Midlands. Employee of solicitors’ practice indicted. Issues of legal professional privilege and abuse of process. R v NS & Others [2014], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Block) – Large-scale conspiracy to facilitate breaches of UK immigration law by falsification and fabrication of documents in relation to overseas applicants seeking UK entry clearance. R v GK & Others [2014], Sheffield Crown Court (Operation Babbage) – International conspiracy to facilitate breaches of immigration law. Alleged ‘sham’ marriages. Fraudulent documents allegedly produced to support multiple ‘marriages’ to ensure UK citizenship was granted to non-EU citizens, under false pretences. R v RH & Another [2013], Leeds Crown Court – Multiple importations (around 100kg) of heroin hidden in woven carpets. Issues of public-interest immunity, complex surveillance and telephonic evidence. R v MI & Others [2013], Leeds Crown Court (Operation Bizarre) – Principal defendant involved in multiple large-scale importations of cocaine from Peru and Ecuador. Issues of the admissibility of material obtained using foreign legal provisions and convictions sustained abroad. R v UH [2012], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Giltford) – Organised live firearms and ammunition distribution regionally for the purposes of serious organised crime. R v MI & Others  [2011], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Lapworth) – Leading counsel for the defence; one of the principal defendants in large-scale importation of Glock firearms from the USA and distribution within the UK to organised crime groups. R v MFH & Others [2010], Bradford Crown Court (Operation Prime) – International conspiracy to kidnap and blackmail involving the drugging, gagging and beating of the victim over several days. US$2m ransom-demand made in China. Inter-jurisdictional co-operation led to the detection and arrest of the perpetrators. Serious crime R -v- BK [2019], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Dalesway]. One of the lead defendants in a multiple defendant trial involving allegations of long-term sexual abuse of children in local authority accommodation. Allegations centred around a local authority home. Complex evidence as to the actions of local authority staff and the police. R v YH & Others [2014] EWCA Crim 228, [2014] All ER (D) 255, Court of Appeal Criminal Division – Leading Court of Appeal judgment on the principles to be applied and procedure to be adopted in ‘absconder’ appeal cases. R v DH (2012) Leeds Crown Court – Serial rapes and other serious sexual assaults of stepdaughters over several years; complex medical and scientific evidence. R v BB & Others [2011] Leeds Crown Court (Operation Pelatos) – Murder by shooting with associated allegations of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. R v MK [2011] Bradford Crown Court – Multiple rape and serious sexual assault of a schoolgirl who had been groomed by MK and another. R v MD (2011) Leeds Crown Court (Operation Recall) – Cold case; rape of student over 25 years ago; reliance upon pre-DNA scientific evidence and bad character. R v MS & Another [2011] Bradford Crown Court – Principal defendant charged with unlawful entry into a young mother’s home followed by her torture, degradation, detention over hours, and serial multiple rape. R v CN & Others [2006] EWCA Crim 314, Court of Appeal Criminal Division – Large conspiracy to burgle and handle stolen goods involving ‘Hanoi’ burglaries and the dissipation of stolen cars in the North of England. R v NM & Others [Att Gen Ref 8, 9, 10 of 2002, 2003 1 Cr. App R. (s) 57], Court of Appeal Criminal Division – Guidelines on sentencing for kidnapping cases. Private client work R -v- AB [2022], Nottingham Crown Court. International people trafficking conspiracy involving complex communication evidence between alleged co-conspirators. Instructed to argue categorisation of culpability and harm relating to the offending for sentencing purposes. R -v- MI & MMG Ltd [2023], Manchester Crown Court. Prosecution of the company directors and limited liability company for fraudulent trading linked to the operation of car parking facilities near Manchester Airport. Issues of scope of alleged fraudulent trading, quantification of loss, and categorisation of the offending for sentencing purposes. R -v- SA [2020], Bradford Crown Court [Operation Note]. Large-scale immigration fraud by use of “proxy” test takers thereby breaching immigration rules. Complex psychiatric history of defendant. Multiple psychiatric evidence as to diagnosis, prognosis, and residual responsibility. Hybrid order. R -v- NA [2020], Derby Crown Court. Pharmaceutical wholesaling and retailing businesses. Alleged breaches of licensing conditions on the wholesale supply of class C controlled drugs via the wholesaling businesses. Restraint order issues as to proportionality of restraint of trade. R -v- SKN [2019], Hull Crown Court. Causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Stabbing at a party involving attendees of a local private school. Multiple identification evidence witnesses. Arguments as to admissibility of various strands of evidence allegedly linking SKN to the stabbing. R v ZH (2016), Leeds Crown Court – Successful defence of Chartered Accountant charged with offences of violence and public disorder. R v TH (2016), Leeds Crown Court – Successful defence of male nurse charged with sexual offences relating to two care assistants in private nursing homes. R v SA (2016), Snaresbrook Crown Court – Serving Councillor charged with serial housing fraud upon the local authority. R v MH (2015), Manchester Crown Court – Successful defence of Chartered Accountant charged with serious fraud. Public Access Abdul Iqbal KC may accept Public Access work, where he can be instructed directly by a member of the public rather than a solicitor.
Alaha Faryl
Alaha Faryl
OVERVIEW Alaha has a successful public law practice which includes employment, family and human rights law with considerable experience of advocacy and written work in asylum and human rights claims, deportations and removals, bail application, administrative reviews, injunctions, judicial reviews, visit visas and points based system application. Recent emphasis has been on the application of European law, free movement of citizens and the exercise of treaty rights. Recent instructions include: • Representing an Appellant at the First-Tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal in which it was argued that the starting point in the construction of the Immigration Rules is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used to express the requirement in question and not any subsequent gloss as advanced by the respondent.  The respondent unsuccessfully appealed to the Upper-Tribunal which upheld the earlier First-Tier Tribunal decision. • An emergency Injunction application to the High Court to halt the removal of a Claimant two hours before his flight to Pakistan. • Representing vulnerable adults (both male and female) who have been the victims of torture, sexual exploitation and other forms of abuse. • Representing a female Appellant who had been trafficked to the United Kingdom during her early teens and subsequently also held in servitude for nearly a decade. • Grounds for Judicial Review, which led to a concession by the Secretary of State. • Representing a Claimant at a 6 day race discrimination claim against a large public body. • Defending an out of time application for costs (in excess of £25,000) against a Claimant and her Solicitor, in the Employment Tribunals. • Representing the 2nd Defendant in a multi-party civil fraud action Alaha has also presented a seminar to the Royal College of Nursing on The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
Alan Taylor
Alan Taylor
As an experienced practitioner, Alan has built a successful Criminal and Regulatory practice. In the last five-years, he has transformed his practice so that Professional Discipline & Regulatory conducts around eighty-percent of his work load. Alan also continues to practise in criminal law. Alan is a highly-experienced advocate. He regularly receives plaudits from both professional and lay clients for his advocacy style and for the results he achieves for his clients. He will leave no stone un-turned in seeking to achieve the desired outcome for his client. In the field of professional discipline, Alan is one of the General Medical Council’s regularly instructed advocates. He has recently been appointed to the Council’s list of advocates sufficiently experienced and skilled to appear in the High Court. He conducts all types of hearings for many professions, including Fitness to Practise, Review and Restoration hearings. He has extensive experience of appearing before Interim Orders Panels. Much of Alan’s current practice is taken up with Fitness to Practice Hearings involving misconduct (including dishonesty, sexual abuse, and serious clinical errors), deficient professional performance (following performance assessments), and adverse physical or mental health. Examples of Professional Disciplinary/Regulatory work: Extensive experience of both prosecuting and defending healthcare professionals Appearing regularly on behalf of the General Medical Council, before Investigation Committees and Fitness to Practise, Review and Restoration Hearings Extensive experience of Interim Orders Panels, currently appearing regularly in High Court on behalf of the General Medical Council seeking interim order extensions Representing other non-healthcare professionals in disciplinary hearings Inquests (including death in custody) Examples of Criminal Law work: Wide-ranging experience of prosecuting and defending in complex cases encompassing all areas of crime Acting as junior in murders, conspiracies and frauds Particular experience of historic rape/sex abuse cases
Alexander Bennie
Alexander Bennie
Alex has a multidisciplinary practice covering criminal law, actions against police, and human rights, with a particular interest in areas impacting on vulnerable parties, minorities, or involving accountability of public authorities. He defends and prosecutes regularly in serious and multi-handed criminal cases and deals frequently with POCA proceedings, findings of fact, and is trained to handle vulnerable witnesses, and youths. He has specialist expertise in bringing actions against the police, regularly acting successfully for claimants in jury trials, and on appeal, to challenge wrongful arrests, profiling, assaults causing personal injury, and other areas of police misconduct. He has considerable further experience in areas of social welfare law which raise issues of human rights or public law. He has regularly acted in human rights, asylum, and deportation cases in the First-tier and Upper Tribunals; in possession and homelessness proceedings, and in cases involving the intersection of these areas and community care law, including on judicial review. Alex has international expertise in legal issues surrounding the death penalty and human rights in capital jurisdictions, and international human rights more generally. He is Director of Programmes at Evolve which regularly offers technical assistance in capital cases and has headed up statistical research into sentencing trends in Uganda. He has addressed judges on sentencing issues surrounding the death penalty and has designed, built and delivered online training tools for prosecutors in Uganda. Crime Alex defends and prosecutes in serious and multi-handed criminal cases and has appeared in the Court of Appeal. He has defended in cases involving attempted murder; GBH; importation, production and supply of drugs; robberies; firearms; fraud; and sexual offending. He regularly prosecutes multi-handed cases involving serious violence, domestic violence and false imprisonment, robbery, supply of drugs, and fraud. Alex has specific expertise in actions against the police, analysis of police misconduct, and related human rights issues, which complements his criminal practice. He has international expertise in cases involving capital punishment, and has assisted and advised in capital case appeals in different jurisdictions. He has designed resources and delivered training to prosecutors abroad in advocacy and in criminal law and procedure. He is trained in handling vulnerable defendants, victims and witnesses and has extensive experience prosecuting and defending in cases involving complex legal arguments or expert evidence surrounding specific vulnerabilities or mental health issues. He has acted in POCA proceedings for the Crown and defence, and in cases involving financial fraud and money laundering. Recent cases R v AO (2023, Woolwich Crown Court): Successful half-time submission in a multi-handed joint enterprise robbery. R v FA (2023, Croydon Crown Court): Two counts of s.18 involving spontaneous stabbing of two members of the public. Acted for an extremely vulnerable defendant through to a mental health disposal. R v SP (2023, Woolwich Crown Court): A multi-handed Encrochat drug supply conspiracy case arising out of Operation Venetic. Successfully resisted submissions on role relating to “trusted couriers” centered around money minding, possession of Encrochat phones, and proximity to leadership. R v AA (2023, Woolwich Crown Court): Successful half-time submission in a case of racially aggravated harassment and assault against police officers. Careful analysis of body worn video disproved the allegations. R v AP (2023, Kingston Crown Court): Acquittal in a case of stalking with serious alarm or distress involving an extremely vulnerable defendant with a severe intellectual disability. Close analysis of the expert evidence and sensitive cross- examination of the complainant properly contextualised the behaviour. R v AC (2022, Basildon Crown Court): Multi-handed ATM burglary conspiracy involving use of explosives on several occasions. Actions Against The Police Alex offers experienced representation to Claimants in multi-track jury trials, and on appeal, in cases involving allegations of police misconduct, false imprisonment, assault, and personal injury to members of the public. He also accepts instructions in inquests. He has expertise in challenging the wrongful uses of handcuffs, of force, of tasers, of entry, of stop and search, and of arrest particularly in cases raising questions of honesty or discrimination. He frequently deals with complex legal arguments on topics such as costs, QOCS, fundamental dishonesty, and s.329. Prior to commencing pupillage, he undertook paralegal work for Bhatt Murphy during the Article 2 inquest into the police restraint death of Olaseni Lewis. Recent cases PN v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2023, Central County Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice): Successful challenge of stop and search of a BAME member of the public which was found to have lacked genuine suspicion; RM v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2023, Central County Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice): Successful challenge of arrest of a BAME member of the public in connection with a robbery which was held to have lacked honest suspicion. MP v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2022] EWHC 3244 (KB): Successfully acted on appeal in a case which turned on the application of the QOCs regime in proceedings where a personal injury case was raised after issue of proceedings. The case is an authority for the proposition that QOCS applies retrospectively in such instances. SF v Chief Constable of Kent Police (2022, Canterbury County Court): Successfully challenge of unreasonable use of force in a case of forcible entry into a property and use of a taser on a member of the public. Immigration & Asylum Alex has extensive experience representing appellants or judicial review applicants before the First-tier and Upper-tribunal in cases involving human rights or asylum and in deportation cases. Housing Alex has extensive experience acting in possession and disrepair proceedings and homelessness challenges, and of advising on judicial review in those areas. He further advises on the intersection of housing and other areas of social welfare law, including social security, mental health and community care law. International Human Rights Alex has considerable expertise in capital punishment law and comparative procedure and in the international frameworks and human rights law bearing on the criminal process. He also has experience advising on international human rights law and drafting UN complaints. Prior to starting pupillage, Alex volunteered in City University’s Pakistan Death Row project, which won the award for outstanding international collaboration of the year at City’s Vice Chancellor’s Awards 2016. He coauthored several reports on comparative capital case jurisprudence and its application to capital sentencing in Pakistan. He volunteered at Reprieve for a year working on cases with a death penalty or international human rights dimension. He assisted the Reprieve Africa Team within the Malawi Resentencing Project. At 1MCB, he assisted Ariane Adam and Vyaj Lovejoy with the drafting of successful submissions to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which resulted in a declaration of unlawful detention in the case of three relatives of the Director of the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei. Alex is currently Director of Programmes for Evolve which works on capitalcases and criminal justice development in Uganda. Evolve assisted hundreds of inmates extensively in the Kigula re-sentencing phase. Alex conducted statistical research into sentencing trends in Uganda, and problems arising after Kigula, which he presented at the 2018 Annual Judges’ Conference. Evolve advised the Ugandan Sentencing Guidelines Committee on current draft High Court Guidelines. He has presented to the Supreme Court of Uganda on complications following abolition of the mandatory death penalty in Uganda Evolve traces missing files for capital inmates detained but unable to appeal due to file loss. Evolve reorganized the Supreme Court of Uganda’s civil and criminal registries, as part of which Alex created a digital archive management system for logging the location and movement of case files and trained Supreme Court staff on its use. He more recently created an online training academy for the ODPP of Uganda and co-delivered training on advocacy, criminal law, and case preparation for prosecutors using it. He authored a comprehensive textbook on Ugandan criminal law for that exercise and is currently working on comparable online resources for defence practitioners. He has drafted submissions in successful appeals against conviction and sentence in capital cases. This includes the Ugandan Supreme Court case of Otim Moses where the appellant’s death sentence was overturned following an error of law in relation to his age at time of offending. He had been unlawfully on death row for 10 years
Alexander Leach KC
Alexander Leach KC
"Alex was one of the most highly regarded juniors on circuit and there is no doubt he will be one of the most highly regarded silks for many years to come." - Legal 500, 2023 "Absolutely brilliant on strategy, with a meticulous eye for detail." - Legal 500, 2022 "Intelligent, articulate and with a jury presence - when instructed he is able to advise the client in terms they understand." - Legal 500, 2021 "Recent work includes multi-defendant drugs conspiracies." - Legal 500, 2018 "Recommended for a broad range of criminal matters" Legal 500, 2017 "The next generation of stars" - Legal 500, 2010   Alex is one of the leading criminal practitioners in the North, engaged to defend and prosecute in some of the most high-profile criminal cases of recent years. At Crown Court level, Alex is a specialist in three principle areas: 1. Murder and Serious Organised Crime; 2. Fraud and; 3. Rape and Sexual Abuse cases. Alex is described by those who instruct him as a creative and intelligent strategist capable of influencing the outcome of a case from its very outset. He provides training to leading criminal solicitors on the value of pre-charge engagement and encourages a proactive and assertive approach from the moment an investigation begins. In preparation for trial, Alex has a meticulous approach to detail and a tireless work ethic, often identifying weaknesses in a case that only emerge from close analysis of the evidence. Alex always places his client at the centre of the trial preparation process and has a real ability to create a successful working partnership in even the most challenging circumstances. In Court, Alex deploys an expert approach to legal argument that often leads to the exclusion of pivotal sections of a prosecution case. He commands the respect of the Judiciary for his knowledgeable, focused and well-judged approach. Above all, Alex is instructed as a trial advocate, sought after for his energetic and forceful approach to the most difficult of cases. Juries naturally warm to his reasoned and intelligent manner and he is capable of adjusting his style of cross-examination from the type of sensitive approach needed with more vulnerable witnesses to the more robust approach often required when dealing with the most serious organised crime. Many of Alex’s most impressive results have arisen in circumstances where he has been retained privately and at an early stage in proceedings and he is highly sought after by private clients for that reason. Prior to taking silk, Alex sat on the level 4 CPS panels for Serious Crime, Fraud, Confiscation, Rape and Sexual Abuse and Counter Terrorism. Alex also conducts an appellate practice, dealing recently with conviction appeals relating to historic convictions. Alex also sits as a Recorder (Criminal) and is authorised to try serious sexual offences.  
Alistair Webster KC
Alistair Webster KC
Alistair took silk, at the age of 41, in 1995. He is amongst the most experienced of counsel working in the fields of commercial crime, crime and regulation. He has been a Recorder of the Crown Court for over 20 years and is a Master of the Bench of Middle Temple. He is on the SFO panels both for prosecutions and asset restraint. Alistair is highly recommended in the legal directories year on year: Legal 500 2017 - "Tenacious, fearless and a highly skilled cross-examiner." Legal 500 2016 - ‘‘An exceptional jury advocate, who is able to very quickly break down complex cases for juries." Quotes from past guides include..“ Outstanding intellect”; “Outstanding lawyer”; “First class strategist and tactician”; “Accessible and responsive”; “ Eloquent, brave and effective”. OVERVIEW Alistair's recognised excellence and client care across the spectrum of criminal and criminal related cases has made him an extremely popular choice for clients paying for the costs of their own advice and representation. As he is one of the country's most experienced KC's, it is hardly surprising that his wealth of experience and record of success put him in demand. His breadth of experience means that he has dealt with aspects of fraud not only in the criminal courts, but also in the High Court, the Administrative Court, and the tax tribunals. Added to his experience in proceeds of crime and restraint orders, he is thus able to offer a rare combination of services across the board and to advise with an eye to the consequences beyond the immediate issues presented to him. Alistair has regularly appeared in the biggest cases to come before the courts, ranging from income tax and VAT frauds through to regulatory offences in areas such as Health & Safety, Trading Standards and Environmental prosecutions. He is on the Serious Fraud Office's panels for both fraud and proceeds of crime which makes him, we believe, unique outside London. He has successfully represented, on a privately paying basis, solicitors, company directors and other professionals charged with a multitude of offences as varied as fraud by abuse of trust, corporate manslaughter, money laundering and offences arising from regulatory non compliance. He has successfully challenged both restraint orders and search warrants in relation to cases involving the SFO and SOCA.
Anam Khan
Anam Khan
As an established practitioner with a multidisciplinary practice, Anam is able to draw upon her diverse experience in Civil, Crime, Regulatory and Coronial law to deliver lateral advice to her Clients. In addition to representing parties at trials and interlocutory hearings, she is frequently instructed for her advice and analysis in matters concerning privilege, disclosure and the instigation of proceedings. Some of her professional clients include various Government departments, the Information Commissioner’s Office (���ICO’) and Greater Manchester Police. Anam is enthusiastic and confident in turning her mind to new areas of law, her recent instructions cover a broad spectrum, namely, acting as Junior Counsel with a disclosure function on the Manchester Arena Inquiry, defending a cash forfeiture action brought by HMRC, claiming for damages arising from an actionable interference with an easement, representing parties at the Employment Tribunal and developing a practice of civil actions against the police. Anam prides herself on meticulous case preparation. She has a keenness to get involved with all aspects of preparatory work, recognising the need for her clients to be fully equipped for court proceedings, from the outset. Anam employs a pragmatic approach to her cases which allows her to deliver sensible and practical advice to her clients. Anam is often commended by Solicitors for her thoroughness and excellent attention to detail. Regulatory Following a three-month secondment at the ICO, during which time, Anam acted as a disclosure junior on one of the ICO’s largest multi-defendant prosecutions, Anam continues to prosecute a range of data protection act offences, particularly, offences of unlawfully obtaining and disclosing data. During her secondment, Anam acquired the requisite skills for handling a large-scale disclosure exercise; she produced disclosure logs, disclosure management documents and maintained schedules of sensitive and non-sensitive material. Anam worked closely with the case investigators and advised them on issues surrounding lines of enquiry and the recording and retention of material. Anam developed a thorough understanding of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Code of Practice and kept her knowledge up to date regarding matters contained within the CPS’ disclosure manual. Anam prosecuted the landmark case of ICO v MK which attracted media interest for being the first ICO prosecution for a non-data protection act offence, to result in the imposition of a custodial sentence. Anam was involved in all aspects of this prosecution from shaping the charges to conducting the first appearance through to the confiscation proceedings. Anam is keen to expand her existing regulatory practice. Inquest and Inquiry Anam is currently instructed as part of the Junior Counsel team on the Manchester Arena Inquiry into the deaths of those individuals who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist bombing. Anam is heavily engaged with the disclosure exercise and undertakes comprehensive evidence reviews. As a representative of the Inquiry, Anam attended the Old Bailey for the criminal trial of the brother of the Manchester bomber, R v Abedi; a landmark case of the first individual to be tried for twenty-two murders in English jurisdiction. Anam has experience of representing private organisations as interested parties at Inquests. Of note is In the inquest touching upon the death of LH concerning the death of a male who whilst being subject to onerous licence conditions continued to take drugs to the knowledge of a number of relevant individuals and organisations. Of significance, was the question of information sharing between organisations. Anam’s client was particularly concerned about a regulation 28 order. Anam understood the commercial implications of any such order and was successful in obtaining a favourable outcome for her client. Civil Actions against the police: Anam has experience of drafting detailed particulars of claim for various causes of action, specifically, assault, trespass to the person and unlawful detention, including claims for complex financial losses and exemplary and aggravated damages. Anam has represented Claimants at their trials, of note is the case of DK v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police which involved an allegation of improper and dangerous use of a police dog resulting in the Claimant sustaining extensive bite injuries. Commercial Debt Recovery: Anam has acted for companies and sole traders in the architectural, legal, automotive, engineering and building industries where the primary issue has been the quality of the products and services provided. Anam was recently instructed to represent a large finance company at a formal mediation. Notable cases include: KK v S: Successfully represented a defendant car garage by discharging the reverse burden of proof that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale. WF v NP: Successfully represented the Claimant, a marketing company engaged by the Defendant, the Claimant faced a counterclaim for loss of business revenue alleged to have been caused by irresponsible marketing which had damaged the Defendant business’ reputation. Judgment was entered for the Claimant for its outstanding invoices and the Counterclaim was dismissed despite the Judge finding that the Claimant’s marketing may have damaged the Defendant business’ reputation. DA v CC: Successfully represented the Claimant, an architect engaged by the Defendant on a large expansion project. The Defendant disputed payment of the invoices on the basis of poor workmanship and incomplete performance of the contract. He brought a counterclaim for the cost of additional services. Judgment was entered for the Claimant and the counterclaim was dismissed on the basis that the Claimant had performed the contract diligently. Unsecured Debt Recovery: Anam has a high-level of familiarity in acting for lenders in debt recovery actions pertaining to consumer credit, principally dealing with issues of limitation, identity and contract formation. Anam has experience of acting for energy companies, this has in some instances required sifting through hundreds of bills in order to locate a minute detail. Secured Debt Recovery: Anam has experience of acting for lenders in secured debt recovery actions by way of attending contested charging order applications, applications for orders for sale as well as mortgage possession hearings. Personal Injury: Anam accepts instructions in the full spectrum of PI hearings from Small Claims through to Multitrack Trials. She is frequently instructed for her advice on quantum and by both Claimants and Defendants in Stage 3 hearings and trials pertaining to liability, quantum and credit hire. Anam keeps herself up to date with credit-hire case law and is accustomed to contentious and complex credit hire points. Anam is highly familiar with the law surrounding fundamental dishonesty and is able to advise clients on how a finding may be achieved/avoided. Bankruptcy/Insolvency: Anam has been instructed to represent the official receiver on preliminary hearings concerning void transactions, breach of director’s duties involving illicit dividend payments and failure to discharge company obligations. Anam has appeared on behalf of petitioning creditors at initial bankruptcy hearings and resisted applications to set aside a statutory demand. Landlord and Tenant: Anam has been instructed to act on behalf of both commercial and residential landlords dealing with issues of possession, deposit protection and disrepair. Crime As well as being a grade 2 prosecutor, Anam enjoys a varied defence practice which includes private driving. Anam has been particularly successful in advancing arguments of special reasons and exceptional hardship. Of note is the case of R v E in which Anam was successful in having disapplied the mandatory endorsement provisions when E was stopped for driving without insurance. Anam has represented individuals accused of offences of violence, public disorder, harassment, drugs, dishonesty and poor driving. Anam has experience of dealing with particularly complex client needs as a result of age and mental health/cognitive difficulties. She has been successful on a number of occasions in opposing special measures’ and bad character applications and in advancing non-defendant bad character applications and s.78 PACE 1984 arguments to exclude. Of note is the case of R v MB where the complainant’s bad character was allowed into evidence allowing Anam to refute the Crown’s suggestion that MB had carried out honour-based violence. In light of Anam’s commercial astuteness, she recently represented a company director in proceedings brought by the Insolvency Service. Anam particularly enjoys the intricacy of confiscation work, especially cases which involve representing third parties asserting an interest in property, of note is the case of R v SA (third party) wherein the third party intervened at the stage of the Crown’s application for receiver appointment. Anam was successful in obtaining a six month stay to the receiver’s powers to enable the third party to pursue an application under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for a property adjustment order. This case involved arguing the application of Stack v Dowden [2007] principles. Other notable cases include: R v B: Represented a 73-year old individual subject to life licence for a murder in 1975. Upon his release from prison in 2007, B was convicted for harassment which led to the parole board authorising his detention for a further ten years. Upon his release in 2017, B was again the subject of harassment allegations. There was a high chance of B being detained for a lengthy period, if convicted again. At trial, the Complainant adduced evidence of B’s bad character. The Crown waited until the day of trial to serve extensive telephone records allegedly showing B’s persistent text messaging in response to the Complainant asking to be left alone. B was acquitted on the basis that his conduct was found to be reasonable. R v D: Represented a male accused of breaching a term of his restraining order when he turned up at the complainant’s house unannounced. D was found to have had a reasonable excuse and was acquitted. R v S: Represented a male accused of assaulting a police constable. Body worn footage was adduced to show the alleged incident taking place in a cell. S was acquitted in absence. R v M: Represented a male accused of assaulting his disabled wife. At trial, injury photographs were produced to show extensive bruising to the Complainant’s arms. It was put to the Complainant that her injuries were inconsistent with the alleged circumstances of the assault. M was acquitted. R v KM: Represented a male accused of threatening two police officers with a machete. Anam elicited inconsistent evidence from the police officers which severely undermined their credibility. KM was acquitted. Other experience: In gaining experience prior to the Bar, Anam spent time in Indiana, North America on a Criminal Justice Internship, which allowed her to draw comparisons between the two legal systems. Anam gained an understanding of American law enforcement through spending time with the sheriffs’ department. Anam has volunteered in a number of capacities, all of which enabled her to work with individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds and those in unfavourable situations. She represented individuals at the Social Security Tribunal for appeals against benefit entitlement decisions, on behalf of the Citizens Advice Bureau. Anam further volunteered as a mentor for the Probation Service where she assisted hearing-impaired individuals to learn to read and write English, so they could progress to further education. Anam subsequently acted as a mentor for a charity which focused on the empowerment of young girls in order to overcome issues of low self-esteem, sexual exploitation and bullying. Anam’s voluntary work has extended to the delivery of humanitarian aid in Tanzania, a project which required in-depth research into methods of malaria prevention. Testimonials "Ms Khan undertook a very difficult and at times demanding case, involving a very large and well funded opponent, whose witnesses were legal professionals." "The conduct of Ms Khan before and during the case was extremely professional, courteous, caring and understanding. This was matched by her calm, challenging and very knowledgeable manner in court." It was greatly reassuring having Ms Khan as my Barrister. After four very gruelling days in court the jury were unanimous in their verdict, finding the case in my favour. My wife, family and I are eternally grateful to Ms Khan. Thank you so very much (Client following success in 2023 civil jury trial)
Andrew Thomas KC
Andrew Thomas KC
Andrew Thomas KC was called to the Bar in 1989 and awarded silk in 2008. Andrew has been appointed to sit as a Deputy High Court Judge (Administrative Court) and Recorder (both Criminal & Civil). Whilst Andrew has a mixed practice, undertaking both serious criminal cases in the Crown Court and common law civil work, the most significant proportions of his work involve either allegations of regulatory breach; including health and safety cases and environmental law or the most serious and complex criminal cases.  Andrew also undertakes Judicial Review proceedings on a regular basis. Andrew Thomas also undertakes advisory work for both prosecution and defence in respect of Corporate Manslaughter, Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Health and Safety Offences. Instructions received frequently relate to the following sectors: construction and demolition; haulage industry; NHS hospital trusts; medical professionals; nursing and care homes; and children’s care home. Andrew Thomas has considerable experience in environmental regulatory proceedings, in particular relating to the waste management industry. He regularly advises and acts for operators in criminal proceedings, in administrative appeals and on judicial review. Andrew’s talents are recognised by the leading legal directories year after year, recent publications have described Andrew as being: Ranked: Tier 1 - Legal 500, 2022 ‘Intelligent, considered and robust.’ – Legal 500, 2020 and 2021 “A top-class advocate with a sharp intellect.” – Legal 500, 2018
Anna Chestnutt
Anna Chestnutt
“Anna is a thorough and tenacious barrister who pays close attention to detail and prepares cases meticulously, leaving no stone unturned. She is exceptional and her advocacy skills show diligence and persistent determination in all that she does” - Legal 500, 2025 “Anna is fantastic to work with, readily available, and highly responsive. She is a highly persuasive advocate and her practice encompasses serious work which is usually reserved for those beyond her years of call.”- Legal 500, 2025 “Anna has exceptional forensic analysis and she is a once-in-a-decade quality advocate on all levels. All judges trust her judgement and listen with an acceptance that her points have validity.”Tier 1 Crime (General and Fraud) - Legal 500, 2024 “Anna is a joy to instruct; her energy, sharp intellect, and industry know no bounds. She is a stand-out advocate who brings her authentic self into the courtroom where she is highly persuasive.”  Tier 1 Professional and Disciplinary Law - Legal 500, 2024 “Anna has demonstrated a capacity to unflappably absorb and define voluminous and challenging instructions at short notice. She has demonstrated sound and proven abilities as a lawyer, advocate and communicator in all matters in which briefed or instructed” - Legal 500, 2023 Criminal & Regulatory (Criminal Courts) Anna Chestnutt is a sought after crime and regulatory specialist who enjoys a significant following on the Northern Circuit. She has been described as a “Rising Star”, in several practice areas, by the leading legal directories. Anna’s practice includes cases across the full spectrum of criminal and regulatory areas and frequently involves cases of significant weight that might usually be considered appropriate for barristers far beyond her call. Anna is known for her calm and tactful manner with clients. She can develop a good rapport with clients from all walks of life to ensure the client has communicated their instructions and their wishes clearly. This has included clients with enduring mental health issues and drug misuse issues which requires a degree of sensitivity and adaptability. It is not uncommon for Anna to advise for the input of either a psychologist or a psychiatrist as the case requires. Anna has also dealt with clients with learning disabilities and acquired brain injuries. She will work to fully understand their communicative needs. There are many relatively young defendants within Anna’s caseload. Anna considers this an opportunity to engage in a meaningful way with her clients, so they do not re-offend. Anna has, for example, achieved suspended sentences for young clients who have been involved in the supply of Class A drugs as she is able to draw out the relevant detail of their youth, immaturity and vulnerabilities. Anna’s popularity with defence firms is shared by several prosecution authorities and regulatory bodies, and as a result, Anna is regularly instructed to prosecute serious offences in the Crown Court and before other tribunals. Anna is a CPS Category 3 Prosecutor and is also on the Attorney Generals Regulatory Panel (HSE, EA). Anna is also instructed to advise on data protection offences, having formerly undertaken a 3 month secondment with the Information Commissioner’s Office. In addition to her work as junior alone, Anna has also been instructed as a led junior in long-running, serious criminal cases. She is regularly specifically requested by leading counsel as a result of her outstanding work ethic, ability to manage document heavy cases, and meaningful input to the work of larger legal teams. The overlap between criminal and regulatory law is of interest to Anna. Aside from her criminal practice, Anna has regular conduct of regulatory cases, often arising from criminal conduct, before a range of tribunals. These include: Healthcare and Professional Discipline This area of law has been a prominent feature of Anna’s practice throughout her career at the Bar. A highlight includes a 14-week case before the Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘NMC’) in which Anna successfully made a submission of no case to answer. Anna had also worked for the NMC on a 3-month secondment (2023) advising on whether cases should proceed through the Fitness to Practice process or should be closed. This required careful consideration of not only the relevant law but the ever-important NMC Code and published guidance. Additionally, Anna has a wealth of experience of Interim Order hearings, FTP and Substantive Order Review Hearings. Anna takes pride in guiding her lay clients through what can be an extremely challenging and stressful process. Inquests Anna accepts instructions in inquest hearings covering a very wide spectrum of causes of death. Cases of note include: Inquest into the death of Ben Leonard - In 2024, Anna was instructed as junior Counsel to the Inquest led by a silk. This very heavily reported inquest touched on virtually all potential issues of law and procedure so fastidious attention to detail was required. Anna mastered disclosure which amounted to tens of thousands of pages to ensure that a ‘no stone unturned’ approach was achieved. The evidence in the case before a jury lasted for 5 weeks. Inquest into the death of RW - Anna was instructed on behalf of the Government to deal with issues arising from a death of an individual supervised by the Probation Service. This required a level of sensitivity as Anna had to challenge the evidence put forward by grieving family members. Inquest into the death of JH – Anna was instructed to represent a local authority in an inquest arising from a death Stepping Hill Hospital. The inquest involves safeguarding considerations and early discharge from hospital. Transport Law Regulation & Traffic Criminal Defence Anna regularly appears Nationwide before the various Traffic Commissioners, on behalf of both Operators and Drivers for their conduct hearings. Anna has also advised drivers on obtaining licences when they have relevant criminal convictions. Through years of experience, Anna has learned the importance of rectifying issues identified for the Public Inquiry through instructing relevant consultants. She also acknowledges that the effect of punchy and persuasive written submissions before the Public Inquiry cannot be overlooked. Anna has represented Operators with Standard National Licences and Restricted Licences, understanding the nuanced but important differences from a legal perspective. Anna has also defended in a significant number of driving offence matters and has an impressive track record for her work in this area. Her services are specifically sought by a number of specialist solicitors as a result of her experience of driving cases involving complex matters of law and procedure. Memberships etc Anna is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers. Presently, Anna is the Manchester Junior on the Northern Circuit Executive Committee. She has an interest in outreach work so those from underrepresented backgrounds may flourish in their career at the Bar. Anna is qualified to accept instructions on a Direct Access basis.   Notable cases include: R v UH & Others - led junior prosecuting in a multi-handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The evidence was the testimony of undercover police officers as well as telephony and ANPR. The defendants were universally convicted. R v MS - had the prosecution dismissed as an abuse of the Court’s process when the prosecution laid new charges arising from an incident where the defendant had already entered his guilty pleas and had participated in the preparation of a pre-sentence report. R v EW - the prosecution had treated one individual as a witness and had another charged as a defendant even though their circumstances were identical. Successfully applied to have the case stayed against her defendant as an abuse of the Court’s process. R v PD - secured the acquittal of a defendant of previous good character charged with a series of historic rape Counts against two child complainants. R v JF - secured the acquittal for rape of a vulnerable adult with apparent developmental issues, where the Court had refused multiple applications for an intermediary to assist the defendant. Appeal against Conviction before Court of Appeal (ND) - led junior on behalf of the Respondent (CPS) for an appeal against ND’s murder conviction. This transpired to be a landmark decision regarding when solicitors and barristers are professionally embarrassed and may withdraw. The appeal was unsuccessful. R v AC - the complainant had been slashed 5 times to the face with a knife and sustained a wound which extended the edges of his mouth. The defendant was acquitted of a s.18 assault and convicted of a s.20 assault in the alternative. R v AO - secured a suspended sentence for her client who was convicted of a s.18 assault having stabbed the victim in the head. OTC v AEL - where a series of desk-based assessments had revealed a number of serious shortcomings with the running of the Operator’s licence. Achieved the unusual result of a formal warning where she persuaded the Traffic Commissioner that sufficient remedial steps had been taken to ensure compliance. OTC v MA - secured a verbal warning for a driver following a bridge strike before the Traffic Commissioner, where the guidelines had a starting point of a 6-month suspension. NMC v VL - successfully persuaded a fitness to practise panel that whilst a nurse’s actions amounted to misconduct, their fitness to practise was not impaired. Advised in respect of the nurse’s written reflection which proved instrumental in achieving the outcome.  
Anthony Horsfall
Anthony Horsfall
Anthony Horsfall joined Lincoln House Chambers in November 2023. Anthony enjoys a busy criminal practice and spends the large majority of his time in the Crown Court defending and prosecuting in cases spanning the full spectrum of criminal offences. Anthony gained extensive experience in criminal and regulatory roles prior to being called to the Bar and this has resulted in him being well equipped to undertake very serious work that would otherwise be considered beyond his call. Notably, he has been instructed counsel in cases involving s.5 firearms, s.18s, arson reckless endangerment, the supply of Class A drugs, fraud and business offences, robbery and serious child sexual offences. Anthony is a compelling and persuasive advocate and regularly appears in Crown Court trials. He enjoys a strong success rate both in jury trials and also in mitigating at sentence hearings, where he frequently secures outcomes that are well beyond the expectations of his professional and lay clients. Anthony also has experience of being led as junior, and is regularly specifically requested by senior members of Chambers due to his outstanding work ethic and his positive and useful contribution to the team. As a Level 2 CPS prosecutor, Anthony is instructed to prosecute in a broad range of criminal cases before the Crown Court, including multi-handed cases. His Crown Court prosecution experience also  extends into regulatory work, acting on behalf of the Insolvency Service and Information Commissioner’s Office in document-heavy cases. In addition to his criminal case load Anthony also appears before the Coroners’ Court. Anthony is a member of the Attorney General’s Junior Junior Scheme. Prior to coming to the Bar, Anthony worked for a number of years at two ‘Magic Circle’ law firms, where he specialised in risk management and anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance. He was graded ‘Outstanding' in the Bar Course and was Called to the Bar as a Middle Temple Major Scholar. NOTABLE CASES R v AH - Defendant faced multiple charges relating to the possession of a s.5 handgun, a shotgun and compatible ammunition. Following negotiation, the Crown accepted a plea on a basis to carrying a firearm in a public place (shotgun alone). Defendant ultimately sentenced to serve only 6 weeks beyond his time on remand. R v LS - 2x Attempted s.18 - Defendant acquitted following a successful submission of ‘no case to answer’ touching on joint enterprise and intent. R v LH - Defendant faced charges of arranging the commission of a child sexual offence (rape) and attempted sexual communications with a child. Following lengthy negotiations, the Crown agreed to accept a plea to the lesser offence. Defendant ultimately sentenced to serve only 2.5 weeks beyond his time on remand. R v JD - Currently instructed to represent a defendant in relation to several allegations of historic sexual assaults against his then step-daughter when she was 10 years old. R v CH - s.18 - Defendant pleaded guilty on the day of trial in relation to his involvement in a machete attack that left the victim with numerous very serious injuries. The defendant had multiple previous convictions for violence and had also appeared in a ‘drill’ music video which glorified knife violence and had been filmed, in part, at the scene of the offence. Sentenced to 4 years, 3 months. R v KT - Defendant faced charges of s.18 and robbery relating to 2 separate incidents. Discussions with the Crown resulted in acceptable pleas to s.20 and theft. Defendant received a 18-month suspended sentence. R v PT - s.20 - Defendant acquitted by a jury. Complainant sustained multiple shin bone fractures following a struggle with the defendant outside the defendant’s home address. R v GM - s.20 - Defendant acquitted by a jury. The case involved a complainant who suffered serious head injuries whilst alone with the defendant at home. R v JH - Sexual assault by penetration on a child under 16 and 2 further sexual assaults on the same victim. Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2 years, 3 months. R v DA - Threats with an offensive weapon in a private place. Defendant acquitted by a jury following close cross-examination of the complainant. R v NB (and ors) - Defendant faced charges of violent disorder and possession of a bladed article following an incident in which a man sustained serious injuries. Negotiation with the Crown resulted in an acceptable plea to criminal damage. Defendant sentenced to a 28-day curfew as part of a 12-month community order. R v  TE - Sentencing of a defendant in relation to an offence of possession with intent to supply class A drugs (3x offences), alongside offences of burglary and possession of a bladed article. All offences were committed on separate occasions, with the latter 2 offences committed whilst on bail for the drugs matters. Defendant received a 2-year suspended sentence. R v JF - Defendant faced 2 counts of robbery and possession of a bladed article (which the defendant presented in the course of one of the incidents). The Crown accepted pleas to robbery, theft and the bladed article. Defendant received a 2-year suspended sentence.
Austin Welch
Austin Welch
“Austin Welch is a health and safety specialist”- Legal 500, 2025 “Austin is a no-nonsense barrister who quickly gets to grips with the issues in a case and provides sound and pragmatic advice. He is fantastic with clients and fellow professionals alike and his advocacy skills, whether in court or before a regulatory panel, are second-to-none”- Legal 500, 2025 “Austin Welch has a broad-ranging inquests practice, with expertise in deaths in the workplace, healthcare institutions, care and nursing homes, prisons, and secure units.”- Legal 500, 2025 “Austin is unflappable and combines a grasp of technical detail with an excellent client demeanour which instils confidence in both those instructing and the lay client. His approach in court reflects this and he has a calm and collected approach to advocacy.”- Legal 500, 2025 “Austin is an excellent advocate. He has an authoritative presence in the courtroom and emits gravitas, he presents clear and well-reasoned arguments with ease, and he is an outstanding strategist and highly respected by clients and peers.” Tier 1 Business and Regulatory Crime (inc H&S) – Legal 500 2024 “Austin is an excellent advocate and an outstanding strategist with an authoritative presence in the court room, and he emits gravitas. He presents clear and well-reasoned arguments with ease, and he is one of the best senior juniors in the field of health and safety, inquests, and public inquiries.” Tier 1 Inquests and Inquiries – Legal 500 2024 “Austin is an excellent senior leading junior. A superb advocate with a commanding presence and natural gravitas in the courtroom. He is unflappable during cross-examination, holds real weight with clients and delivers strategic and well thought out advice in a clear and accessible way. He is highly personable and fosters a true sense of collaboration” – Legal 500, 2023 – Inquests and Inquiries – Tier 1 “Austin is incredibly hard working, giving his time generously and diligently to a case. His technical knowledge of business and regulatory law is second to none; he is a quick thinking master strategist, who easily finds the best way through any legal or practical issue. He immediately gains the confidence of his clients with his straightforward and tactful approach. He is a compelling advocate.” – Legal 500, 2023 – Business and Regulatory Crime – Tier 1 “Excellent knowledge of the law, meticulous preparation, extremely hard working and tactically very astute. He is superb with clients, and very generous with his time. He will undoubtedly be in silk before very long” – Legal 500, 2022 – Inquests and Inquiries – Tier 1 “His preparedness of matters for hearings and his oral advocacy is that of a highly-skilled advocate. He is thorough, straight-talking and his communication skills in getting often complex issues over to lay clients is excellent.” – Legal 500, 2022 – Regulatory – Tier 1 “Very knowledgeable; his written and oral advocacy is top class. He is very patient and understanding with clients. A very capable lawyer and is very generous with his time. He has a very good track record.” – Legal 500, 2021 – Regulatory – Tier 1 “A committed and exceptionally talented barrister; without doubt a future QC. He is meticulous in his approach to the case and excellent with the client, he was reassuring, confident and worked hard to ensure a positive outcome for the client.”– Legal 500, 2021 – Inquests and Inquiries – Tier 1 “Combines superb client care with fantastic technical ability”– Legal 500, 2020 – Inquests and Inquiries – Tier 1 “His client care skills are second to none”– Legal 500, 2020 – Regulatory, Health & Safety and Licensing – Tier 1 “An excellent tactician who is persuasive on his feet.” – Legal 500, 2019 – Inquests and Inquiries “He combines fantastic technical ability with great client care skills.” – Legal 500, 2019 – Regulatory, Health and Safety and Licensing “His legal, tactical and presentational abilities are excellent.” – Legal 500, 2018 – Inquests and Inquiries Austin Welch specialises in public inquiries, inquests and health and safety and is one of the most experienced and well respected junior barristers in these areas of law. Over a number of years Austin has been consistently recognised by the UK legal directories as being a leading individual in these specialist areas of practice. Austin has been instructed in some of the most significant, high profile and complex inquests and public inquiries in recent years including: The Manchester Arena Inquiry; The Independent Investigation into Child Sexual Abuse and the Hillsborough Inquests. Austin represents companies and corporate bodies; public and local authorities; government departments; individuals and bereaved families who are granted interested person or core participant status. He has a particular specialism in representing clients in inquests and inquiries that involve health and safety issues. Austin represents clients in relation to health and safety, fire safety and food safety offences. He is regularly instructed to represent companies and individuals charged with such offences in both the Crown Court and Magistrates’ Court and has an excellent track record for achieving positive outcomes for his clients.  Austin is experienced in representing clients from a wide variety of industries and is known for providing clear, commercial advice. Austin also represents companies and individuals in criminal and professional disciplinary proceedings that follow inquests and public inquiries and successfully represented one of the retired police officers in R v Denton and others, the Hillsborough ‘cover-up’ trial that was dismissed at the close of the prosecution case.​ As a member of the Regulatory List, Austin is instructed by the HSE to prosecute health and safety cases. Austin is also a member of the Attorney-General’s  List of Counsel and is regularly instructed to represent government departments in complex Article 2 inquests. Austin represents medical professionals in disciplinary proceedings brought by the GMC. He regularly appears on behalf of doctors in fitness to practice proceedings in the MPTS as well as other professionals charged with disciplinary offences by their regulators. Austin also has significant experience in representing police officers in disciplinary and criminal proceedings.
Brenda Campbell
Brenda Campbell
"Brenda is one of the best barristers at the Bar. She gets to grips with very difficult and  voluminous cases with apparent ease and is masterfully elegant. She is a real fighter and a fantastic orator and foremost, a great lawyer with a huge amount of commitment.” Legal 500 2024 – Crime “Brenda’s strengths would be cross-examination and attention to fine detail and her preparedness for trial knowing all aspects of her case extremely well, preparing for the unforeseeable.” Legal 500 2022 – Crime Brenda Campbell is a leading KC in criminal law and inquests. She has a high-profile, cross-jurisdictional practice, appearing in courtrooms in England & Wales and in Ireland, north and south. Brenda is regularly instructed to defend in the most serious of criminal allegations including murder, terrorism and international fraud. She is, in addition, a highly respected Inquest & Public Inquiries silk, representing families in Article 2 inquests, including historic or legacy Inquests & police shootings, and in ongoing Public Inquiries. Brenda has worked extensively in the field of human rights, both nationally and internationally, with a focus on women’s rights, children’s rights and the rule of law. With a focus on international women’s rights, Brenda has represented the International Women’s Rights Action Watch (IWRAW) Asia Pacific on the Steering Committee of the NGO coalition for the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Having been an active participant in the drafting process at the United Nations Palais des Nations in Geneva, she then became involved in the global campaign for the ratification of the Optional Protocol. Brenda has advised on lodging communications before UN Human Rights Bodies and lectured on UN Human Rights mechanisms. Brenda is highly experienced in representing children and young people and ensuring their effective participation in the criminal justice system. She has represented children across the full spectrum of criminal allegations and is an experienced advocate in cases involving young and vulnerable witnesses. Her approach is always young person focused and she has particular expertise in representing children with special educational needs, learning disabilities and autism. She sits on the Board of Just for Kids Law. NOTABLE CASES  Murder R v DSP, Loughborough CC (2023) Multi-handed trial. Representing a teenage defendant with significant learning disabilities and complex mental health issues. Allegation of murder arising out of a conspiracy to rob a cannabis farm. Acquitted of murder, sentenced to six years imprisonment for manslaughter. R v B, Central Criminal Court (2023) Appointed by the Court to represent a mother with serious and long-standing mental ill-health who was accused of the murder of her four-year-old son. Defendant was unfit to plead. R v L, Belfast Crown Court (2023) Ongoing ‘Diplock’ trial on allegations of double murder following successful extradition of the defendant. R v BAZ, Bristol Crown Court Representing a teenage girl accused of murdering her mother’s boyfriend. Highly complex background of trauma, abuse and vulnerability complicated by a significant learning disability. Prosecution accepted a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility after the commencement of the trial. Successfully resisted an AG Ref on sentence (R v BAZ [2022] EWCA Crim 940. R v TZ, Birmingham Crown Court Representing defendant in high profile allegation of a sophisticated and professionally organized murder by shooting. The case was reported here. R v LK, Central Criminal Court, (2020) An allegation of murder by shooting. The defendant shot at the deceased 6 times, hitting him with at least 5 shots. It was the prosecution case that the killing was an act of revenge, the defendant having discovered that the deceased, who was his friend, was having an affair with the defendant’s former partner. The defendant was acquitted of murder. The case was reported here. R v RWR, Central Criminal Court (2019) The defendant, an 18 year old man with autism, was accused of a joint enterprise stabbing. He was tried alongside 2 other teenage defendants. It was the prosecution case that the defendant had lured the deceased to a park and thereafter participated in a joint attack with knives, including a Rambo knife and machete. The defendant was acquitted of murder. The case was reported here. R v CF, Central Criminal Court (2019) The allegation of joint enterprise murder arose out of an arson attack on a residential home in the middle of the night. The defendant was the driver of a motorbike that had transported the arsonist to the scene, waited for him and then sped him away. He was the second of six defendants in this long running trial. He was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter. The case was reported here. R v Bell, Central Criminal Court (2016) Allegation of murder by driving at the deceased. It was suggested that the defendant acted in revenge immediately following an attack by the deceased on another individual. Following the collision the defendant fled the scene & the associated damage to the vehicle was repaired. Defendant was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter. The case was reported here. R v Seamus Daly, Omagh Magistrates Court (2016) Seamus Daly was accused of 29 murders and offences relating to the 1998 Omagh Bomb. He had already been found liable, on the same evidence, in the civil courts. The case was listed for an old style committal. Following her cross-examination of a key witness, the prosecution sought an immediate adjournment to review, and ultimately withdraw, all charges. The case was widely reported in the global media including here, here and here. R v Nathaniel & others, Central Criminal Court Murder, conspiracy to commit GBH. Represented the first defendant in this 10-handed trial. Mr Nathaniel was a high-profile sports and celebrity agent, alleged to have planned a revenge attack upon young people who had robbed his business partner. The complex and lengthy trial, which was advanced on a joint enterprise basis against all defendants, ended in the acquittal of all but the stabber. This case was reported by the BBC. R v SS & others, Central Criminal Court Double murder and attempted murder. The case was built upon the identification of one of the accused (the identical twin of another accused) by the surviving victim of this triple shooting, together with cell site evidence and a revenge motive. Following a successful legal argument, the identification evidence was excluded by Fulford J. The ruling amounted to a terminating ruling against all four defendants. It was appealed by the Crown to the Court of Appeal who in turn upheld the High Court Judge’s ruling. All charges were the subject of formal not guilty verdicts. R v Harrison & others, Central Criminal Court Murder. Three defendants, all teenagers, accused of joint enterprise stabbing in a stairwell in Battersea in the course of an apparent cannabis transaction. Omar Harrison, the second defendant, was inside the stairwell while the stabbing occurred and had blood from the victim on his clothing. Following a trial involving cutthroat defences, the first and third defendants were convicted of murder while Mr Harrison was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter. This case was reported by the BBC. R v AC & others, Central Criminal Court Murder. The defendant faced a second trial on an allegation of murder, the jury having been discharged in his initial trial following a successful severance argument. It was alleged that the defendant was involved in the execution of the deceased, Larry Malone, and moments later had passed the murder weapon (a Mac 10 machine gun) on to another defendant for safe-keeping. The Crown’s case relied on telephone evidence, knowledge of the victim and association with the movement of the murder weapon. The defendant was acquitted of murder and convicted of possession of a prohibited weapon and ammunition. This case was reported by the Daily Mail. R v McPherson & another, Central Criminal Court Murder / attempted murder. Defendant accused of shooting his co-defendant (Nankani) immediately after Nankani had fatally driven at the defendant’s friend outside the Ministry of Sound nightclub. R v Lee & another, Central Criminal Court Murder. Defendant was the passenger in a car that reversed over and killed a pedestrian following an argument. Defendant acquitted. Co-defendant, the driver, was convicted on re-trial. R v C & others, Central Criminal Court Represented one of seven defendants accused of murder and attempted murder following a shooting at Streatham Ice Rink. Acquitted at half time. R v S, Central Criminal Court Allegation of attempted murder following a shooting in which the victim was shot in excess of 14 times and named the defendant as a perpetrator. Unanimously acquitted. R v B & others Case alleging 32 counts including directing terrorism, membership of a proscribed organisation and preparation for acts of terrorism. R v SS & others, Kingston Crown Court (2018) Allegations of conspiracy to evade duty & money laundering. Case collapsed when pursuit of disclosure revealed improper conduct of HMRC investigators. INQUESTS AND INQUIRIES Brenda is regularly instructed to represent families in Article 2 inquests. She has particular expertise in representing families in complex, historic inquests in England and Wales, and legacy inquests in Northern Ireland. NOTABLE CASES The Stardust Inquests, Dublin Coroner’s Court Representing bereaved families in the fresh Inquests into the 1981 Stardust nightclub fire. See here and here. The UK COVID Inquiry Lead Counsel on behalf of the Northern Ireland Covid Bereaved Families for Justice. You can watch Brenda’s cross examination of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson here. Inquest into the death of Noah Donohoe, Belfast Coroner’s Court Representing the mother of Noah Donohoe, the 14-year-old child who went missing in Belfast in June 2020 and whose deceased body was found, days later, in an underground storm drain. Inquests into the deaths of Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem, Birmingham Coroner’s Court Representing the bereaved families of mother and daughter, Khaola Saleem and Raneem Oudeh who were violently killed by Raneem’s ex-partner. Their murders occurred against a background of multiple police failings and missed opportunities. Read about the case here. The Hillsborough Inquests Between 2013 and 2016 Brenda was part of a team of counsel who represented the families of 77 of those who died in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster. Brenda directly represented the families of 14 of those who were unlawfully killed. Inquest into the death of Joseph Rainey Joseph was found suspended from a ligature on the first night of his remand at HMPYOI Hydebank Wood. The catalogue of failures that contributed to his death were recorded by the jury in a lengthy and damning verdict. Watch a documentary on Joseph’s case here. Inquest into the death of Steven Colwell Steven Colwell was shot by a PSNI officer in 2006. The Inquest is continuing before Belfast Coroners Court. The Ballymurphy Inquests Representing bereaved families in the Inquests into the deaths of eleven innocent people who were unlawfully killed by British Army soldiers between 9 – 11 August 1971. Inquests into the deaths of Martin McCaughey & Dessie Grew Brenda appeared in the Belfast Coroner’s Court, led by Karen Quinlivan QC, representing the families of Martin McCaughey and Dessie Grew, who were shot and killed by the SAS in October 1990. Inquest into the death of Gareth Myatt Together with Dexter Dias QC, Brenda represented the mother of Gareth Myatt, a child who died following restraint in the privately-run Rainsbrook detention centre. This is reported to be the longest inquest into a death in prison custody. CRIMINAL APPEALS Brenda has an active appellate practice in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS Brenda has worked extensively in the field of human rights, both nationally and internationally, with a focus on women’s rights, children’s rights and the rule of law. With a focus on international women’s rights, Brenda has represented the International Women’s Rights Action Watch (IWRAW) Asia Pacific on the Steering Committee of the NGO coalition for the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Having been an active participant in the drafting process at the United Nations Palais des Nations in Geneva, she then became involved in the global campaign for the ratification of the Optional Protocol. Brenda has advised on lodging communications before UN Human Rights Bodies and lectured on UN Human Rights mechanisms. YOUTH JUSTICE & CHILD RIGHTS Brenda is highly experienced in representing children and young people and ensuring their effective participation in the criminal justice system. She has represented children across the full spectrum of criminal allegations and is an experienced advocate in cases involving young and vulnerable witnesses. Her approach is always young person focused and she has particular expertise in representing children with special educational needs, learning disabilities and autism. She sits on the Board of Just for Kids Law.    
Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
Recommended in Legal 500, 2024 - Crime(General and Fraud) "Brendan is always very prepared and thorough and his client care is exceptional which is important for instructing solicitors. Brendan is an experienced barrister." - Legal 500, 2023 Brendan O'Leary is an established and sought-after barrister who specialises in all areas of serious crime. He is regularly instructed in serious criminal litigation, in particular homicide, organised crime, financial and regulatory crime, and sexual offending. He is instructed in cases of the utmost gravity, sensitivity, and complexity. He is renowned as a skilled jury advocate, who is particularly adept at bringing a clarity to complex cases. Brendan specialises in multi-handed cases where he is credited with excellent tactical instincts in advancing his client’s case. Many such cases involve very large amounts of evidence and Brendan is quickly able to digest such material and identify areas which can be used to his client’s advantage. Brendan has considerable experience in dealing with expert evidence, from cell site analysis to DNA evidence. He is adept at deploying such expert evidence to the benefit of his clients, which has resulted in successful outcomes in a large number of cases. Brendan’s practice includes a number of high value and high profile Enchrochat cases involving multi-million pound drugs and firearms conspiracies. Brendan’s practice also encompasses defending those charged with serious sexual offences. He has defended in high profile ‘grooming’ cases which have received coverage in national media. He is also often instructed to deal with sensitive cases where the allegations are historical in nature. Brendan has a meticulous approach to pre-trial disclosure and analysing unused material. He is skilled at analysing large amounts of material and deploying its use to the advantage of his client. Brendan prides himself in providing an excellent service to professional and lay clients. He is regularly instructed in cases where youths and those with significant mental health conditions have been charged with murder and other serious violent and sexual offences. Brendan is a Category 3 CPS prosecutor Brendan also represents clients made subject to Account Freezing Orders (AFO) and other asset and cash detention. Brendan also specialises in representing individuals and other entities who are called before the Traffic Commissioner and the Upper Appeal Tribunal. He is instructed in cases nationwide, including in Scotland. Notable Cases Operation Sandpiper Murder - Ongoing case – A multi-handed (10 defendants) allegation of murder of a 16-year-old boy. The defendants were all youths at the time of the allegation. A high-profile case which encompasses complex issues of joint enterprise / participation. Operation Foxton Murder – Ongoing case – 5 defendants. Brendan represents one of the defendants in this allegation of murder arising out of an incident at a set of traffic lights in South Manchester. Operation Littlefinger Conspiracy to defraud. Ongoing case. Allegation is that the defendants conspired to defraud HMRC of more than £25 million, by the creation of false companies applying for research grants. Operation Northolt Conspiracy to possess firearm with intent to endanger life. Instructed to represent the defendant alleged to have discharged a firearm into an occupied property. Multi-handed case involving complex cell site, phone, DNA and cctv analysis. Defence consisted in demonstrating the strands of evidence relied upon by prosecution were not consistent with their case. Detailed analysis of unused material proved the contentions made by prosecution were not supported by wider material. Client acquitted. Operation Rudge Conspiracy to produce cannabis, conspiracy to facilitate travel for exploitation, conspiracy to perform forced labour. A three-week trial where Brendan was instructed to represent the alleged regional head of an OCG accused of organising the trafficking of individuals to perform forced labour in cannabis farms. The value of the dugs was in excess of one million pounds. Detailed analysis of phone records, cell site and ANPR evidence demonstrated the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was not reliable or consistent with the prosecution case theory. Client acquitted by the jury. Operation Geladi Conspiracy to rob, conspiracy to supply cocaine and cannabis. One of the first wave of 'Enchrochat' Operation Venetic cases. Represented a defendant said to be a leading member of Salford based OCG involved in the violent targeted robbery of over 1 million pounds worth of cocaine from a stash house belonging to a Liverpool based OCG. Operation Wimbledon Multi handed conspiracy to import cannabis, supply cocaine and produce amphetamine. Multi-million-pound drugs conspiracy. Detailed pretrial analysis of evidence and unused material resulted in successful representations being made on behalf of the client culminating in the class A charges and importation charges being dropped by the prosecution. Operation Barva Large scale conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration. The case involved 15 defendants. The evidence was voluminous and involved meticulously analysing documents from the UK and overseas in order to properly advance the case on behalf of the defendant. R v H -Defended a client in a case of industrial scale production of cannabis. Client found at the scene of a cannabis factory and fingerprint evidence linked him to scene. Numerous pieces of evidence excluded. Client acquitted after successful submission of no case to answer. R v JB (and others) – Multiple defendant case involving a lengthy conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs. Over one year’s of evidence including undercover police surveillance and covert listening devices. Client was only the only defendant acquitted of both charges, after an eight-week trial. R v FS – Successfully prosecuted a case and later successfully upheld at the Court of Appeal. Now the leading case in the area of when a ‘statutory defence’ is available to those who claim to be refugees are charged with possession of fraudulent documents. R v M – Defended in a case of a violent robbery using a weapon. Client had been identified by the victim. Client had also allegedly confessed to committing the robbery to police. Brendan succeeded in having the alleged confession excluded. Identification evidence challenged. Client acquitted after trial. R v AA – Defended in a case where a shop keeper pleaded guilty to sexual assaults on two girls under 13. Brendan persuaded the court to suspend the prison sentence. R v S – Defended in a case of possession of a firearm and robbery of a taxi driver. Successfully challenged evidence that the firearm was not one that should be subject to a five year minimum prison sentence. R v W – Brendan successfully prosecuted this case where the defendant was convicted as part of a gang who dressed up as policemen to burgle houses containing cannabis farms. Manchester Evening News Report. R v WE – Successfully appealed the sentence of a man convicted of a violent robbery in the home of a woman and young child. The sentence was reduced by 2 years’ from 8 to 6 years’ imprisonment Road Traffic Law Brendan is regularly instructed in a wide range of road traffic cases. Brendan has been instructed in cases involving s172 RTA 1988, dangerous driving, careless driving, driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. He is skilled at pursuing technical defences, such as the calibration of speed guns, challenging police intoxilyser procedures, and back calculation defences. Brendan also has an excellent record of in persuading courts to find Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship to avoid disqualification under the ‘totting up’ provisions. Notable Cases R v JW – Acted for a client charged with drink driving, over twice the legal limit. Successfully argued that the court should not disqualify on the basis of shortness of distance driven. R v CG – Successfully represented a client who was found to be three times over the legal limit. Put forward a back calculation argument which secured an acquittal after trial. R v TW – Successfully argued that a man who had driven over the limit had done so only to escape an incident of domestic violence being carried out by his wife. Court found special reasons not to disqualify. Asset Recovery and Confiscation Brendan has a great deal of experience in this area, where he also appears in the High Court in enforcement receiver proceedings. He has been instructed in a complex and long running enforcement receiver case at the High Court. This has involved a number of legal arguments and the consideration voluminous amounts of evidence. Brendan also successfully represented a client on a Proceeds of Crime application where he successfully argued that the order being sought by the prosecution was disproportionate. Taxi Licensing Brendan has a particular interest in the area of taxi licensing. For many years he has acted for both taxi drivers /operators, and also local authorities in taxi licensing cases. Brendan has significant experience in dealing with the particular legal issues raised in this area. He has an in depth knowledge of the law and procedure involved in both prosecuting and defending taxi licensing cases. He has also assisted taxi drivers in their appearances before local authority licensing committees.
Chris Daw KC
Chris Daw KC
"A highly recommended crime silk." - Legal 500, 2018 "He has excellent client-care skills." - Legal 500, 2017 "Excellent tactical analysis, good rapport with clients and extraordinary courtroom presence." - Legal 500, 2016 OVERVIEW Chris Daw KC was called to the Bar in 1993 and was appointed King’s Counsel in 2013. Before taking silk, Chris built his reputation in the criminal courts, acting in high profile  trials and appeals, from serious organised crime to commercial fraud. As a KC, whilst maintaining a substantial criminal and serious fraud practice, Chris acts in a broader range of matters, including business, regulatory and professional discipline instructions. With an entirely private practice, Chris is able to dedicate the time and attention to detail required to service his principal client base of corporations, high net worth individuals, public figures and professionals in various fields. He has extensive experience of acting for the country’s most senior police officers, up to and including the rank of Chief Constable, in criminal proceedings, inquests and misconduct hearings. Chris Daw KC is the only barrister to have defended former captains of both England (John Terry) and Wales (Ryan Giggs) in criminal trials.  Both legendary footballing figures were acquitted of all charges. Chris takes on only a small number of clients at any one time. Given the pressures on his time he tends to act for those clients who retain him at the earliest possible stage of a case, often in the pre-charge or pre-investigation phase. In addition to major document-heavy criminal and regulatory cases, Chris has a niche practice advising and representing high net worth individuals in sensitive personal and criminal matters, where the consequences for a client’s reputation may outweigh the gravity of the issues involved. He also advises individuals and corporations on the tactical use of criminal law strategy, such as private prosecution, in both personal and commercial disputes. Where appropriate Chris takes an aggressive and proactive approach, before proceedings even begin, drafting representations against charge, and thereafter, vigorously pursuing pre-trial applications on disclosure, abuse of process, exclusion of evidence and to dismiss charges altogether. In addition to appearing in criminal trials, inquests and disciplinary tribunals Chris advises on appeals where he did not appear at trial. Chris approaches every case with the same high standards of preparation and clients find him direct, honest and passionate about what he does. He works closely with solicitors at every stage of a case and is always available to provide advice and support throughout the preparation of the difficult and sensitive cases in which he is involved. Chris is a passionate advocate of social mobility, speaking at schools, colleges and other events, encouraging students from state schools to make it into the legal profession.  He is a member of the Bar Council Barristers for Schools scheme and recently judged a sixth form advocacy competition at the Supreme Court, organised by Big Voice London. Chris Daw KC is the bestselling author of Justice on Trial (Bloomsbury), a major work in the field of criminal law and criminal justice. He also writes for a variety of national and international publications on a range of topics, including serious crime and fraud policy. In addition to his writing, Chris is a regular commentator on legal and policy issues on television and radio.  He also presented a hard-hitting documentary series, “Crime - are we tough enough?” for BBC1 TV and has a number of documentary and social media projects in the pipeline. Chris accepts instructions throughout the UK and, where necessary, in international jurisdictions. Connect with Chris on LinkedIn. NOTABLE RECENT & CURRENT CASES R v Ryan Giggs - successful defence of the Premier League’s most decorated player, and former Manchester United and Wales Captain / Manager, on multiple  charges of assault and controlling & coercive behaviour.  After a full jury trial, under the glare of worldwide publicity, the prosecution offered no evidence against RG and he was formally declared not guilty of all charges. R v AH - successful defence of the first defendant in a major HMRC prosecution for Conspiracy to Cheat the Public Revenue (a serious fraud charge) of sums potentially running into the hundreds of millions of pounds.  The defendant was declared unfit to stand trial and received an Absolute Discharge, with no sentence of any kind and no confiscation order. R v SA - defence of a major case of Conspiracy to Cheat the Public Revenue, “Operation Barbados”, in which the defendant formed part of the first of a series of trials, involving in excess of 20 defendants.  The value of the fraud was placed in excess of £20 million.  Defendant was convicted of involvement but received the shortest sentence of all defendants and served less than 12 months in prison, against sentences of up to 9 years for his co-defendants. R v MH - defence of an ultra-high-net worth client, charged with improper use of a Fraudulently Obtained Genuine (“FOG”) passport.  Client was arrested after arriving in the UK on a private jet into London City Airport.  Despite initially being remanded in custody, bail was obtained and the client was able to travel internationally, pending trial, which is now listed to take place in 2026. R v X and Y - leading the extremely sensitive pre-charge defence strategy in one of the highest profile fraud and money laundering investigations in UK criminal law history.  The case relates to the procurement of over £200m of PPE supplies by the UK government during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Clients are ultra-high-net worth individuals and public figures and the case has been the subject of worldwide publicity. R v X - defence of an elderly family member of a world renowned sportsperson, on multiple charges of historic sexual assault, dating back to the 1970s.  The case is due for trial in 2025. R v Y - defence of a high-net-worth client, on charges including Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent, arising from an incident of the alleged use of a high performance vehicle as a weapon.  Client was originally remanded in custody, due to the serious nature of the charges, but was subsequently bailed and permitted to travel overseas pending trial, which is due to take place in 2025. R v X - pre-charge advice to a client alleged to have run an illegal and unlicensed investment syndicate.  Investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority and including allegations of fraud and money laundering, in addition to Financial Services and Markets Act offences. R v Y - advising a corporate client on the impact of the sanctions regime, imposed on Russian Designated Persons and Russian citizens, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Prepared an application for an Office for Financial Sanctions Implementation Specific Licence to permit the client to access substantial funds, frozen by a major bank, allegedly linked to a Designated Person.  The client operates in the international super yacht and mega yacht sector. R v Y – acting for an ultra high-net-worth and high profile Mayfair client in Crown Court proceedings for racially aggravated assault. Police v K – advising client on pre-charge legal strategy in the face of a large-scale police investigation into international drug trafficking. R v Doctor C – acting in a criminal appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), for a doctor, convicted in 2013 in the Crown Court after trial of fraud and perverting the course of justice. Chris Daw QC did not act in the trial but was instructed to advise after conviction. H Corporation v J Corporation – advising a corporate client on the use of private criminal prosecution strategy in the context of a substantial commercial dispute. C v D Bank - advising on the potential deployment of criminal law strategy in the course of a piece long-running civil litigation against a high street bank. R v U – acting in appeal against a Confiscation Order, in excess of £1 million, for fraud and money laundering, which resulted in a consecutive sentence of imprisonment of 6 years. Mr. Daw QC did not act at trial, or at the time of sentence, but was retained to advise on appeal after the Crown Court proceedings were concluded. S Constabulary v Chief Officer T – acting for civilian Chief Officer in contested misconduct proceedings relating to expenses claims for overseas travel and corporate hospitality. Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse - acting for and advising a Chief Constable in respect of policing issues arising from historical criminal investigations under consideration by the IICSA. UK Agency v X Corporation – acting for a multi-national corporation, and its high profile UK subsidiary, in a major international criminal investigation by UK regulators. Advising on all aspects of pre-charge strategy, including voluntary disclosure of material and formal written representations against charge. R v Y ��� acting for an ultra high-net-worth and high profile Mayfair client in Crown Court proceedings for racially aggravated assault. Police v K – advising client on pre-charge legal strategy in the face of a large-scale police investigation into international drug trafficking. R v Doctor C – acting in criminal appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), for a doctor, convicted in 2013 in the Crown Court after trial of fraud and perverting the course of justice. Chris Daw QC did not act in the trial but was instructed to advise after conviction. Z v Z - retained pre-charge to advise an international investment banker in respect of alleged involvement in a multi-billion Euro fraud against an overseas banking institution. R v KL– acting for a company director client, charged with offences of evading income tax and VAT, due for trial in the Crown Court in November 2016. H Corporation v J Corporation – advising corporate client, and its directors and shareholders, on the use of private criminal prosecution strategy in the context of a substantial commercial dispute. R v U – acting in appeal against a Confiscation Order, in excess of £1 million, for fraud and money laundering, which resulted in a consecutive sentence of imprisonment of 6 years. Mr. Daw QC did not act at trial, or at the time of sentence, but was retained to advise on appeal after the Crown Court proceedings were concluded. S Constabulary v Chief Officer T – acting for civilian Chief Officer in contested misconduct proceedings relating to expenses claims for overseas travel and corporate hospitality. IPCC v Chief Constable C – advising serving Chief Constable on the issues arising from a high profile IPCC criminal and gross misconduct investigation. Doctor C v GMC – acting for a doctor in High Court appeal proceedings, against a Fitness to Practise Panel finding of unfitness of practise and erasure from the Medical Register. Did not act in the misconduct hearing but was asked to advise on appeal. Various – amongst other current matters are sensitive cases involving high net worth individuals, professional people and senior police officers, under investigation for regulatory breaches, professional disciplinary offences and criminal offences. Also, advising corporations and company directors in relation to criminal investigation of them or their businesses and also criminal activity against them by employees, business partners and competitors. R v John Terry – acted for the former England and current Chelsea football captain in his high profile trial for allegedly racially abusing Anton Ferdinand during a Premier League match. Client was found not guilty by the Senior District Judge. Also acted for Mr. Terry in related proceedings before the Football Association Regulatory Commission. The Hillsborough Disaster Inquests - acted for two retired Chief Superintendents who oversaw key elements of the South Yorkshire Police investigation into the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989. The inquests, which continued over two years, were heard by Sir John Goldring with a jury and concluded in 2016. OPCC F v Chief Constable G – acted for the Chief Constable of a large police force, who originally faced 16 misconduct charges relating to inappropriate behaviour towards women and data protection breaches. Client was cleared of all 10 allegations of gross misconduct by an independent panel, which recommended that he return to office. Client subsequently reached a compromise agreement and resigned from office, following  initiation of separate proceedings, under s.38 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, by the Police and Crime Commissioner. The “Cardiff Three” Case (R v Ian Massey) – Leading counsel in a 14 handed corruption and perjury case, surrounding the notorious prosecution of the “Cardiff 3” for the murder of Lynette White, said by the Crown to be case of unique complexity. This was the largest case of alleged police corruption in legal history. The 6 month trial, said to have cost £30 million, ended with a not guilty verdict after successful disclosure applications led the prosecution to offer no evidence. Kenneth Noye & others v Prison Department – Briefed on behalf of the ten most dangerous men in Britain in a Judicial Review action over conditions of detention at the notorious Special Secure Unit at Whitemoor Prison. All clients were transferred elsewhere and the unit was closed. R v Olatunde Adetoro – Counsel for the main defendant in a case of mass shooting in the North of England using an AK-47 assault rifle. This nationally publicised high security trial concerned the shooting of five innocent people in the course of a single incident. NOTABLE CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL R v YDG [2012] All ER (D) 233 – Important authority on the powers of the Crown Court in respect of Preparatory Hearings and abuse of process where the Crown seeks to go behind the terms of an agreed confiscation order. Trial judge’s purported revocation of a Preparatory Hearing found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal. Attorney General's Reference (No. 43 of 2009) [2009] EWCA Crime 1925 (2009) – Leading counsel in one of the largest ever cases of commercial supply of firearms in the UK. Now the guideline case on sentence in respect of large-scale gun supply, with judgment given by the Lord Chief Justice. R v Seddon [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. 9 – Successful appeal against conviction where client was extradited for one set of offences but the Crown prosecuted others. Now the leading authority on the scope of criminal prosecutions for extradited defendants, with judgment given by the Vice President. PRE-CHARGE & ADVISORY A & B – retained to advise two London commercial property agents in relation to allegations of bribery and corruption in the property market. Z v Z – retained pre-charge to advise an international investment banker in respect of alleged involvement in a multi-billion Euro fraud against an overseas banking institution. R v SB – Retained to advise a commercial property landlord pre-charge in respect of alleged tax and VAT fraud in the operation of his business. No charges were brought after successful and detailed representations to HMRC and the CPS. R v NM – advised a senior doctor pre-charge in respect of an alleged multi-million pound fraud against the NHS. After advising on the preparation of a file of evidence and drafting detailed written representations no charges were brought by the CPS and the police investigation was closed. A v B – advised an international hedge fund on alleged fraud and computer misuse committed against it by a former director and oversaw the preparation of a file of evidence to be submitted to UK prosecutors in support of a criminal complaint. The case was related to one of the most expensive pieces of civil litigation in UK legal history C v D – advised a publishing company on the preparation of criminal complaint of fraud by a former Financial Director. E Limited v F – advised a high profile luxury retail company on computer misuse and malicious data theft/destruction, by a former senior employee, and oversaw the preparation of a file of evidence to be presented to the police. The case was prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service and the defendant was convicted in the Crown Court and imprisoned. G v H – advised two ultra high net worth clients on the criminal actions of a family member, including perjury, in the course of a multi-million pound probate dispute. R v AS and BS – acted pre-charge for two clients under cross-jurisdictional investigation in the UK and Europe for cheating the public revenue. Following an extensive pre-charge defence investigation, and detailed representations to the prosecution authorities, no charges were brought against either client. REGULATORY R v CSUP – acting for a retired Chief Superintendent in a Crown Court trial for misconduct in public office, perverting the course of justice and perjury, arising from the execution of his duties. Client was found not guilty on all counts by a unanimous verdict of the jury. POLICE v DSUP – acted for a Detective Superintendent who avoided dismissal following limited findings against him at a contested misconduct hearing. POLICE v SUP – acted for a Superintendent who was cleared of all allegations of gross misconduct (including honesty and integrity breaches) following a contested misconduct hearing. POLICE v ACC – advising a serving Chief Officer on issues arising under s.40 of the PRSRA 2011. POLICE v DSUP – acted for a Detective Superintendent in a contested misconduct hearing involving, allegations of breaches of honesty and integrity, in the activity of Special Branch in a sensitive national security function. E Constabulary v Superintendent F - Acted in full and contested Misconduct Hearing, involving accusations surrounding client's arrest (but not charge) for criminal offences of dishonesty. All allegations dismissed, in part on medical/psychiatric grounds, and client returned to duty. Hearing held in private. Officer G v H Constabulary - Successful appeal to the Police Appeal Tribunal, against sanction of dismissal without notice for findings of Gross Misconduct arising from personal business activity and alleged assault whilst off duty, where medical / psychiatric evidence, not available to the original panel, was admitted on appeal. Client reinstated and returned to duty. J Constabulary v Chief Superintendent K - Acted for client in contested misconduct proceedings, involving allegations surrounding personal conduct, giving rise to issues of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and disability discrimination in respect of mental health issues. Client reached compromise agreement and resigned before a Misconduct Hearing, with no findings of misconduct. FRAUD & MONEY LAUNDERING R v GB – leading counsel in a large-scale case of commercial fraud against the Ministry of Defence, originally fixed for a 3 month trial at Southwark Crown Court. Before trial no evidence offered by the prosecution after the submission of detailed representations to the CPS that the case was an abuse of process. Not Guilty verdicts entered by the judge and a Defence Costs Order granted. R v MF – leading counsel for a senior Barclays Bank Commercial Manager charged with conspiring to defraud the bank of over £5 million in a series of commercial property transactions. Jury could not reach a verdict after a 3 month trial at Southwark Crown Court. R v ZY – acted for a company director charged with fraud against numerous financial institutions in the operation of his business. No evidence was offered by the prosecution before trial after detailed submissions on disclosure of sensitive material. Not guilty verdicts entered by the judge. R v MH – acted for a company director charged with fraud and money laundering in respect of a multi-million pound intra-community VAT fraud. X v X – Retained to advise on the criminal actions of a litigant (perjury and fraud) in the course of a substantial probate dispute. Y v Y – Retained to advise on the criminal actions of a former director (computer misuse and fraud) in an international financial institution. R v DG – Successfully negotiated a court-sanctioned plea bargain for a client charged with laundering over £1 million of cash and property from a major international drugs conspiracy. No prison sentence was imposed and substantial assets were returned to the client. R v LS – leading counsel in a major money laundering prosecution at Southwark Crown Court, alleged to involve over £30 million of bank transfers from the proceeds of international organised crime. Client acquitted by the jury after trial. R v HR – acted for one of the principal defendants in a 15 handed money laundering case. Said to be one of the largest international money laundering cases every prosecuted, with cash in the region of £200 million being sent abroad via the money transfer sector and the banking system. R v SK – following negotiation and representations, proceedings discontinued against client for involvement in laundering the proceeds of a bank “transaction reversal” fraud involving a major attack on the banking system. R v SA – Acted for a senior police officer charged with money laundering offences in respect of commercial property and international money transfers. The case collapsed after submissions that the whole proceedings amounted to an abuse of process due to disclosure failures by the CPS. R v MM – instructed for a serving police Superintendent, charged with numerous offences of fraud and deception in connection with his police service with several different forces. Trading Standards v PK – Leading counsel for the main defendant in a case involving a long-running and highly organised conspiracy to defraud small businesses by the use of commercial telesales techniques in a criminal enterprise. HMRC v LC – Money laundering the multi-million pound proceeds of one of the largest MTIC (“carousel”) frauds ever tried in the UK, involving voluminous evidence from Gibraltar, Hong Kong and other international jurisdictions. R v CB – Multi-million pound long-firm commercial fraud case where the Crown relies heavily on probe recordings from intrusive surveillance. Issues include disclosure from other jurisdictions, abuse of process by multiple prosecutions and evidence tampering. Client avoided a prison sentence after court-sanctioned plea bargain was negotiated with the prosecution on his behalf. R v MD – Counsel for one of the principal defendants in a 12 handed conspiracy to cheat the revenue, involving alleged multi-million pound MTIC (“carousel”) fraud through trading in industrial metals. R v HK – SOCA prosecution alleging international money laundering with the use of a Money Transfer Bureau (“MTB”) and the organised crime technique of “cuckoo smurfing” to launder £30 million of cash via the banking system. Acted for the only defendant to be cleared by the jury at trial. HMRC v Jones – Leading counsel for one of the principal defendants in a £20 million VAT and duty evasion fraud relating to the large-scale commercial trading of imported cigarettes and tobacco. One of only two of the ten defendants not to be convicted at trial. HMRC v Jones – Leading counsel for one of the principal defendants in a £20 million VAT and duty evasion fraud relating to the large-scale commercial trading of imported cigarettes and tobacco. One of only two of the ten defendants not to be convicted at trial. R v LD – 14 handed corruption and fraud case involving Trafford Council in Manchester. One of the largest ever investigations into alleged fraud by senior council employees. Client received a suspended sentence after proceedings lasting eight years. R v H – Leading counsel for the main defendant in a case of long-firm commercial fraud using a pyramid scheme. Although convicted as the principal the client was the only defendant not to receive any immediate prison sentence. FACT v Bowes – International copyright fraud case involving the trade in illegal downloads of music and video material. Over 4 million pages of evidence was obtained from websites and servers all over the world, primarily in the United States. One of the largest private prosecutions ever undertaken. R v G – Laundering millions in both cash and property on behalf of one of the largest drug traffickers in the North of England. Case stopped before a jury was sworn after legal argument on disclosure. R v Lodge – Counsel for the defendant in a long firm commercial fraud case involving the “phoenixing” of corporate assets and commercial property assets in order to defraud creditors of millions of pounds. R v TS – Counsel for a serving police officer, charged with fraud. The case was stayed as an abuse of process after counsel successfully argued that the Defendant had been persecuted by his fellow officers and that it would be unfair for him to be tried. R v Perry – Counsel for a company director client, alleged to be involved in misrepresenting corporate structures and commercial agreements for financial gain. R v Barrie – Successful defence of a businessman alleged to be involved in highly organised fraud against lenders in respect of commercial property. SERIOUS & COMPLEX CRIME R x FM – acted for an entrepreneur charged with blackmail and assault in the context of substantial commercial dispute. Issues of abuse of process after the CPS reversed a  decision not to bring charges. Client received a non-custodial sentence following a “plea-bargain”. R v KO – acted for an American citizen charged with an offence of rape, allegedly committed in London, acquitted by the jury in a re-trial. R v SA –instructed in substantial Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings arising from a large-scale prosecution for drug trafficking, involving issues of resulting trusts in family property transfers. Prosecution application for an order in excess of £500,000 reduced to an order for a nominal sum. following service of written response under s.17 of POCA, drafted by counsel. R v BA - acted for the main defendant in an 8 handed conspiracy to supply firearms with intent to endanger life, including machine guns with live ammunition for use in organised crime activity nationwide. R v SLS - Leading counsel for the alleged architect of a £533 million conspiracy to import high purity cocaine into the UK from mainland Europe via the port of Dover, hidden in industrial equipment. Client was a High Risk Category A Prisoner until he was acquitted by the jury at trial. HMRC v MK – Conspiracy to import multiple 100 kilo shipments of pure cocaine from Trinidad, via mainland Europe. Extensive international surveillance and shipping evidence as well as hundreds of hours of product from audio probes placed in vehicles. R v WM – Conspiracy to commit armed robbery in a highly disciplined fashion. Attracted substantial publicity as one of the defendants received multiple gunshot wounds at the hands of the arresting officers. R v WI – allegation of blackmail of a multi-millionaire businessman in the context of an international commercial transaction. R v Statham – Counsel for the main defendant in a case involving the multi-tonne supply of cannabis throughout the UK. Extensive surveillance evidence involved, including de facto telephone tapping, which was the subject of prolonged legal argument, and lifestyle evidence of high levels of casino gambling. R v Firth – Leading counsel for the main defendant in one of the largest drug supply conspiracies in Yorkshire, where the main evidence came from a “supergrass”. Case stayed after months of legal argument and disclosure of tapes and transcripts of the prison telephone calls of the principal prosecution witness. R v Walker – Leading counsel for the main defendant in a conspiracy where over 30 armed robberies were committed over just a few months. R v Davies – Leading counsel in a conspiracy to supply cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis on a massive scale and throughout the North of England. Evidence from intrusive surveillance, telephone call pattern analysis and cell-siting. Extensive applications for disclosure of material under s.8 of the CPIA 1996. Successfully appealed. R v Gunning – Counsel for the main defendant who was cleared by the jury of involvement in a conspiracy to supply a vast number of American factory made handguns and hollowpoint ammunition, as well as 20 kilos of heroin. R v Ainsley – Leading counsel for a defendant cleared at a retrial of involvement in a large scale conspiracy to manufacture and supply heroin. The main witness was a “supergrass” and significant issues of disclosure arose. HMRC v Hassiakos – Counsel for the main defendant in a case of multi-million pound supply of cannabis, imported and distributed in multi-tonne quantities. Significant issues of property law in connection with the confiscation proceedings. R v Elezi – Human trafficking of women as “sex slaves” from Lithuania, across Europe and into the UK, by an organised crime syndicate from Albania. Sensitive issues of disclosure including cross-border requests for information on the witnesses’ criminal history. R v CH – Client cleared of involvement in the importation and onward distribution of vast quantities of Class A and B drugs, including over a tonne of cannabis, with seizures from just one week’s shipments valued at over £10 million and total alleged importations over £100 million. MURDER R v TE – leading counsel for a club DJ murder, tried at the Old Bailey, with complex issues of causation and underlying brain injury. Client acquitted by the jury. R v Curtis – Counsel for one of the principal defendants in a case of gangland murder of a former paratrooper. Client cleared of murder by the jury in just 50 minutes. R v Machin – Murder of a drug dealer in a turf war in Manchester.  Subsequently advised on the prospects of success for a fresh evidence appeal. R v Hill – Client cleared of murder of a Korean student in the course of a robbery. R v CW - client cleared by the jury at trial of two counts of the attempted murder of two police officers, shot at with a shotgun in the course of a police chase. R v MR - client cleared of attempted murder in the course of a "drive by shooting" in Birmingham following a successful submission of no case to answer.
Clare Ashcroft
Clare Ashcroft
“Clare Ashcroft is a specialist criminal defence practitioner with expertise in murder, manslaughter, and fraud”- Legal 500, 2025 “Clare possesses an unfaltering breadth of legal knowledge whilst also exhibiting a rare combination of empathy and tenacity. She demonstrates an unwavering dedication to securing the best possible outcome for her clients, her advocacy skills are superb, and she holds a presence in the court room which is commanding yet respectful.” - Legal 500, 2025 Tier 1 - Crime (General and Fraud) - Legal 500, 2024 ‘Clare is an outstanding advocate who cares about the work. She puts an enormous amount of effort into each case and leaves no stone unturned. As a Senior Junior, she has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law and is not afraid to submit and pursue legal arguments in the face of adversity.’ – The Legal 500, 2023 ‘"Clare has an eye for detail. She focusses on the key issues and is always on top of her cases. She is always fully prepared and knows the case papers inside out. She is efficient and provides full written advices for instructing experts and is very hands-on during the case"– The Legal 500, 2022 Clare Ashcroft is ranked in the 2023 Edition of The Legal 500 as a leading junior in general crime. Clare represents those charged with the most serious criminal offences. Clare is renowned for her significant experience in representing young defendants across a range of serious criminal offences. She is regularly instructed to represent those accused of joint enterprise and gang related murder. A very common element of Clare’s practice involves dealing with complex evidence, including cell site, encrypted devices, firearms and ANPR in cases ranging from murder through to drugs, firearms and trafficking conspiracies. Clare has developed a wealth of experience in “baby shaking” cases and the handling of highly specialised complex medical evidence. She has successfully acted for a father accused of the murder of his daughter (led); of a mother accused of inflicting life changing injuries upon her baby son and; of a mother accused of causing/allowing the death of her baby son (alone). Clare is well used to approaching cases involving the dual jurisdictions of the Crown and Family Courts. Clare has achieved success for her lay clients as the result of legal arguments including applications to dismiss (causing/allowing death of a child; attempted murder); abuse of process; exclusion of hearsay (absent complainant; deceased witness); exclusion of late-served evidence and exclusion of bad character. Her knowledge and understanding of sentencing law, for which she gained her D.Phil, has seen Clare develop a successful appellate practice regarding appeals against both conviction and sentence, including those which are “out of time”. Clare has successfully responded in a number of sentences referred to the CACD by the Attorney General. Clare continues both to develop and to draw upon her considerable experience representing those with complex mental health needs and the very young. She is able quickly to assist in the instruction of the correct experts to address issues such as possible fitness to plead, ability to form the necessary intent, diminished responsibility, psychological and/or neurological factors (such as autism or ADHD) that might impact upon the ability of the client to engage in and understand proceedings. Her knowledge and understanding regarding disposals and sentencing pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983 (including so-called “Hybrid Orders”) is exceptional. Clare’s empathetic manner together with her experience of the use of intermediaries both for the lay client and witnesses has resulted in her representing those charged with very serious sexual offences. Clare is experienced in defending historic sexual allegations often featuring multiple complainants and substantial third party disclosure. She accepts instructions to defend sexual allegations on a private basis only. NOTABLE CASES Murder/Manslaughter R v OS - defence of young male “single punch” manslaughter. R v BJ - (led) defence of 3rd defendant; joint enterprise stabbing murder alleged. R v MN - (led) defence of young male accused (along with another) of murdering another young boy by stabbing. R v EH - (Leading) defence of young adult multi-handed trial initially charged as conspiracy to murder (application to dismiss then resulted in review to conspiracy to commit armed robbery); voluminous telephone, CCTV evidence; complex application to exclude hearsay (foundation of Crown’s case) and part of the CCTV evidence. Following legal argument, case resolved by way of plea to single count of PWITS Class B. R v AK - defence of former soldier accused of attempted murder, successful application to dismiss. R v DA - Attempted murder by a 14 year old boy of his twin brother, both suffered from rare neurological condition; fitness to plead; complex psychiatric, neurological and psychological evidence, took the lead in adducing evidence of all defence experts and cross-examination of prosecution experts; MHA 1983 disposals and ongoing review of fitness post-MHA 1983 disposal. R v SM - Murder, successful defence on basis of “single punch” manslaughter. “Baby Shaking” R v DA Murder (led) - Defence of “baby shaking” case involving complex expert evidence including neuropathology, neuroradiology, ophthalmic pathology, histopathology ("the Triad"). R v LB - Causing/Allowing serious injury “baby shaking” case, acting for vulnerable client. The case involved dual jurisdiction owing to proceedings in the family court, together with voluminous disclosure. Complex expert evidence including neuroradiology, ophthalmology, psychiatric and psychological evidence ( the latter adduced to establish that the client was not capable of forming the intent required). Successful application to dismiss. R v BB - Causing/allowing death of a child (“baby shaking” case). Featured complex medical evidence including neuropathology, neuroradiology. Adduced psychiatric evidence to establish client unfit. Successful application to dismiss. R v NB – (leading) defence of father accused of causing serious life changing injury to 8 week old son. Dual proceedings in family court; expert evidence in paediatric neuroradiology, paediatric radiology. Firearms R v MH - Defence of individual in multi-handed conspiracy to supply prohibited firearms and Class A drugs; large volume evidence (telephone/cell site/surveillance) across a multi-agency prosecution. R v LK - Defence of individual in multi-handed people trafficking conspiracy involving kidnap and the use of firearm (multi-agency prosecution). R v CB – Defence of alleged “leading” conspirator in multi-handed drugs and firearms conspiracy (multi-agency prosecution). Drugs R v JM – Defence of female accused of importation of 150kg heroin; intelligence led investigation featuring international mutual assistance. R v IK – Defence of lorry driver accused of importation of significant quantities of cocaine and cannabis; intelligence led investigation featuring mutual assistance. Targeted disclosure request led to PII application and matter discontinued. R v VdL – Defence of individual in multi-handed conspiracy to import Class A drugs; international mutual assistance case. Appeals and Legal Arguments ER v R - (Rex v Emmanuel Richards [2022] EWCA Crim 1470) full appeal conviction and sentence encompassing fresh evidence; bad character; disclosure and appeal sentence (convictions for rape; appellant a dangerous offender). R v HS - (R v Hakeem Silini [2019] EWCA Crim 2089) CACD judgment regarding sentencing guidelines re s.18, the assessment of harm and the danger of “double counting” culpability factors. R v JP - (R v Mark Roberts and Others [2016] EWCA Crim 71) Full court CACD judgment (Lord Chief Justice) regarding IPP and the assessment of dangerousness. R v MG - (R v Mark Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748) Murder and diminished responsibility; the meaning of “substantial impairment”; evidence of multiple experts (psychiatric and psychological). R v PY - Historic sexual offences; multiple complainants (significantly reduced in number following successful applications to dismiss); application to exclude evidence of deceased complainant. R v MM - (R v Maria Mellor [2016] EWCA Crim 1445) instructed re “out of time” appeal; CACD judgment regarding prohibited firearms and the circumstances where mandatory minimum sentence is not applicable. R v DLF - Successful application to stay prosecution for abuse of process. Client scaled the Manchester Wheel and had been prosecuted for public nuisance. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/06/manchester-gangster-scales- ferris-wheel-protest Sexual Offences/Rape R v MH - Historic intra-familial sexual offences featuring multiple complainants and significant third party disclosure. R v RN - Defence of familial serious sexual offences. Young complainant cross- examined under s.28 procedure and with use of an intermediary. Featured dual jurisdiction and significant third party disclosure. R v BM – defence of historic rape allegations, featured previous civil proceedings, care homes. R v PY – defence of multiple complainant historic rape allegations featuring familial and non-familial offending; deceased complainant. R v X – defence of youngster with learning difficulties accused of multiple rapes; Toolkit cross-examination; intermediary for complainant and defendant. Inquests Clare is instructed to represent bereaved families during inquests. She has experience representing those whose relatives have died in custody or otherwise in the care of the state (Article 2 inquests). Clare’s experience of police and criminal law has enabled her to consider the wider issues that arise in such cases. Her knowledge of PACE, Codes of Practice, Police Law and the Mental Health Act 1983 ensures that she is able quickly to identify and develop arguable issues.
Constance Halliwell
Constance Halliwell
Constance Halliwell completed her pupillage and accepted an offer of Tenancy at Lincoln House Chambers in 2022. Her pupillage had been supervised by Austin Welch. Constance enjoys a busy criminal practice across the full spectrum of Magistrates Court and Crown Court work. In the Magistrates Court, Constance regularly prosecutes and defends a range of offences including sex offences and driving matters. In the Crown Court, Constance deals with sentences, bail applications and interlocutory hearings. Constance is a Level 1 prosecutor. She has completed her vulnerable witness training and has worked on cases involving issues of fitness to plead and capacity. Constance also defends regulatory breaches in the Magistrates Court, dealing with breaches of Consumer Protection Regulations and allegations of fraud. During her first six, Constance helped draft advices and sentencing submissions in relation to complex aspects of regulatory work including offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. During the first-six of her pupillage, Constance developed experience in the field of Public Inquiries. Constance shadowed Austin throughout his work on the Manchester Arena Inquiry, as counsel representing the bereaved families. Constance attended court to hear live evidence; reviewed documents published by the Inquiry Legal Team; conducted research and reviewed closing submissions prepared on behalf of the families. Prior to pupillage, Constance developed her pro-bono experience working with the Bar’s national pro bono charity, Advocate, as a Casework Volunteer. This included reviewing evidence, drafting case summaries and preparing bundles. Constance received a first-class honours law degree from Lancaster University. She was awarded the Harmsworth Scholarship from the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple to study the Bar Course at BPP University, Manchester, completing the course with a grade of Very Competent.
Craig Hassall KC
Craig Hassall KC
Craig specialises in Criminal Law, Regulatory Law, Inquests and Inquiries. Ranked in Tier 1 for Business and Regulatory Crime (including Health and Safety) and Inquests & Inquiries – Legal 500 (2024)  “Craig is a fearless and technically brilliant advocate. He is a pleasure to work with and to watch.” Legal 500 (2024) “Craig has a commanding courtroom presence. He cross-examines with measured – and devastatingly effective – calm. His jury speeches are hugely persuasive.” – The Legal 500 (2024) "The consummate professional - calm under pressure with the ability to think quickly on his feet." - The Legal 500 (2021) Over the last twenty years, Craig’s criminal practice has covered a vast range of work: from road traffic offending through sexual offences, serious and organised crime, violence including homicide, fraud and complex regulatory offences. In silk, his practice has been split between murder, manslaughter, serious fraud, regulatory crime and associated inquests and inquiries. He sits as a Recorder in the Crown Court and as a fee-paid judge in the Mental Health Tribunal, and has significant experience of dealing with cases involving mental disorder, experienced by defendants or witnesses. Craig has a particular interest in cases involving defences arising from mental disorder. Craig has become well-known for his ability to prosecute and defend in highly complex cases. His depth and breadth of experience of cases involving a wide range of prosecuting authorities enables him to bring a unique perspective to cases that transcend more than one area. He has been involved in many large cases with multiple defendants and has often handled sensitive issues of disclosure and public-interest immunity, including covert human intelligence sources, intercept material and offenders with links to terrorism. Craig has extensive experience in all areas of financial offending, including applications for restraint, confiscation, compensation, appointment of receivers and disqualification of directors. Many of his cases have involved corporate defendants and the interpretation of corporate accounts. Since taking silk he has appeared in several trials of corporate and gross negligence manslaughter allegations, relying on his wide-ranging experience in regulatory crime and in particular health and safety and food safety. Craig’s regulatory practice regularly includes health and safety, environmental, food safety, healthcare, product liability, trading standards and fire safety work. He is regularly instructed to represent interested parties in associated inquests. Craig is currently representing the Health and Safety Executive in the inquests into the deaths of four miners in the Gleision Colliery Disaster. In the Manchester Arena Inquiry he represented the Manchester Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and successfully challenged criticisms of the care provided to the victims of the bombing. No criticism was made of Craig’s client in the final report of the inquiry. Craig’s sympathetic approach towards clients has repeatedly been identified by legal directories. He can be relied upon to deal sensitively with clients accused of the most serious offences. Alongside his advocacy and advisory work, Craig is the North Eastern Circuit’s Advocacy Training Officer. He is an accredited advocacy trainer and a facilitator for the Inns of Court College of Advocacy training courses: Advocacy and the Vulnerable and Advocacy for Children in Conflict with the Law. Recent and Notable Cases Homicide & Serious Violence Op Poplincard – ongoing prosecution of a 14-year-old for the fatal stabbing of a 15-year-old boy. Op Pedalbourne – ongoing prosecution of four teenage defendants for the fatal stabbing of a 17-year-old at a house party. D.H.Willis & Sons Ltd and Others – 2022 corporate and gross negligence manslaughter prosecution together with associated health and safety offences. R v Ali & Matthews – 2022 successful murder prosecution. Both defendants were convicted notwithstanding that it was impossible to prove which of them drove the car deliberately into the deceased. R v Barrott – 2022 successful prosecution of the husband of a nurse for her murder. Partial defence of diminished responsibility based on long-standing serious mental health issues rejected by the jury. R v Jones & Recycle Cymru Ltd – 2022 gross negligence manslaughter and associated regulatory offences. Op Thememike – 2022 murder prosecution arising from the fatal shooting of a local solicitor in Sheffield City Centre. R v Cookson & Eaton – 2021 prosecution of two teenagers for murder, arising from the “cuckooing” of the deceased in the context of the defendants’ drug supply enterprise [2023] EWCA Crim 10 – setting of minimum terms and credit for time served on remand. R v Patrick Clayton Snr. – Craig’s first defence murder trial in silk. Client acquitted of all charges. R v Zaman (Operation Hoe) – prosecution junior counsel in the first successful prosecution for gross negligence manslaughter arising from a food allergy, and its subsequent successful defence in the Court of Appeal [2018] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26. R v H – defence of a father accused of failing to protect his child, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Significant factual findings had been made against the client in family proceedings and the child had been removed from his care. After Craig’s consideration of the expert paediatric neurology evidence and negotiation with the Crown, no evidence was offered against Craig’s client. Health & Safety: Industrial, Agricultural and Construction HSE v IM Ltd – defence of a metal recycling company following partial amputation of employee’s hand. HSE v TT Ltd – defence of a manufacturing company following asphyxiation of two employees by argon gas. HSE -v- JM Nixon & Sons Ltd – ongoing prosecution of a farming partnership for safety failings which led to a grandmother being fatally injured by a cow on an enclosed public bridleway. D.H.Willis & Sons Ltd and Others – 2022 corporate and gross negligence manslaughter prosecution together with associated regulatory offences. HSE -v- Nestlé UK Ltd – Prosecution arising from significant injuries to an employee on the After Eights line at Nestlé’s Halifax plant [2022] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 1. HSE –v- P – Representation at inquest and in criminal proceedings of a self-employed farm worker following the death of a landowner killed by a shard of barbed wire expelled from the defendant’s tractor-mounted flail mower. District Judge persuaded to retain jurisdiction despite the fatality. HSE -v- UE. Defence of a landowner following a fatal accident on his sporting estate. An off-road all-terrain vehicle overturned, killing an employee who was collecting birds during a shoot. Magistrates persuaded to retain jurisdiction despite the fatality and the very considerable assets of the estate. Health & Safety: Other HSE -v- Lightwater Valley Attractions Ltd – Prosecution of the well-known Yorkshire theme park after a child was ejected from a rollercoaster and suffered life-threatening head injuries. Healthcare CQC -v- Dimensions UK Ltd – successful defence of regional domiciliary and residential care company. The proceedings encompassed two judicial review claims (one each by prosecution and defence) and concluded with a successful application to stay the charges as an abuse of the process of the court. The prosecution failed to obtain permission to bring a claim in judicial review against the District Judge’s stay of the proceedings. The Care Quality Commission was subsequently ordered to pay Craig’s client the entire costs of defending the criminal proceedings. Re NS – representation of domiciliary care company at inquest into a service user’s death. The Coroner made no findings against the company, despite criticisms from other interested persons and excluded the client from the prevention of future deaths report. Re LH - representation of domiciliary care company at inquest into a service user’s death. Complex neurology and endocrinology evidence. The Coroner was persuaded to reject the findings of the pathologist and made exculpatory remarks in relation to the client, despite strident criticisms made by the deceased’s family. Food R -v- Mohammed Khalique Zaman – Prosecution junior counsel in the first successful prosecution for gross negligence manslaughter arising from a food allergy, and its subsequent successful defence in the Court of Appeal [2018] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26. East Riding Council –v- Dixfield LLP – Prosecution of food safety offences following a child suffering a significant anaphylactic reaction at a wedding reception. York City Council -v- The Indian Garden Ltd – Prosecution of food safety offences arising out of inadequate allergen controls. York City Council -v- North Yorkshire County Council – prosecution of one local authority by another, arising from inadequate allergen controls at a primary school. The 4-year-old victim was hospitalised by a school meal. Environmental AG of Jersey v JLB & Another – together with Simon Clegg, Craig advised the AG of Jersey in relation to the prosecution of a member of the States Assembly for water pollution. EA v ST - successful defence of a director in a consent/connivance/neglect prosecution by the EA. The defendant’s business had been taken over by known waste criminals not prosecuted by the EA. EA v BH - prosecution of illegal burning of waste which led to the destruction of the defendant’s own business and neighbouring properties. EA v WP – successful defence of a director in a prosecution based on the consent, connivance and neglect provisions of the EPA1990. The case was discontinued in the face of an abuse of process application. EA v AWSM & Metcalfe – prosecution of a former young farmer of the year for waste management and water pollution offences, leading to significant fish kills. EA v PTSD Ltd & G – defence of a demolition company and its sole director for waste offences. The agency was persuaded to drop the case against the director and the company was ordered to pay an insignificant fine. Fraud R v K & P (Operation Coconut) – ongoing multi-million tax fraud prosecution. Multiple types of tax evaded. R v N – 2023 successful defence of a fraud prosecution arising out of a historical partnership dispute. The prosecution offered no evidence in response to Craig’s application for a stay on the basis of abuse of process. R v Ishaq (Operation Earthworm) – Prosecution of a former mayor of Scunthorpe for fraud and perverting the course of justice. Confiscation proceedings are ongoing. Sexual Offences R v M – successful defence of a gay man charged with the sexual assault of a man who was alleged to have been asleep. The defendant had a previous conviction for a similar assault against another unconscious male. Acquitted at trial. R v JH – successful defence of a stepfather charged with the attempted rape of his seven-year-old stepdaughter. Craig challenged the disclosure process and identified items that could be shown to be in the possession of the police, the existence of which had not been disclosed. Following legal argument, no evidence was offered. R v BR – successful defence of a former police officer with previous convictions for indecent assault. The client was charged with sexual offences against two young female family members. Charges relating to one complainant were stayed as an abuse of the process of the Court following Craig’s application based on disclosure failures. The client was acquitted of all other charges at trial. Miscellaneous R v Yasutake, Yasutake and Yasutake – an utterly unique case. Craig represented all three defendants charged with preventing the burial of a body. The prosecution accepted that each defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity but proposed to continue with a trial of issue, notwithstanding that each defendant believed that the deceased was still alive, and therefore that there was no body to bury. In response to Craig’s application for a stay on the basis of abuse of process, the prosecution was discontinued. Craig went on to represent the family, pro bono, at the inquest into the death and secured an open conclusion that the cause of death was unascertained. R v DD – defence of a juror, prosecuted for contempt of Court who contacted a convicted defendant and disclosed the content of jury deliberations. Craig appeared before the Lord Chief Justice, prosecuted by the Solicitor General. His client received a suspended sentence and on the basis of his submissions the LCJ directed a national review by HM Courts Service into the information routinely provided to jurors.  Craig Hassall KC is an employee of Craig Hassall Ltd
Darren Finnegan
Darren Finnegan is a criminal and regulatory practitioner. He is a specialist in all areas of road transport law. Owing to his knowledge and experience of dealing adroitly with such cases, his expertise has been sought in this jurisdiction from Northern Ireland where he also still practices. Darren is known for his ability to quickly grasp any technical issues in a case and summarise them succinctly and clearly. He is enthusiastic and instantly builds a good rapport with clients. This is most clearly demonstrated in both lay clients and professional clients insisting on instructing Darren again where he has previously acted for them. Darren’s expertise in this area not only comes from his knowledge of the law and advocacy but also from his previous career as a long-distance heavy haulage / STGO lorry driver. He is also a qualified transport manager. However, Darren accepts instructions for, and has experience in, many other areas such as general crime and civil litigation of varying types. Transport law Darren has considerable track record in representing operators at public inquiry in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These public inquiries span applications for operator licences and potential action against existing licences and transport managers. Often acting for larger corporate clients, Darren frequently deals with issues of financial standing and directors’ previous bankruptcy or company liquidation. Having previously worked as a HGV driver, transport planner and being an international TM CPC holder (alongside being an amateur mechanic), he is able to advise clients on compliance issues relating to maintenance, drivers’ hours and staff training. Darren’s approach to each public inquiry is to essentially conduct his own audit to ensure the best case possible is presented. Matters that Darren has dealt with a public inquiry include: Possible loss of repute due to convictions, maintenance failings (late PMIs, inadequate roller brake testing etc.), DVSA offences, wheel-loss incidents, failure to report changes etc. Loss of repute for transport managers due to no continuous and effective control. Allegations of fronting for previously revoked operators. Failure to notify the traffic commissioner of material changes or convictions. Operating without a licence. Questions of whether the operation is truly restricted or if it requires a standard licence. Tachograph analysis software anomalies which had produced thousands of missing miles despite this not being the case in reality. Cases where vehicles have been involved in accidents causing death and whether this affects good repute. Where a company had applied for a licence where the director had previously traded while insolvent under a different licence. Cases involving lead traffic commissioners, the process of their nomination and their powers over licences outside their traffic area. Prohibition and overloading history. Darren is ideal for cases which turn on a complicated mechanical issue such as a coach company which had been called to a public inquiry due to prohibitions relating to an attempt to hide a malfunctioning ABS system. The warning light cluster had been wired in such a way to hide the ABS fault. The question then turned on the age of the link wire and whether it could be said to have pre-dated the operator’s ownership of the vehicle. It had successfully been proven that roller brake testing would not have uncovered this issue, nor would a standard inspection beyond taking the warning light cluster panel off. The operator had no action taken against their licence. Similarly, and particularly given Darren’s abnormal load experience, bridge strikes are a familiar case for him. Many of these cases turn on a technical understanding of ride hides of various vehicles and whether a lift axle affects this. Whether it is for 200-vehicle operators or small family operations, Darren always tries to visit the operating centre for conferences with the client. Appeals to the Upper Tribunal from decisions of a traffic commissioner is a familiar exercise for Darren in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such cases of note are: Bell Transport [2024] UKUT 44 (AAC) Hurley [2023] UKUT 4 (AAC) King Transport [2024] UKUT 47 (AAC) McCaul Transport [2023] UKUT 5 (AAC) London Bus Group UA-2023-598-T Alongside representing companies, Darren has appeared on behalf of civilian and military drivers for driver conduct hearings before the traffic commissioners. Much of Darren’s criminal practice involves representing operators and drivers who have been charged with criminal offences such as drivers’ hours offences, maintenance offences, tachograph fraud, fraudulent use of an operator’s, record-keeping offences, overloading and insecure load offences. A recent line of work which Darren has dealt with is civil penalties against drivers and operators under the Carriers Liability Regulations for the discovery of clandestine entrants or a failure to comply with the regulations. Such is Darren’s expertise in this area, he has been asked to train solicitors on this topic. He has delivered CPD training on transport public inquiry procedure to barristers and solicitors in Northern Ireland and is always happy to provide such training if asked. He has also recently delivered a conference talk to transport managers for Logistics UK on law and procedure on load security. He also keeps an online blog on transport law and practice: https://transport.law.blog Driving offences Darren also specialises in road traffic criminal law. He has successfully represented clients in exceptional hardship and special reasons applications alongside dangerous and careless driving trials in both the Magistrates’ and the Crown Court. Drink and drug driving defences are very familiar to Darren and he is regularly instructed to conduct trials for defendants charged with these offences where, for example, the testing procedure is in dispute or the conducting of back calculations. Aside from trials on driving matters, Darren is experienced in conducting sentencing hearings for defendants who plead guilty to such offences and is well-versed in mounting a compelling mitigation to reduce a disqualification period or the number of penalty points given. Darren also has experience in prosecuting driving offences. Regulatory Darren has experience in a wide range of regulatory matters outside of transport including: Clandestine entrant appeals under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Driving instructor (ADI) appeals. Restaurant licensing appeals. Trading Standards prosecutions. Information Commissioner prosecutions. Animal welfare prosecutions. MOT authorisation. Pharmacist fitness to practice and supply of controlled drugs. Criminal Law Darren has enjoyed a varied and busy criminal practice in the Crown Court and sometimes in the Magistrates’ conducting sentencing exercises and running trials in matters such as sexual assaults, domestic violence, drugs offences, fraud, assaults and driving offences. Some cases in which Darren is instructed as sole counsel in the Crown Court currently are: Section 18 wounding. Tax fraud. Supply of class A and class C drugs. Dangerous driving. Civil Law He has experience in acting and advising on matters such as defective housing repairs, landlord and tenant disputes, rights of way and easement injunctions, civil claims against the police and the courts service for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Darren also enjoys advising and acting in court on matters such as commercial debt recovery and the registration and enforcement of foreign judgments. A regular stream of work for Darren consists of credit hire trials for both defendants and claimants along with personal injury actions in both the small claim and the fast track and in dealing with allegations of fundamental dishonesty. Awards Winner of Queen’s University Belfast Moot 2017 Winner of OUP-BPP National Mooting Competition 2018
David Pojur
David Pojur
“David is extremely organised, understands briefs very quickly, and provides practical and constructive advice to clients. He is also very communicative with solicitors, is good at devising strategy, and his advocacy is second-to-none.” - Legal 500, 2025 “David knows coronial law incredibly well and he has excellent understanding of processes through his position of Assistant Coroner for North Wales, and this is very beneficial to both clients and instructing solicitors. David has excellent people skills and puts clients' minds at ease in difficult proceedings.” - Legal 500, 2025 “David is an exceptional advocate who also provides timely written advice that is logical and thorough. He is extremely well trusted and his expertise is faultless.”Tier 1 Inquests and Inquiries - Legal 500 2024 ‘‘David is calm and unflappable. He quickly identifies the key issues and he is confident and polished in court.” Business and Regulatory - Legal 500 2024; Recommended in Legal 500 2024 – Crime (General and Fraud)  “David is very knowledgeable and puts together robust legal argument.” Legal 500 2023 (Business and Regulatory Crime) “Recommended Expert.” Legal 500 2023 (Crime, Planning and Environment) “David’s knowledge of the Coroner’s Rules and procedure is second to none. He is excellent with lay clients and he is able to confidently handle complex and fast changing situations. During hearings, other parties look to him for guidance with strategy, and he is able to deploy this to the advantage of the client.” Legal 500 2023 (Inquests and Inquiries) “David’s knowledge is second-to-none, he is excellent at drafting legal arguments and written representations on behalf of clients.” Legal 500 2022 (Business and Regulatory Crime, Planning and Environment) “David is our first choice for inquests, particularly those involving the care sector. He cuts straight through to the issues, is unflappable no matter what problem crops up unexpectedly and lay clients find his confidence reassuring. As you would expect, as an Assistant Coroner, he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of Coroner’s Rules and procedure.” Legal 500 2022 (Inquests and Inquiries) “He is friendly, approachable and relatable with clients, who hold him in great regard. He commands great respect amongst his peers and those he finds himself before. He is intelligent and clear in his communications and lively on his feet.” Legal 500 2021 (Business and Regulatory Crime) “He is approachable, accessible and flexible, very good with lay clients and robust in hearings. He is our first choice for serious inquests in the North of England where his experience as Assistant Coroner holds him in good stead. His knowledge of the coroner’s rules often exceeds those of the Coroner he is appearing in front of.” Legal 500 2021 (Inquests and Inquiries) “Mr Pojur’s advocacy skills are well tuned and he is respected by colleagues and well thought of by members of the Judiciary he appears before. He has excellent communication and interpersonal skills when dealing with clients, and he demonstrates a high level of commitment to clients.” Legal 500 2021 (Planning and Environment) David specialises in Regulatory law covering the areas of Inquests and Coronial law, Health and Safety, Healthcare & Professional Discipline, and Environmental law. He is regularly instructed by solicitors to act for many of the country’s large insurers, multinational corporations, utilities and properties companies, medical defence organisations and high net worth individuals. He acts in both contentious and non-contentious work and is relied upon for his advisory work. He leads junior counsel and appears against King’s Counsel. David is frequently appointed by Coroners and Judges as Counsel to the Inquest in long, complex and multi-handed cases. He presents Coroner’s in the High Court and Court of Appeal and advises on Fiat to the Attorney General and Judicial Review. David is appointed to List A as Specialist Regulatory Panel Counsel in Health and Safety & Environmental Law, CQC, Ofsted. David has significant experience in matters concerning Healthcare and Professional Discipline. He is instructed in matters concerning GMC, CQC, NHS England, Safeguarding, NMC, RCN, Performer Lists, OFSTED, GDC, GPs, Consultants and the Civil Aviation Authority. David represents individuals and corporate entities charged with health and safety related offences and prosecuted by HSE or CQC under HSCA. This encapsulates corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter and breaches of regulations. He is also very experienced appearing before Panels and Tribunals, addressing fitness, contested matters and appeals, as well as advising on strategy. He advocates on behalf of professionals such as surgeons, nurses, doctors and dentists as well as police officers. Equally, his practice in healthcare complements his inquest work where there has been a death in a medical setting. David has a strong practice dealing with GMC, CQC and Ofsted cases before the First and Upper Tier Tribunals. He advises Doctors as well as Providers and Managers on Notices of Proposal & Decision, Fit and Proper Persons, Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. David also frequently advises NHS Trusts. He appears at Urgent closure hearings before the Magistrates’ and the Appellate Tribunals under the Section 30 & 31 Provisions HSCA 2008. He frequently advises Registered Providers and Registered Managers on prospects of appeal and how to appeal under the Memorandum of Understanding for Urgent Appeals. He has an insightful understanding and knowledge of the Health and Social Care Act and Regulations and their application. He works with expert consultants and Registered Managers and Providers, ensuring their case is fully advanced. David gives training on Healthcare law and matters under the HSCA and Regulations. Inquests and Inquiries David Pojur is a recognised expert Leading Junior bringing a wealth of experience to the inquests field owing in part to his considerable time as an Assistant Coroner and role as CTI. He has significant capabilities acting for clients in cases involving health and safety fatalities, gross negligence manslaughter, suicides and deaths in custody and healthcare settings. David is highly experienced with juries and extremely knowledgeable on Article 2. These are often complex proceedings with several interested persons addressing health and safety, hospital, medical or care related deaths. Being Counsel to the Inquest means that David leads the inquest on behalf of the Coroner or Judge and advises them on the law and helps drafting legal rulings and judgments. This together with his sitting experience means he is in a unique position to understand the functions of the Court from all available angles. David advocates in difficult Article 2 jury inquests where experts are frequently encountered, ranging from psychiatric, psychological and pathology, to engineering and reconstruction reports. A routine part of his work is assimilating large complex medical or legal information and explaining it to the jury. David represents Police officers, Local Authorities, NHS Trusts, Ambulance Service, Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses, insurance companies and company directors. He often guides Serious Incident Reviews. He frequently argues the law relating to Prevention of Future Death Reports. Notable cases include: Counsel to the Inquest in a jury inquest into the death of a lone injured male who was attended by police and paramedics in the early hours. The individual displayed unrecognised focal seizures that escalated into tonic seizures, ultimately leading to cardiac arrest. Leading Counsel to the Inquest concerning the release of a patient from a secure hospital who went on to develop a relationship with honour based violence, and when under supervision, murdered his next partner, parallelling sadistic elements as against his first wife. Counsel to the Inquest following a cold case murder from 29 years ago where the killer was acquitted in 1994. Counsel to the Inquest concerning an air disaster notably advising on the law re CAA reports and scope. Counsel to the Inquest advising on unlawful killing via medical neglect of basic hospital treatment. Counsel to the Inquest concerning resumption, Fiat to the Attorney General and application to High  Court concerning historic inquest of man who escaped police and mental health detention. Representing Local Authority concerning an immobile disabled man who was left with lit candles on his bed and died in house fire. Defending a Coroner in the High Court relating to police actions and admissibility of evidence before the jury and refusing to engage Article 2. Defending a Coroner in the High Court relating to legal directions, irrationality and expert psychiatric evidence. Representing a national Utilities Company regarding the fall of an elderly person. Representing a national Construction Company concerning the fall from height of an employee. Representing a national Construction Company where an operative was severed in a manhole. Representing global company supplying lighting installations where operative was crushed on fork lift truck. Representing company where family member took son to work at height and was electrocuted on exposed buss bars. Representing Care Home group concerning SALT assessments and choking on foods given to vulnerable service user. Representing Care Home Group where one service with dementia user struck and killed another service user. Appearing for a Local Authority whose carer employee was fatally struck by a vulnerable service user. Representing a teenage son whose father died in custody by a ligature. Represented NHS re elderly patient lacking capacity, subjected to violence. Inquest of elderly hospital patient whose food line was placed into IV line. Implications flowing from this affected not only national but European healthcare. Represented a family whose teenage son with mental health issues went missing, focusing on police response. Represented NHS concerning a young man who rampaged with a sword, inflicting fatal wounds on himself. Representing the Chairman of a holding company and Managing Director of a quarry re laden volumetric vehicle which toppled over and crushed driver. Representing family whose baby, following placental abruption, was subject to a court order for withdrawal of treatment. Representing family whose toddler was found hanged. Health and Safety David represents companies and directors in complex proceedings involving fatalities arising out of breaches of health and safety regulations. David’s clients include professionals at risk of corporate manslaughter liability or gross negligence manslaughter. He frequently advises on the Health and Safety at Work Act and potential liability and where it may fall under the Sentencing Council Guidelines. David’s article on risky definitions of roles when working at height under CDM has been published in Planning and Building Control Today. Notable cases include: Manslaughter arising from noxious substances from neighbouring premises. Gross Negligence Manslaughter – Led by silk in six-week multi-handed workplace fall from height. Representing stables where a horse bit a child causing grave injury. Success in Upper Tribunal CQC appeal concerning serious risk to life. Acted for company directors in carbon monoxide poisoning of several people in residential premises. Represented directors of a national plastics company – operative’s arm caught in rotating machinery with degloving injuries. Denbigh County Council v DS Ltd. Representing MD and his company regarding a fatal explosion of split wheel rims. Appearing for company in gas explosion resulting in a fatality. Greater Manchester Fire Safety Authority v Khan & six others. ‘Death Trap’ shisha lounge case. Advising on Safeguarding Investigation into fire at a setting with vulnerable service users. SWA fall from height resulting in life changing injuries. Represented company where operative lost fingers on rotating saw. SWA fall from height resulting in life changing injuries. Represented company where operative lost fingers on rotating saw. Led by Silk in ‘Princess Parkway Pile Up’ representing the lorry driver. Barnsley Borough Council v Whitehead. Successful prosecution of Director under HSWA. Horrific injuries from converting semi trailers. Representing HSE against a company who had repeatedly flouted safety rules. A steel girder fell onto an employee during shipping. Successful prosecution of major UK supermarket chain for health, safety and food standards breaches. Environmental, Water and Nuisance David is Regulatory Counsel with expertise in Environmental Law. He has significant experience with PINS and the public inquiry procedure & NRW. He was counsel in the leading environmental case of Jagger succeeding in the Court of Appeal to overturn a conviction concerning the definition of controlled waste. David’s specialism has led to his frequent instruction representing companies and individuals against the EA and NRW at PINS, contested hearings before the Crown and Civil Courts and the High Court of Justice. He is well respected in this area. David is chosen by clients and solicitors because his cases are demanding and complex, requiring sharp analysis and attention to detail. His advocacy and advisory services are sought after. He advises clients pre interview, involving the EA, HSE, OFSTED, CQC, Civil Aviation Authority and Local Authority. He has been appointed by the Court to act as Special Counsel. Notable cases include representing an international shipping company concerning controlled waste transportation to China. This was a multi handed and lengthy case, where the EA discontinued the case against David’s client. David’s time studying International Law at the University of Amsterdam was useful. One of the largest environmental trials before the Crown Court was listed for four months. There were many parties and it was a very complex case. David successfully argued that the proceedings were unfair and the EA was abusing the courts process. This resulted in the acquittal of the defendants. David also advises and contests cases for clients in actions against the EA, to hold them accountable for their failures. These proceedings are for high worth damages before the High Court. David is approachable and has significant knowledge and court craft in his specialty field of Environmental Law. He works closely with leading solicitors in this field. He is a keen strategist, always seeking to achieve the best results for his clients. He ensures that the client is central to the team he leads. Notable cases include: Representing Construction company in rare Tree Preservation Order prosecution. Succeeded in having the prosecution against an international bakery dismissed for alleged breaches of Clean Air Act; secured large wasted costs. Acting for company directors suing the EA for damages in negligence 7 breach of duty. Four-month EA prosecution. Led by Queen’s Counsel in vast multi-handed and rare case. Ended on abuse of process application. High profile international shipping broker in multi-handed case accused of large-scale environmental criminality. David successfully had the Indictment discontinued. Advising and representing global company on odour management regulations and nuisance abatement and Environmental Information Regulations. Advocating for an international company accused of supplying huge amounts of toxic substances for land spreading. Representing company accused of massive fish kill and water pollution as well as spreading carcinogenic waste. Environment Agency v Jagger [2015] EWCA Crim 348 2015 WL 997446. Successful appeal against conviction in ground-breaking environmental waste trial. Business Crime David has prosecuted and defended the most serious crimes before the Crown Court, Court of Appeal, where he has succeeded in having convictions overturned. He appears alone against silks and enjoys a strong reputation. He is recognised as a leading junior and was appointed to List A of the Specialist Regulatory Panel Counsel for HSE, EA, ORR, CQC and Ofsted. David frequently represents companies and directors in serious injury and fatal health and safety cases of significant complexity. David has particular expertise CDM Regulations. He is fully conversant with handling expert witnesses and vulnerable defendants. He is often called to deal with grave crime cases that require the utmost sensitivity and planning. Notable cases include: Appearing for accused in manslaughter trial where death occurred through noxious gases. Representing terrorist accused of violent assault on prison guard. Defending in a led case of Gross Negligence Manslaughter & Health and Safety offences in a multi handed ‘cut throat’ defence concerning poisoning. Four-month EA prosecution, led by King’s Counsel in vast multi-handed and rare case. Defending murder and manslaughter, in a led case, to acquittal, where there was a death bed video identification of the killer. Defending ‘honour crime’ where injuries were described as ‘torture.’
Douglas Mark Stuart
Douglas Mark Stuart
OVERVIEW Mark Stuart has maintained one of the Northern Circuits most busy practices in Serious & General Crime over several decades. He has an exclusively defence practice and predominantly works in the Crown Courts in Lancashire. Throughout his career he has conducted cases of significant public interest nationally.  
Eleanor Watson
Eleanor Watson
Ellie Watson joined Lincoln House Chambers in 2024 after progressing through the early stages of her career, under the supervision of Emma Kehoe, at the CPS. She has experience of a wide-ranging practice across the Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court. She is used to dealing with high volume, fast paced work in the criminal courts where her attention to detail and thorough preparation enabled her to digest and analyse cases quickly yet effectively. Ellie has experience of trials in the magistrates’ court, including violent offences, where there are vulnerable individuals. She communicates effectively with others and her empathetic and supportive approach allows her to quickly build a rapport as a dedicated advocate. Her previous secondment to the Attorney General’s Office involved the drafting of submissions on cases that had been referred as being unduly lenient. She has transferred the skills of analysing case law and sentencing guidelines into her advocacy. Prior to her career at the bar, Ellie worked as a Legal Advisor; advising on the College of Policing’s national guidance policies. She was awarded the Leolin Price QC Scholarship from the Honorable Society of the Middle Temple, and the BPP Career Commitment Scholarship, to study the Bar Course and was graded Outstanding. She completed her LLM alongside the Bar Course and received a Distinction. NOTABLE CASES R v B  – acted as a Noting Junior for the Crown in the prosecution of four defendants jointly charged with murder and another charged with assisting an offender at Preston Crown Court. Assisted with editing interviews and drafting agreed facts. R v H – prosecuted an all-day domestic trial where the defendant was charged with strangulation and assault by beating. Secured a partial conviction despite quite significant undermining disclosure. R v M  – prosecuted a res gestae domestic trial where the defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the complainant had retracted. I accepted a plea to an assault by beating on full facts. R v B – successfully prosecuted a Section 4A Public Order offence trial with a vulnerable, elderly, complainant where the other witness failed to attend and there was no other corroborative evidence. First trial of second six. LEGAL EXPERIENCE Criminal Casework Secondee, Attorney General’s Office, 2023 Analysed cases that have been referred as being unduly lenient. Considered the legal and factual complexities that exist within the case and whether the threshold of being unduly lenient had been met. Drafting advisory briefs to the Attorney General and Solicitor General. I advised on a case involving a youth defendant convicted of rape of a child under 13 and other sexual offences where several sentencing guidelines were considered. Legal Advisor, College of Policing, 2019-2021 Responsible for the Uniformed Policing Faculty, providing legal advice to police. Strong collaboration within the faculty to produce national guidance. Part of the team at the College of Policing that worked on the Police Perpetrated Domestic Abuse Report on the Centre for Women’s Justice Super Complaint, researching legal guidance, and discussing how the guidance could be updated and improved to better tackle police perpetrated domestic abuse.  
Ellen Shaw
Ellen Shaw
Ellen is an established and sought after junior who specialises in crime, regulatory, and professional discipline, and is frequently instructed in work well beyond her call. She is particularly regarded for her engaging advocacy and authoritative delivery. Ellen is equally respected for her ability to put clients at ease by establishing their confidence and trust quickly. Ellen is regularly instructed to both prosecute and defend in a wide range of cases including offences against the person, dishonesty, drugs, sexual offences, intellectual property, driving offences, breach proceedings and cases involving proceeds of crime applications. Ellen provides advice and assistance to both the prosecution and defence on all aspects and stages of the criminal and regulatory enforcement process including: enforcement notices, the investigation, the decision to prosecute, and PII and disclosure issues. She also regularly advises on evidence, procedure, sentence and appeal. Ellen is a level 3 Crown Court prosecutor, and often receives instructions as a regulatory and private prosecutor. In this capacity she frequently prosecutes for government departments (the HMRC, DWP, DVLA and DVSA) local councils and organisations such as the Post Office. Ellen is a member of the specialist regulatory advocates panel in Health and Safety and Environmental law. In her defence practice Ellen receives instructions to act along-side leading counsel but also regularly acts as solely instructed counsel in cases where the prosecution, and other defendants, have both leading and junior counsel. Ellen accepts instructions on all types of regulatory and public law matters. Crime Ellen is a level 3 prosecutor and undertakes a wide range of criminal defence and prosecution work including violence, dishonesty, drugs, public disorder, sexual offences, driving, regulatory offences and confiscation proceedings. Ellen is also frequently instructed as a private prosecutor, undertaking work for The Insolvency Service, the Post Office, HMRC, the DWP, the DVLA, the DVSA and TM EYE Legal. Ellen also receives instructions to defend against prosecutions by local authorities and other bodies including the RSPCA, she also has experience defending in cases when instructed by the Police Federation. Ellen regularly prepares and presents legal applications and arguments, such as bad character, dismissal, disclosure, abuse of process, applications to exclude evidence, and submissions of no case to answer. Ellen has been instructed in cases involving vulnerable witnesses requiring the use of ABE interviews and intermediaries and has experience in applying for and responding to special measures and ground rules applications as well as the s28 procedure. Ellen is regularly instructed by Greater Manchester Police and the Serious Fraud Office as independent counsel for legal privilege determinations wherein she reviews material to assess whether it is subject to legal professional privilege. These instructions often require a detailed Advice to facilitate disclosure in complex multi-handed cases. Ellen has also received instructions as disclosure counsel including cases where there are PII applications. Regulatory and Professional Discipline Ellen was instructed as junior counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, specifically instructed on the Roman Catholic Investigation (July 2017-2019). The investigation considered the extent to which the Nolan and Cumberlege reviews of child protection in the Roman Catholic Church improved the Church’s policy and practice considering 3 case studies: f irstly the English Benedictine Congregation focusing on the Schools Ampleforth and Downside, second: Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s School and thirdly: the Archdiocese of Birmingham. Ellen took a leading role in the review of disclosed material and supervised the redaction process. She was responsible for drafting Rule 9 statement requests and assisted with preparation for the public hearings, including the formulation of evidence proposals as well as drafting witness questions for leading counsel, she also oversaw the rule 10 procedure determining which questions from the Core Participants would be adopted by Counsel to the Inquiry. She attended the public hearings as junior counsel and was one of the four counsel who drafted the Ampleforth and Downside report. Ellen is a regulatory list C practitioner and accepts instructions to both prosecute and defend in regulatory cases, she has particular experience in this area having been led in two separate cases by Andrew Thomas QC prosecuting a defendant company for corporate manslaughter and health and safety offences (R v BCHL). Ellen accepts instructions in all Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive matters. Ellen has experience in licensing cases and is frequently instructed to deal with cases involving taxi licensing. Ellen also receives instructions in education authority work, trading standards, anti-social behaviour and food hygiene. Ellen spent time assisting senior counsel in Fitness to Practice proceedings before the MPTS, as well as researching various aspects of substantive and procedural law for the General Medical Council and advising on a number of topics including service on doctors residing in a foreign jurisdiction and has also undertaken work for the Royal College of Nursing. Ellen also has experience of representing individuals in the Mental Health Tribunal. Recent examples of cases include: REGULATORY Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, Roman Catholic Investigation, junior counsel. Ellen oversaw the disclosure exercise, formulated evidence proposals and drafted witness questions for leading counsel, and she also managed the rule 10 procedure for the hearings determining which questions from the Core Participants would be adopted by Counsel to the Inquiry. She was also one of the four counsel who drafted the Ampleforth and Downside report. https://www.iicsa.org.uk/keydocuments/6583/view/ampleforth-downsideinvestigation-report-august-2018.pdf GROSS NEGLIGENCE/CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER R v BCHL- Prosecution junior counsel in a prosecution of a company and director responsible for the death of an individual as a result of systemic failures to maintain their fleet of vehicles. R v  MH -  Prosecution junior counsel in a prosecution of a company director responsible for the death of two people as a result of systemic failures to maintain their fleet of vehicles. MCC v PS – successful prosecution for a local council in a food safety case. RSPCA v JE and others – defence of three defendants all charged with a large number of animal cruelty counts. MURDER R v DA – Junior counsel for the prosecution led by Guy Gozem QC in a case concerning the death of a 14 month old child, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. R v MJ - Junior counsel for the prosecution in a case concerning the death of a man and post-mortem mutilation of the body. PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE R v EB and others– defence, led junior by Lisa Roberts QC in a case where three police officers were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. R v AA and others – defence of a lady charged with attempting to pervert the course of public justice on an indictment also containing murder and attempted murder. Ellen was instructed as sole junior when the prosecution and all but one of the other defendants had leading and junior counsel. Ellen made a successful half time submission to secure the acquittal of her client. R v WM – defence of man charged with attempting to pervert the course of public justice on an indictment also containing murder. Ellen was instructed as sole junior when the prosecution and all but one of the other defendants had leading and junior counsel. R v AT-P – defence of a single mother charged with committing an act to pervert the course of justice. No evidence was offered by the Crown. SERIOUS VIOLENCE R v RH - Ellen was led by Mohammed Nawaz QC to represent a client charged with possession of f irearm with intent to endanger life, the client was acquitted (all co-defendants charged with murder and convicted). Operation Tweed. R v DH and R v ML – defence of two men in separate trials under the same operation concerning the historic physical abuse of boys in care homes in the 1970-80s. The only counsel to have clients in both trials under this operation and to have both acquitted. Ellen was instructed as sole counsel in both cases where the prosecution had both leading and junior counsel. R v SC – defence of a man charged with x2 s18 offences, possession of a knife and a violent disorder, successful half time submission made leading to the withdraw of the s18 and knife offences from the jury. R v MT - defence of a man charged with threatening with a bladed article and assault. Acquitted. R v TJ - defence of a young man (18) charged with a knife point robbery. Acquitted SEXUAL OFFENCES R v JB - instructed to defend a client who was not fit to plead due to suffering from dementia but was accused 18 counts of the historic rape and sexual abuse of his 3 children. R v MQ - instructed to defend a defendant accused of the rape of an underage female. R v DH - instructed to defend an ex-teacher accused of the historic sexual abuse of pupils. DRUGS R v OM and others - instructed as prosecution junior in a drugs and firearms conspiracy which involves the use of Encrochat evidence. R v CR - instructed to defend client charged with supply of large amounts of Class A drugs R v SF instructed to defend client charged with the production and supply of large amounts of Class B drugs FRAUD R v MB and SC – instructed to prosecute a fraud committed by two men who targeted an 80yr old couple and extorted thousands of pounds in a building fraud. R v KH – defence of a man charged with 4 counts of Fraud. COURT OF APPEAL R v AO - reduction of sentence (fraud offences) by 11 months. R v DL  - reduction of sentence (possession of offensive weapon) by 12 months R v KO - reduction of compensation order (made at sentence) by £5000. Other Experience Ellen is a University of Bristol Graduate and a scholar of The Middle Temple (Gardiner Scholarship 2013/14) During her degree, she studied at the National University of Singapore undertaking courses in comparative criminal law, Ellen also took the opportunity to travel across South-East Asia, including Myanmar and the Philippines. Combining her legal experience with her love of horse riding, Ellen has given talks to a number of riding and bridleway associations affiliated with the British Horse Society, alongside the BHS and representatives of Greater Manchester, Cheshire, and Lancashire Police. Ellen has worked with the road safety campaigns “Dead Slow” and “Operation Considerate”, including a talk at GMP's Mounted division to over 200 people. Ellen has assisted with the interpretation of road traffic legislation and the Highway Code to help the BHS in their campaign. Ellen has also been quoted in Equisaftey's recent launch of their hat mounted video cameras and her comments have been published by the British Equestrian Trade Association and Your Horse Magazine. She was awarded the BHS Sephton award in 2017 for services to rider safety.
Emma Gilsenan
Emma Gilsenan
Emma is an experienced and versatile barrister practising in regulatory law with a particular focus on Professional Discipline. Emma has, for the last eight years, practised almost exclusively in Professional Discipline and Regulation, representing regulators and professionals from a variety of industry sectors. She advises and acts primarily in cases arising from the healthcare industry.  Emma is on the General Medical Council (GMC) approved list of advocates and regularly appears in front of the Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal Service (MPTS) in respect of disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations of misconduct, deficient professional performance, conviction, adverse physical or mental health, English speaking, and determinations by other regulatory bodies. In addition, Emma is on the GMC approved list of advocates and regularly appears in front of the High Court in respect of High Court Extensions and at the MPTS in respect of Interim Order hearings, Review hearings and Non-Compliance hearings.  In 2017, Emma undertook a 12-month secondment with the GMC where she broadened her knowledge base of the medical regulatory framework. Emma frequently advised on Rule 12 review requests, having regard to complaints raising new information and/or alleged material flaws in the GMC decision making process.   During the course of her GMC secondment, Emma frequently provided technical legal advice to Assistant Registrars to assist them in discharging their function to make decisions on whether the relevant criteria had been met to investigate matters outside of the five-year limitation period in accordance with Rule 4(5).  Emma has a background that combines Criminal litigation, Professional Discipline, Regulatory and Public law. Her areas of expertise complement one another, enabling her to provide a comprehensive service to organisations, as well as professional and lay clients seeking advice and representation.  Prior to joining Chambers, Emma was appointed as Assistant Public Solicitor in the British Overseas Territories of St Helena and Ascension Island (in the South Atlantic). During this appointment, Emma was admitted as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan Da Cunha. Emma was asked to return to the Island in this role, following completion of her pupillage, to advise on a specific high profile cross jurisdictional case. In addition to having conduct of a series of high profile and politically sensitive cases, Emma advised and represented clients in relation to general Criminal, Civil, Medical Regulatory and Professional Disciplinary matters. Emma returned to the islands to assist the Public Solicitor’s Office in 2017 and 2018.  WHAT OTHERS SAY:  Judicial sources have described Emma as:   ‘an incisive intellect [with a] robust ability to absorb and focus on the main elements of a case’  ‘reliable to elicit cogent evidence from a lay or professional witness, to cross-examine intelligently and to ensure that the jury and/or Tribunal get the main points’  having an ‘excellent grasp of issues in dispute, rules of evidence, relevant principles and authorities’  having a ‘robust facility to grasp the arguments and combine effective analysis of the core issues with enviable speed in preparing her responses’  demonstrating ‘thoughtful and appropriate reflection in her handling of cases, ensures that her client’s case is put robustly and professionally to achieve the required aim’  ‘A Judge would trust Ms Gilsenan to act with integrity, making appropriate disclosure, speak clearly and audibly, without being aggressive to witnesses or patronising the jury and/or Tribunal.’  having ‘first-rate interpersonal skills’  ‘clear, succinct and persuasive’  ‘engaging, clear and fluent’  ‘strong but fair’  having ‘an engaging, calm and personable manner.’  ‘a scrupulously fair attitude, without any hint of prosecutorial zeal’  ‘calm and professional at all times, dealing well with issues raised’  ‘engaging, thoughtful but robust approach to advancing her client’s case’  ‘appears to work collaboratively with instructing solicitors to develop effective strategies’  ‘Ms Gilsenan’s approach is to take instructions at the appropriate stages but uses her own judgment and knowledge of the realities of the case to advance her client’s case with proportionate and well measured force and effort.’  Other professionals have described Emma as:  ‘an excellent advocate’  ‘clearly a compelling advocate and has demonstrated this through consistent successful results’  ‘excels in her advocacy, which is evidenced by her run of good results’  ‘able to pick up on complicated legal disputes swiftly, exercise sound judgment and take practical and well-thought out approaches to her cases, always with the best interest of her client in mind’  ‘impressive under pressure, able to act quickly in urgent situations and willing to put the long hours in which are inevitable in our area of work’  ‘an extremely effective advocate’  ‘quickly picks up on issues and runs valid dismissal arguments’  ‘not afraid to challenge any decision she felt was unfair or irrational’  ‘excellent client care skills, clearly recognised by a number of her clients who return seeking her services’  ‘has an ability to build relationships in new and different jurisdictions and cultures dealing with some very sensitive issues’  ‘works at the highest level and is invaluable’  ‘where cases merit fighting, she is unwavering in her tenacity to fight her client’s corner under what are often hostile and difficult circumstances’  having ‘a strong working ethic and ability’  ‘a very good lawyer. She is extremely hard working and diligent with a good eye for detail’  having ‘an excellent manner with the most challenging of clients and represented all clients to a high standard’  ‘her client care is impeccable’  ‘her commitment to her clients is second to none’  ‘her communication with me and members of the firm was impeccable’  ‘preparation and attention to detail were second to none’  ‘her client care was unquestionable’  her ‘paperwork is first class’  ‘she is passionate about her work and is thoroughly committed to it’    PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE  Notable cases:  GMC v Dr L – Acted for the GMC in front of an Investigation Committee (IC) hearing involving a general practitioner (GP) alleged to have posted a number of tweets online, two of which referred to people’s gender, colour and sexual orientation in a manner that was inappropriate and/or offensive and/or disparaging and/or demonstrative of attitudes that were contrary to those required of doctors by Good Medical Practice, notably paragraph 65 and Doctors’ Use of Social Media (2013), paragraph 5. Following detailed consideration of the issues in this case, the IC determined to issue the doctor with a written warning, as submitted to be the proportionate course by the GMC.  GMC v Dr C – Acted for the GMC in a MPT hearing involving the impaired fitness to practise of a retired Consultant Paediatrician who, whilst they did not have a licence to practise, issued prescriptions to a close family member, and themself; a matter for which they accepted a police caution for a criminal offence namely, Fraud contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. The doctor was determined to be impaired by reason of their criminal caution and suspended for a period of one month to mark the seriousness of the doctor’s impairment, albeit taking account of considerable personal and circumstantial mitigation.   GMC v Dr O – Acted for the GMC in a MPT hearing involving the impaired fitness to practise of a general practitioner (GP) who practised as a GP whilst not having medical indemnity insurance and submitted appraisals containing false information stating that they had medical indemnity insurance. These actions were determined to be dishonest and amounted to serious misconduct, impairment and led to a sanction of erasure being imposed.  GMC v Dr A – Acted for the GMC in a MPT hearing involving impaired fitness to practise of a specialty doctor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology who asked inappropriate questions about sexual positions, the use of sex toys, whether the patient ‘liked licking’, ownership of pornography, all of which were not clinically indicated. Further concerns were considered by the Tribunal in respect of the circumstances of intimate examinations, absence of a chaperone during intimate examinations and practices in respect of the examinations, a significant proportion of which were found proved and to be sexually motivated. The facts underpinned a finding of impairment and ultimate sanction of erasure.  GMC v Dr D – Acted for the GMC in a MPT hearing involving impaired fitness to practise of Dr D who was found to have dishonestly forged signatures on timesheets, submitting them for payment, and failed to inform prospective employers of ongoing investigations and conditions.  GMC v Dr M – Acted for the GMC in a MPT hearing involving impaired fitness to practise of a staff grade doctor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The issues arose following unacceptable clinical management and failing to address issues raised in respect of assessments and record keeping. The facts underpinned a finding of impairment and ultimate sanction of conditions.  GMC v Dr H – Acted for the GMC in a review hearing involving issues of adverse physical and mental health.  GMC v Dr B – Acted for the GMC in non-compliance proceedings involving issues of misconduct in respect of GP practice management, incorrect prescribing, patient complaints and insufficient funds to pay staff at the practice.  GMC v Dr B – Acted for the GMC in a MPT hearing in a case involving impaired fitness to practise by not having the necessary knowledge of English. The facts underpinned a finding of impairment and ultimate sanction of suspension of 12 months.  GMC v Dr O – Acted for the GMC in a MPT hearing involving a course of dishonest conduct where Dr O, a prison doctor, practised without a certificate. The facts underpinned a finding of impairment and ultimate sanction of suspension of 12 months.  GMC v Dr L – Acted for the GMC in non-compliance proceedings involving issues of deficient professional performance in respect of widespread concerns regarding Dr L’s capability as a CT3 trainee.  GMC v Dr O – Acted for the GMC in a review hearing involving issues of misconduct following findings of fact and impairment where Dr M had been assisting a consultant in surgery, despite not having a licence to practise.  GMC v Dr M – Acted for the GMC in a conviction case following Dr M’s conviction for Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving.  GMC v Dr D – Acted for the GMC in non-compliance proceedings involving issues of deficient professional performance in respect of a locum anaesthetist.  GMC v Dr A – Acted for the GMC in a review hearing involving issues of adverse physical and mental health.  GMC v Dr E – Acted for the GMC in a review hearing involving issues of misconduct following findings of fact that Dr E had been inappropriately prescribing ‘Botox’  GMC v Dr M – Acted for the GMC in a review hearing involving issues of health issues arising from the consumption of alcohol.  GMC v Dr G – Acted for the GMC in a review hearing involving issues of health and a protracted history of varied compliance with directions to undergo health assessments.  GMC v Dr M – Acted for the GMC in non-compliance proceedings involving issues of misconduct and deficient professional performance in respect of concerns raised during a CT2 psychiatry post. The concerns included repeated clinical mistakes, poor prescribing, poor record keeping, lack of familiarity with clinical procedures and guidelines and failure to work effectively and collaboratively with colleagues.  Greater Manchester Police v JP – Legal Assessor, advising a Panel at a police gross misconduct hearing in relation to allegations of dishonesty against a Detective Inspector. The allegations were numerous and covered aspects of finance, dishonest and false representations, as well as making false declarations and statements on internal Force Vetting Forms.  St Helena Government v Healthcare professional – Advised and made representations in respect of disciplinary proceedings regarding alleged breaches of professional conduct.  St Helena Government v Healthcare professional – Advised and made representations in disciplinary proceedings in respect of alleged breaches of procedural compliance.  INQUESTS & INQUIRIES  Emma’s experience in providing advice and representation in medical regulatory and Professional Disciplinary proceedings has substantial overlap within the fields of Inquest and Inquires.  Emma frequently considers and advises on the impact of Inquest documents and Coroner Reports/Verdicts, Trust Investigation Reports, independent medical investigation reports and medical records.  Emma has a strong reputation for her ability to combine effective analysis, first-class written skills and a conscientious attention to detail. Her vast experience provides a strong base from which she is adept at reviewing, digesting and comprehending large amounts of information expeditiously. This enables her to identify core issues and present them in a clear, succinct, and persuasive way.  Covid-19 Inquiry   Emma was instructed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to assist in reviewing and identifying key material for possible disclosure to the Covid-19 Inquiry. This involved the analysis of a large volume of material and the examination of issues and themes such as preparedness and pre-planning, decisions on lockdown, the role of science, governance, enforcement, spot checks, safe workplaces, communication, personal protective equipment (PPE), respiratory protective equipment (RPE), face coverings, sanitizers, and disinfections systems.   CRIMINAL LAW  Emma has substantial experience of dealing with criminal matters in the UK and abroad.  Her background is one of prosecution and defence work, where she has advised and represented clients facing allegations of death by careless driving, non-fatal offences of violence, sexual offences, substantial drugs supply and importation, counterfeit pharmaceuticals and others. She also has experience of cases of fraud, money laundering and other financial wrongdoing.  Emma is experienced in representing a wide range of clients; professional, corporate and lay (including young and vulnerable clients). In addition, her experience encompasses making oral and written submissions in respect of fitness to plead, capacity and effective participation.  Notable Cases:  R v SP – Successful application to stay proceedings as an abuse of process in light of substantial delay, SP’s significant ill-health, contradictory views of the prosecution to proceed against co-defendants together or alone and proceedings having a “continuous and detrimental effect on SP.  R v SG – Successful acquittal of a young adult accused of sexual assault on a person U16 by way of digital penetration. https://www.lincolnhousechambers.com/inncent-young-adult-clearedsexual-abuse-charge  R v CM – Assisted in the defence of a man accused of sexual activity with a child under 13. Successfully represented the man for contested bail and breach of bail hearings. Assisted in preparing legal argument in relation to the complainant evidence and inapplicability of hearsay provisions. Ultimately, the prosecution offered no evidence.  R v PL – Assisted in the defence of a man accused of rape. Assisted in the preparation of legal arguments in respect of capacity and reliability of witnesses. Ultimately, the prosecution offered no evidence.  R v CL – Assisted in the defence of a man accused of multiple sexual assaults over a series of years in relation to young people.  R v J – Advised on the strength of evidence in relation to historic murder allegations in St Helena.  R v JF – Defended a man accused of multiple sexual assaults in Ascension Island.  R v BT – Defended a man accused of causing harassment, alarm or distress with the intention to commit a sexual offence. Represented him for legal argument in relation to fitness to plead. Presented submissions in relation to the weakness of the prosecution case in respect of limited evidence to support the relevant intention to commit a sexual offence.  R v DS – Secured the acquittal of a man accused of ABH in relation to his long term partner. Highlighted inconsistencies in accounts provided by prosecution witnesses.  R v JH – Obtained a suspended sentence for a man, heavily convicted, involved in an affray.  ROAD TRAFFIC LAW  Emma has substantial experience of defending people accused of road traffic offences and making representations on the factual circumstances of the offence, the accuracy of the breath specimen and other procedural issues that may arise.  Her experience includes making submissions with a view to avoiding the possible life-changing consequences of losing a driving licence.  Notable Cases:  R v DR – Causing death by careless driving. Obtained a Suspended Sentence after conviction. In passing what was recognised by the trial judge as an exceptional sentence in an unusual case, it was accepted that following a dispute, the deceased had gone after Emma’s client who had tried to get away from a situation rather than prolonging an argument. The trial judge made reference to the deceased not allowing Emma’s client to drive off, by way of holding onto the steering wheel and/or driver’s side door of the vehicle. The sentencing remarks made reference to evidence elicited during cross-examination of the prosecution reconstruction expert that by clinging on to the door of the car the deceased had contributed, to an extent, to what came to pass; plainly her death.  R v JH – Successful acquittal of young vulnerable adult charged with dangerous driving and ABH. Co-defendant separately represented by QC. The trial involving contested medical and forensic collision expert evidence.  R v ES – Failing to provide a sample. Advised on procedural compliance with s7 RTA 1988, steps taken amounting to medical reasons triggering change in requiring sample of urine to blood and recent case law regarding obtaining blood samples from tattooed arms.  R v AW – Contested appeal against conviction of driving with excess alcohol, failing to stop and obstruct PC. Prosecuting counsel. Conviction upheld. Sentence increased from community penalty to immediate custody.  R v LS – Driving with excess alcohol. Defence counsel. Advised on procedural compliance with s7 RTA 1988 and impact of medication on breath samples.  R v JH – Defended a man accused of driving with excess alcohol. Successful submissions for hardship resulting in no disqualification of licence being imposed.  R v AA – Failing to provide driver details. Advised on the merits of the ‘reasonable diligence’ test [s172(4) RTA 1988] in all of the circumstances.  R v JA – Successful acquittal of a young adult accused of careless driving, failing to stop and provide driver details.  R v CP – Represented a young adult in relation to charges of driving whilst under the influence of drugs. Successfully secured fine and disqualification below the guidelines.  R v JA– Secured the acquittal of a man in contested road traffic proceedings involving allegations of careless driving, failing to stop and report an accident and no insurance.  R v CC – Defended a man in contested road traffic proceedings which involved allegations of driving with no insurance and providing a false account to police. R v CY – Obtained a suspended sentence for a man who failed to provide a sample, where there was deliberate refusal and numerous similar previous convictions.  R v DY – Defended a man accused of driving whilst over the prescribed limit where a collision had occurred.  R v LW – Defended a man accused of driving whilst over the prescribed limit which resulted in a serious accident and where the intoxiliser reading was very high.  R v JG – Defended a man accused of being drunk in charge of a vehicle. Obtained expert evidence ‘back calculation’ to support the defence of no likelihood of driving whilst he remained in excess of the prescribed limit.  JUDICIAL REVIEW / POLICE ACTIONS  Emma has experience in the field of Public and Administrative law.  During her roles with a leading firm of solicitors and NGO, she prepared judicial review applications against local authorities for failures to adhere to their duties to suitably accommodate and support vulnerable young adults leaving custody.  In addition, her experience includes case preparation for judicial review proceedings against other government bodies, including the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board.  Emma has also been involved in successful challenges, by way of judicial review, against decisions to return prisoners back to closed conditions, delay in moving prisoners to open conditions and decisions made by the Independent Adjudicator.  Notable cases:  R (on the application of MH) v Secretary of State for Justice – Instructed by MH, a person serving a tariff-expired indeterminate sentence. Advised and assisted in relation to the successful judicial review of the failure, and significant delay, in transferring MH to open conditions following a Parole Board recommendation to do so.  R (on the application of DP) v Secretary of State for Justice) – Instructed by DP, advised and assisted in relation to the judicial review of a decision to transfer DP from open to closed conditions.  R (on the application of MR) v The Parole Board – Instructed by MR, advised and assisted in relation to a prospective judicial review of the Parole Board’s refusal to re-release MR on licence following his recall. Issues raised included whether the panel was provided with adequate evidence by the probation service to enable it to carry out a meaningful review.  R (on the application of AP) v Secretary of State for Justice – Instructed by AP. Advised and assisted in relation to the prospective judicial review of the refusal to dismiss disciplinary proceedings arising out of an act of self-harm.  R (on the application of RH) v London Borough of Hackney – Assisted in the preparation of a successful judicial review of the failure to suitably accommodate and support a young adult, and former relevant child, leaving custody.  R (on the application of JW) v Northeast Lincolnshire Local Authority – Assisted in advising a young adult in relation to the prospects of judicially reviewing the failure of a local authority to assess a vulnerable adult, prepare a care plan and to arrange suitable accommodation on his release from custody.  R (on the application of CB) v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council – Assisted in the preparation of a judicial review challenging the failure to assess and suitably accommodate a young adult, and former relevant child, leaving custody. Prison Law and Human Rights   PRISON LAW  Emma has extensive prison law experience representing clients at adjudication hearings, recall oral hearings and Parole Board hearings.  Notable cases: The Parole Board v WG – Successful application for release at an oral hearing for a man serving a mandatory life sentence for murder. Release was granted on life licence.  The Parole Board v MH – Successful application for release at an oral hearing for a post-tariff IPP sentenced prisoner.  HMP Wandsworth v AAS – Successful application to stay disciplinary proceedings on the grounds that AAS was not ‘fit to face hearing’, expert evidence on Pritchard criteria applied, or effectively participate in proceedings.  HMP Brixton v DP – Successful application to dismiss disciplinary charges following a prison decision to lay charges in respect of matters arising out of an attempt to commit suicide  HMP Highpoint v MR – Successful application to dismiss disciplinary charges as an abuse of process having regard to breaches of procedural construction and discovery of the charges.  HMYOI Aylesbury v EST – Successful acquittal of a disciplinary charge for possession of a blade. Issues highlighted in respect of possession and discrepancies in evidence from officers regarding retrieval of the blade.  HMP Highpoint v MR – Successful application to dismiss disciplinary charges as an abuse of process having regard to breaches of procedural construction and discovery of the charges.  HMYOI Aylesbury v EST – Successful acquittal of a disciplinary charge for possession of a blade. Issues highlighted in respect of possession and discrepancies in evidence from officers regarding retrieval of the blade.  HMP Pentonville v DD – Successful application to dismiss disciplinary charges where prison proceeded with charges that had previously been referred to police and amounted to duplicitous proceedings.  HMYOI Isis v SK and PM – Successful application to stay disciplinary proceedings as an abuse of process having regard to breaches of procedural laying of the charges.  HMYOI Ashfield v JSD – Successful application to stay disciplinary proceedings as an abuse of process having regard to breaches of procedural laying of the charges.  HMP Pentonville v OA – Successful application to stay disciplinary proceedings as an abuse of process having regard to breaches of procedural laying of the charges.  HMP Belmarsh v JC – Successful application to stay disciplinary proceedings as an abuse of process where charges had been referred to police and not proceeded with. Continuing with prison disciplinary proceedings was in breach of procedural regulations.  The Parole Board v MH – Successful application at an oral hearing for release on licence of IPP sentenced prisoner.  The Parole Board v LD – Successful application at an oral hearing for re-release following the recall of EPP sentenced prisoner.   
Emma Kehoe
Emma Kehoe
Emma Kehoe is senior junior, called to the bar in 1991, who specialises in serious crime. Emma has a reputation for prosecuting, at a very high standard, the most serious offences including Murder & Manslaughter, Drug Conspiracies, Death By Dangerous Driving and the most serious sexual offending. She is widely considered as being one of the leading regional senior juniors in Homicides and Sexual Offences. She is a highly skilled trial advocate and is extremely personable which has meant that she has always been able to get the best from victims and witnesses. These skills are now also being applied to her work with defendants in her rapidly expanding defence practice. Emma can communicate well with all, whether that be a High Court Judge, vulnerable defendants, witnesses and victims, clients from all backgrounds and juries. She makes herself heard, understood and respected by all making her a very popular choice in all areas of Criminal Practice. Emma grasps legal and evidential issues quickly and can respond clearly and effectively. Often called upon to advice in the most serious cases where death has occurred and/or complex expert evidence forms part of the case. She has significant experience in interacting with coroners and frequently represented the CPS in these cases where charges were authorised. Her empathy with deceased families along with her reputation as a tenacious and persuasive advocate make her a popular choice to instruct in the most difficult and high-profile cases. Since joining chambers in 2023, Emma has been able to transfer all the skills she has acquired over the last 20 years as she returns to her roots of defending. She has already secured the only acquittal in a 20 handed violent disorder and has earned praise from the local judiciary for the quality of her mitigation. Emma has experience doing HM Customs and Exercise work appearing in the Criminal Courts, Tax Tribunals as well as condemnation proceedings. She has appeared in Family Courts at disclosure hearings often contested and has an ability to easily transfer her skills to the requirements of other areas. Emma offers a personal touch whilst being professional to the core which together with her wealth of experience makes for an outstanding service level being provided to private clients who she regularly represents, in the Magistrates and Crown Courts, in offences across the criminal spectrum. Emma is extremely popular member of the Northern Circuit and has had many pupils who have gone on to practice both in chambers and at the CPS. She recently began to train police officers on how to conduct ABE interviews along with the DCCP of the Northwest RASSO unit as she felt this was an area that needed development. She is also part of a pilot scheme which has attracted national interest which involves advocates conducting such interviews. Murder & Manslaughter Emma has appeared as junior counsel in many murder cases and leading counsel in attempted Murder cases as well as manslaughter, death by dangerous driving and child cruelty cases. R v B - High profile Murder defendant killed his partner and buried her body in the forest. R v K and S - Dr and her daughter were murdered, and their house set on fire. Ks wife provided a false alibi. R v C and others - 6 handed murder and attempted murder that was retribution for drug taxing planned by the dealer and involved driving a car at the two targets purposefully. R v T - Son who stabbed his mother and father to death in the family home. R v K and C - Attempted murder involving the two defendants shooting the complainant with a shot gun and fleeing the scene. R v S - Attempted murder where S broke into C’s house as stabbed him multiple times as he slept in his bed. R v L - One punch manslaughter. R v A and B - Mother and father convicted of neglect after the death of one of their twin daughters. R v P - Elderly man convicted of causing death by dangerous driving after he hit a pedestrian whilst drive too fast and with poor sight. R v S - Father, two young children and the family dog ploughed down and killed in Cumbria on Father’s Day. Drug Conspiracies R v S and 10 others - Class A drug dealing in Lancashire. R v L and others - 5 Vietnamese males convicted of growing and dealing cannabis in 5 factories across the Northwest. Sexual Offences R V C and C - Human trafficking case that involved extradition of second defendant after she fled the country during the court process. R v S and 6 others - Human trafficking involving eastern Europeans girls being brought into the England and sold for sexual favours and marriage. R v O - Head teacher charged with serious sexual offences against former pupils. Involved 3 Indictments being joined as more complainants materialised. After sentence O appealed in person. R v L - Retired police officer living in Australia was extradited to face historic sexual offences. R v M - Stranger rape case involving multiple victims in Lancashire. Other cases of interest EDL violent disorder secured the only acquittal in multi-handed case over 3 trials. R v P - Mother and father convicted of neglect of their 3 children.
Gerard Doran
Gerard Doran
Recommended in Legal 500, 2024 - Crime (General and Fraud) "Gerard is very approachable and friendly and clients quickly feel at ease with him and as a barrister who they quickly trust and rely upon. He has an eye for detail and will ensure that any defences are properly and thoroughly explored. Ged is always available to speak with whether that be for a quick call to check a legal point or for instructions or guidance." - Legal 500, 2023 "He constantly impresses with his advocacy." – Legal 500, 2020 and 2021 "An outstanding junior counsel for heavyweight matters" – Legal 500, 2019 "He is brilliant in court; clients warm to him." –  Legal 500, 2018 Gerard is an extremely popular and sought after senior junior who specialises in criminal defence, regulatory and professional disciplinary work. As is suggested by his regular endorsements by leading legal directories, Gerard’s popularity and success in practice stems both from his reputation of being a superb jury advocate and his client care skills which many consider to be second to none. Gerard is a down to earth people person who is able to get the most from his clients. His enthusiasm for their case is evident from the first meeting and he is able to put the most anxious of clients at ease by his calm and unflustered, yet determined approach. Following his call to the bar, in 1993, Gerard practiced at the London Bar before returning to the North West. During his years spent on the South Eastern Circuit, Gerard developed a strong practice often regarded to be “beyond his call”. In 2005, with a healthy practice and requests to represent those involved in the most serious cases, across the United Kingdom, Gerard decided to return to the North West of the country. Since then, his practice has gone from strength-to-strength with a portfolio of high level work which is often nationally reported. Gerard’s crime related work covers the full spectrum of criminal offences but he is particularly popular for the most serious criminal offences which frequently include terrorism, drug trafficking, firearms, fraud & money laundering, homicide & serious violence and sexual offences. Although Gerard will act as junior counsel in appropriate cases, the vast majority of the work undertaken involves him taking the leading role whether that be as a leading junior or a junior alone. Gerard is often instructed for the Appellant in the Court of Appeal. Gerard’s caseload is mainly built of complex conspiracies with high page counts. Gerard is able to effectively manage high volumes of complex evidence and is extremely experienced in managing information in many different electronic forms. In his professional disciplinary practice Gerard is a member of Lincoln House Chambers GMC team and regularly represents the GMC at IOT, Review & FTP hearings. Gerard also accepts instructions to defend medical practitioners before other regulators. Terrorism Gerard has developed his practice in terms of terrorism cases. He has been involved in two trials of Far Right Terrorist involving plots to kill a Serving MP and Police Officer. R v Helm - Central Criminal Court - Defending in a prosecution of National Action, a proscribed Far Right Terror Group. R v Renshaw - Central Criminal Court - Defending in National Action prosecution including plot to Murder a Member of Parliament and a serving Police Officer. Drugs Serious and complex drug importations and distribution have for a long time featured in Gerard’s practice. He has for many years been involved in cases involving large scale and sophisticated enterprises concerning the movement of drugs into and around the United Kingdom. - Bolton Crown Court - Acquittal secured for defendant in complex conspiracy which spanned almost a decade. At the start of the conspiracy GH would have been just 8 years old.  Law in relation to conspiracy explored extensively in the case and legal arguments were conducted surrounding the extent to which it could be shown that the defendants were in fact party to the same agreement. GH was the only defendant to be acquitted (of 10) following 7 week trial. R v Holland - Bolton Crown Court - Acquittal of a man accused of Drug Supply from his home when he had, in fact, been "cuckooed". R v Uljarevic - Kingston Crown Court - large scale supply of Class A Drugs including in excess of 100kg of Cocaine R v Downs - Hull Crown Court - “County Lines” drug trafficking from Manchester to Hull. The case involved voluminous quantities of electronic evidence. R v Hussain – Stafford Crown Court - Drugs Supply - Successful Telephone Attribution Argument R v Duffy – Liverpool Crown Court - Nationwide Drugs Supply. Defendants moving drugs from Merseyside to the North East of the country. R v Khan – Manchester Crown Court - Drugs Supply - Manchester to Bradford - “County Lines “ case involving Class A drugs being moved from Manchester to Bradford. R v Faulder – Carlisle Crown Court - The case involved the discovery of a large scale Cannabis Farm. R v Ullah Khan – Bolton Crown Court - Drugs supply - “Crime Family” supply Class A Drug using the family business R v Dolan – Birmingham Crown Court - Drugs supply between Liverpool and London R v Page – Newcastle Crown Court - Drugs Supply - Trafficking between Liverpool and North East of UK R v Bloch – Liverpool Crown Court - International Drugs and Firearms Importation. The case involved a network of Drugs Mules tasked with trafficking large amounts of Class A drugs and Firearms. R v Thompson – Liverpool Crown Court - £166m Drugs Importation. The case involved the large scale importation of Cocaine from South America via Amsterdam. Fraud & Money Laundering Fraud and Money Laundering is an area of the law in which Gerard has always held a strong hand. He has been instructed both a Junior and Leading Counsel in VAT Carousel Fraud and computer based Banking Fraud as well as Frauds Against Copyright. Gerard has recently completed a multi-handed, large scale multi million pound money laundering case. The case involved a money exchange and transfers business that provided the opportunity for organised criminal to transfer large quantities of cash from the UK. R v Smith - Large scale theft and fraudulent sale of high-value Plant Machinery and Motor Vehicle R v Choudhry - Manchester Crown Court – Multi Million Pound Money Laundering operation conducted from a Money Transfer/Exchange business. R v Lagan “Operation Bayweek” – Large scale VAT diversion Fraud (Alcohol and Tobacco) R v Virmani – Banking Fraud , Money Laundering, Businessman Defendant duped by fraudsters. R v Parry – Money Laundering allegations. Involving arguments on admissibility of Mas Spec evidence. R v Hibbert – Fraud committed against Astra Zenica R v Bennetto – Internet based Fraud - Counterfeit Software was supplied on a huge scale using internet based sales agents. Volumes of electronic evidence relating to the purchase, marketing and sale of the software. R v Eccles – Property Fraud - Advance Investment Fraud. Pensioners conned into investing assets into a fraudulent property investment scam R v Wilson-Gill – Construction Industry Pay Roll Fraud. Complex payroll fraud involving multi-millions of pounds. R v Cottam – Construction Industry Fraud and Money Laundering. Large scale fraud against Lancashire County Council. R v MK - High Value Fraud case with a value of £1.1m involving defendants allegedly involved in 'Ponzi-Scheme'. R v GW & others - High Value Conspiracy to Import Drugs & Money Laundering case. Dishonesty R v Maughan – Planned Raids of Commercial Units R v Flint – Metal Cable Theft R v Adams – Lorry Hijacking. Sophisticated and well organised Sexual Offences R v PS - Multiple allegations of sexual offences against step daughters. Extremely difficult circumstances and significant press attention requiring very careful case handling. R v MS - Uber driver charged with rape of passenger he picked up in early hours of the morning. Complainant was 17 years at the time. Jury acquitted in under 1 hour. R v M - Grooming, Rape and Sexual assault involving several children the youngest being 8 years old Rochdale Sex Abuse Case – The first prosecution of Asian men charged with sexual offence committed against young teenage girls in Rochdale R v Taheri – Grooming of Afghani refugee R v Johns – Historic Sexual and Violence allegations Professional Discipline Gerard regularly deals with many cases appearing before the General Medical Council including many IOTs, reviews and high court applications As well as the above areas of law, Gerard has extensive experience dealing with a wide range of cases such as violence, regulatory matters, and inquests. Professional Client Testimonial “I have represented client’s in a number of serious cases over the years in which Mr. Doran has represented co-defendants and have always observed from afar a barrister of tremendous skill, experience and judgment quietly go about his business. Finally, the opportunity arose to instruct Mr. Doran on a serious sexual case representing a family man of good character for whom the impact of conviction would have been life destroying. I was not disappointed. Mr. Doran’s approach was calming, effective and reassuring. His judgement and strategy was perfect. His authority in court was evident and perfectly underplayed. His client care skills excellent. The result was an acquittal in a case where the outcome was by no means certain.” Leading Criminal Defence Solicitor- 2022
Graham Rishton
Graham Rishton
“Graham is a very hard-working, astute barrister who is excellent with clients. His advocacy is to a high standard, which is carefully thought through on the basis of his meticulous preparation, and he does not fear a good fight as an advocate.” - Legal 500, 2025 Now with over a decade’s-worth of experience of working within the Criminal Justice System, Graham joined Lincoln House Chambers in 2022. His career began at a Chambers and Partners Band 1 national criminal defence firm and, at the time of his departure, he was a director of the firm entrusted with working upon the firm’s most complex work. As a solicitor, Graham had specialised in acting in the most serious of cases across a broad spectrum of offences including murder and sexual offences. He developed a particular niche acting in large scale drug and fraud conspiracies in which he could utilise his ability to absorb and recall significant quantities of material. He most notably acted in the Royal Household Bribery Case for the only defendant to be acquitted in that case, and in the SFO v Unaoil trial which has been reported as the “World’s biggest bribery case”. Graham has now brought the attention to detail and client care skills he developed as a solicitor to the bar where he is developing a reputation as a sought-after jury advocate. Remarkably, of his first 12 crown court trials since joining chambers 11 have resulted in acquittals. One such acquittal, achieved in the face of what had appeared to be overwhelming evidence, prompted the Judge to remark that the result was a “triumph of advocacy over justice”. Graham has received instructions in all manner of criminal cases including, but not limited to, sexual offences, serious violence and fraud. He has most notably acted for defendants in a series of drugs conspiracies (Operations Marina, Cove, Devour and Claret) and a defendant facing an alleged multi-million pound conspiracy to defraud allegation (Operation Bryson). Graham accepts instructions in regulatory matters. He has successfully defended cash forfeiture applications and prosecutes such applications on behalf of the National Crime Agency. Other instructions have included acting on behalf of the DVLA, for local councils in licencing matters and on behalf of a HGV licence operator in a public inquest before a Traffic Commissioner. He regularly acts in seizure of goods cases on behalf of either private individuals or companies. Graham has also developed a busy motoring practice and regularly attends at the Magistrates’ Court to act for drivers accused of drink or drug driving offences or to advance special reasons or exceptional hardship arguments. He notably retained the licence, after an exceptional hardship argument, of a driver who had accrued no fewer than 36 points. A long-suffering Leeds United fan, Graham is a keen sportsman and plays football for his local side. He enjoys relaxing with his young family and running in the hills with his golden retriever Edith. NOTABLE CASES Drugs Graham has significant experience in acting for defendants accused of all manner of drugs offences. He is instructed in numerous large-scale conspiracies. He has had particular recent success in securing suspended sentences for those accused of instances of possession with intent to supply class A drugs. R v K – Preston Crown Court – Operation Marina – Defending in a five-handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs conspiracy. The prosecution relied upon surveillance and cell site evidence. Graham represented the only defendant to be acquitted R v P – Preston Crown Court – Operation Cove – Defending in an alleged 27-handed conspiracy to supply class A drugs in the Preston area R v F – Preston Crown Court – Operation Devour – Defending in an alleged 28-handed conspiracy to supply class A drugs in the Leyland, Chorley and Preston area R v P – Bolton Crown Court – Operation Claret – Defending in an alleged multi-handed drugs conspiracy in the Bolton area R v V – Stafford Crown Court – Operation Zymotic - Led junior acting for defendant accused of participating in an OCG involved in a muti-million pound conspiracy to supply Class A drugs throughout the midlands R v W – Preston Crown Court – Secured a suspended sentence for an armed forces veteran who had been convicted of supplying class A drugs R v F – Manchester Minshull Street – Secured a suspended sentence for a lady convicted of supplying class A drugs after submitting an accepted basis of plea asserting she had been subject to controlling and coercive behaviour. This came further to a careful analysis of phone evidence. Fraud/ Dishonesty Offences Graham’s initial undergraduate degree, before converting to law, was in economics. That provided a solid foundation for representing clients accused of serious fraud and financial crime. Over the years he has acted for defendants accused of all manner of such offences from those accused of defrauding their employer’s to widescale conspiracies to defraud. R v C – Leeds Crown Court – Operation Bryson – Led junior representing a former solicitor accused of conspiracy to defraud by way of being party to the fraudulent sale of trust products. The case was dismissed by the Judge at the conclusion of the prosecution case R v H – Preston Crown Court – Representing a defendant accused of money laundering following a complicated phishing fraud. Graham advanced that he had been used as an unknowing mule. Defendant acquitted after 4 day trial R v G – Manchester Minshull St Crown Court – Representing a defendant alleged to have committed a series of thefts. Prosecution based on identification evidence of a police officer. Defendant acquitted R v G – Bolton Crown Court – Representation of a defendant who accepted the opportunistic theft of a vehicle from a driveway but denied burglary of the car keys. Acquitted after a 3 day trial. Serious Violence Graham is regularly instructed to act in cases of serious violence including S.18 assaults and cases of domestic violence. He is well versed in the various hearsay and Res Gestae provisions which are regularly utilised in such cases. R v W – Burnley Crown Court – Represented a defendant accused of S.18 GBH involving a slash wound to the face. The charge was negotiated to a S.20 and the defendant obtained a suspended sentence order. R v B – Durham Crown Court – Represented a defendant alleged to have slashed a fellow inmate at HMP Frankland. Graham’s client was serving life for murder. A section 18 was negotiated to a section 20 on the day of trial. R v O – Burnley Crown Court – Represented at trial a defendant accused of arming herself with a large wooden pestle and causing injury occasioning actual bodily harm. The defendant was acquitted after trial, the jury accepting that she had acted in self-defence. R v W – Burnley Crown Court – Defending a defendant accused of a S.18 GBH slash wound to the face. The charge was negotiated was to a S.20 and the defendant obtained a suspended sentence order. Sexual Offences Graham accepts instructions to defend those accused of sexual offences either at trial before a jury, or at sentence. He has had considerable success in securing non-custodial sentences for those accused of “online” type offenses such as indecent image offences and sexual communication offences. R v H – Chester Crown Court – Defence counsel in a multi-complainant case in which the defendant faced allegations of sexual assault by penetration. Prosecution sought to rely on evidence from a “Fitbit” device but a successful s.78 application excluded it. Case also raised difficulties concerning cross-admissibility of counts. Client acquitted after a 4-day trial. R v W – Manchester Crown Court – Representing defendant accused of rape and assault by penetration, in addition to serious domestic assaults. The Crown were persuaded to drop the sexual allegations in exchange for pleas to the domestic violence allegations. R v M – Manchester Crown Court – Acted for defendant who pleaded guilty to inciting a child to engage in the commission of a sexual offence after being caught by a “paedophile hunter” group. A suspended sentence was obtained. R v B – Manchester Minshull Street – Mitigation on behalf of defendant who had engaged in sexual communication with an undercover officer purporting to be a 13-year-old. Further investigation revealed indecent images on his devices. Suspended sentence obtained.  
Guy Gozem KC
Guy Gozem KC
''A smooth operator, who embraces a modern approach'' - Legal 500, 2016 "Sought after to handle serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and fraud" - Legal 500, 2015 A very experienced criminal advocate, who has dealt regularly with murder, gross negligence manslaughter, and serious sexual allegations, he is also instructed by leading Fraud Panel Solicitors in lengthy commercial fraud cases and regulatory work. Please click on the "CV" tab in the right hand corner of this page for further information.
Heather Aspinall
Heather Aspinall
Heather primarily practices in two main areas, namely Personal Injury and Coronial Law. As well as these primary areas, Heather also accepts instructions in respect of all other aspects of Civil Law; Professional Discipline & Regulatory Law; and Immigration, Nationality & Asylum Law. Heather prides herself on offering all of her clients a personal, yet professional service and offers a swift turnaround in respect of all paperwork. Solicitors often comment on her outstanding customer service. Written work is dealt with quickly, communication on cases is excellent and Heather is extremely accessible and happy to assist when her clients require her for ad hoc advice or assistance. Heather has been appointed as Junior Counsel to the Crown (Regional B Panel) since 2015. Heather’s appointment was recently extended by the Attorney General, Rt. Hon. Suella Braverman QC MP, who described the competition for places on the panel as "fierce". Heather's appointment will continue until 2026, and requires her to undertake complex civil, and public law work on behalf of all government departments Personal Injury Heather is an experienced personal injury practitioner whose work covers a wide range of areas, including public liability, occupiers’ liability, employers’ liability, industrial disease, clinical negligence and road traffic accidents, acting for both Claimants and Defendants. Heather has a thriving court practice, attending court daily to represent clients at trials, disposal hearings, interim applications, costs and case management conferences, case management conferences, directions hearings, costs proceedings and appeal proceedings. . Heather also has a very busy “paper” practice, and is frequently instructed on behalf of clients to prepare paperwork including the drafting of pleadings, applications, Part 35 questions, advices on liability, quantum and procedure, and appeals. Heather offers a swift turnaround in respect of the same. Notable Cases RR – Acted for the Claimant in a claim arising from a RTA whereby the Claimant was run down by a hit and run motorist. The claim was pursued via the MIB Untraced Drivers’ Agreement and settled for a sum in excess of £100,000. MH – Advised the Claimant on matters of procedure and quantum in a case involving provisional damages, whereby the future risk of the Claimant developing epilepsy was at 2%. CB – Claim concerning trespass against the person whereby the Claimant was forcibly ejected from a club by door staff causing him to sustain personal injury. NP – Case arising from an accident at work, whereby a paramedic sustained significant shoulder injuries in a live river whilst undergoing specialist training. NJ – Employers' liability claim concerning unusual and complex injuries sustained as a consequence of an unsafe system of work and repetitive manual handling. FR – Applied successfully on behalf of the Claimant to disapply the primary limitation period pursuant to Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The application was fiercely opposed. BA & Others – Multi-track fraud trial listed for 3 days arising from an allegedly induced RTA. Heather represented the Claimants in this action. HA – Advised in an unusual case involving a severely disabled young girl who went into anaphylactic shock during her stay in hospital, having been negligently administered a drug which she was allergic to. JB – Advised in a case involving complex issues of law, namely the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of uncoupled trailers and motor insurance bureau claims. MA – Represented the Claimant in a case concerning a child who suffered personal injury and loss as a consequence of the negligent administration of medical treatment. This claim involved complex issues including a consideration of a possible provisional damages award. This claim settled for £45,000.  CS – Represented the Claimant is a case concerning a child who suffered personal injury and loss after tripping over a raised kerbstone. The Claimant suffered permanent scarring to her face requiring scar revision surgery and the use of cosmetic camouflage make up. RR – Represented the Claimant in a case concerning a child who suffered personal injury and loss after being kicked in the face by a horse during a horse riding event. PT – Represented the Ministry of Justice in respect of a claim brought by a prisoner who fell and injured himself whilst descending a set of external stairs. This case involved complex issues of law and fact. The Claimant’s claim was dismissed. DW – Represented the Ministry of Justice in respect of a claim brought by a prisoner who was the victim of a violent assault by another prisoner causing permanent injury to his eye. The Claimant’s claim was dismissed. ML - Represented the Ministry of Justice in respect of a claim brought by a prison officer who was injured during the course of a C&R training session. The Claimant’s claim was dismissed. MG – Represented the Secretary of State in a claim, and subsequent appeal proceedings, brought by the Claimant in a NIHL claim. The Claimant discontinued his claim, and sought to disapply the costs provisions as contained within CPR 38.6. The appeal was dismissed. Coronial Law Heather is an expert in all matters of Coronial Law and has been involved in a number of complex and high profile inquests to date, receiving instructions on behalf of a wide range of interested persons, including families, healthcare organisations, medical practitioners, prisons and other arms of the state. Heather is a frequent attender at the Coronial Courts across England & Wales and is regularly instructed to represent clients at both Jamieson and Article 2 ECHR (“Middleton”) inquests, and also jury and non-jury inquests. Heather has a wide range of experience in all aspects of Coronial Law and has been involved in a variety of inquests including inter alia deaths in custody, industrial disease, and road traffic accidents. In addition to her court work, Heather accepts instructions in an advisory capacity and is able to offer robust advice in respect of matters of Regulation 28 reporting, and all other aspects of Coronial Law. Heather also accepts instructions in relation to public inquiries. Notable Cases In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of BC – Represented the family of a lady who died whilst receiving medical treatment in hospital. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of MC – Represented the family of a student tragically killed whilst crossing a road at an undesignated but busy crossing point. This led to a Regulation 28 report being issued by the Coroner. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of JK – Represented the NHS in a complex and high profile inquest of a teenager who died as a consequence of drug toxicity. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of LB – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning the death of a prisoner who committed suicide in her cell. This inquest concerned complex issues of medical/mental health care and treatment. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of LB – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning the death of a teenager who died as a consequence of drug toxicity whilst attending court. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of DL – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning the death of a prisoner who died of carcinoma following a short period of hospital admission. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of MD – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning a prisoner who committed suicide in his cell. This inquest concerned complex issues of medical/mental health care and treatment, and the transfer of information between a variety of ag.encies. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of BS – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning a prisoner who had been diagnosed with vascular dementia and who died of natural causes. This inquest concerned complex issues of medical/mental health care and treatment especially in the context of vulnerable prisoners. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of RS – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning a prisoner who committed suicide in his cell. This inquest concerned complex issues relating to the transfer of information between agencies, and scrutiny of the prison ACCT policy and procedure. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of GA – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning a prisoner who died of natural causes. This inquest concerned issues relating to the provision of medical care and treatment including alleged delays in transferring the prisoner to hospital. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of DK – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning the death of a prisoner who committed suicide in his cell following a series of previous suicide attempts. This inquest concerned complex issues of medical/mental health care and treatment, and scrutiny of the prison ACCT policy and procedure. In the Inquest Touching Upon the Death of JL – Represented the Ministry of Justice in an inquest concerning the death of an elderly prisoner whose death was caused by hospital acquired pneumonia, underlying pulmonary fibrosis and a possible history of asbestos exposure. Professional Discipline Heather frequently represents the General Medical Council at the Interim Orders Tribunal, and through such work has gained a wealth of experience and knowledge in matters of Professional Discipline. Heather is very happy to accept instructions in all aspects of Professional Discipline in respect of all hearings including interim order tribunal hearings, review hearings, medical practitioner tribunal hearings, investigation committee hearings, registration panels and appeals. Heather is also willing to receive instructions to provide written advice in respect of such matters. Notable Cases Dr B – High profile GMC case involving multiple counts of historic child abuse. Immigration Heather also accepts instructions in respect of all aspects of Immigration, Nationality and Asylum law. As well as advising clients in these areas, Heather represents Appellants in both the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. In addition, Heather accepts instructions to represent clients in all aspects of Judicial Review
Henry Blackshaw
Henry Blackshaw
Henry Blackshaw is a specialist criminal Barrister who acts for both prosecution and defence in cases of the utmost gravity. Henry regularly appears as a Leading Junior. He is an established Category 4 Prosecutor and is on the CPS Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Panel. He has a particularly strong ability in cases involving drugs, gang-related criminal activity, homicide, rape and serious sexual violence, motoring and vehicle crime and money laundering. Henry is highly skilled in setting strategies for the further collection and preparation of evidence for trial. He is proficient and confident in the use of technology, particularly in the presentation of evidence in Court. CRIMINAL LAW Drugs & Money Laundering “Operation Aylesbury” (leading Junior) – Prosecution of a conspiracy where nine defendants were charged with conspiracy to launder the proceeds of a large scale “car chopping” operation. All defendants convicted, five after trial. "Operation Nicobar" – Prosecution of a large Class A drug dealing team in Bury. Prosecution based on extensive police surveillance evidence. R v Noonan, Perry, and Beaumont - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-24157394 R v Surriya Bi and Asia Bi - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jailed-rochdale-sisters-major-drug-6087320 "Operation Marine 1 & 2” (Afzal and Others) – Prosecution of a number of Class A drug dealing teams in and around Bury. Based on extensive undercover police and telephone evidence. “Operation Frond” (leading Junior) – Prosecution of a series of Class A drug conspiracies based in Middleton and North Manchester following undercover police operation. "Operation Perryville" (leading Junior) – Series of prosecutions of Class A drug dealing teams where extensive phone tracking analysis enabled the structure of the teams to be established. The consequent identification of the teams’ organisers and their roles has resulted in many of the sentences being significantly longer than is usual in such “test purchaser” cases. "Operation Rigging" – Seven defendant conspiracy to supply class A drugs. "Operation Palamino" (leading Junior) – Large scale Class A drug trafficking and money laundering. Nine jointly indicted defendants with very extensive evidence spanning a period of four years. "Operation Bluebeard" – 23 defendant undercover class A drug purchasing operation. R v Woodcock and Others – Conspiracy to commit armed robberies. Used extensive facial and body mapping to help prove a complex circumstantial case. "Operation Saluki" –18 defendant undercover class A drug purchasing operation. Series of cases arising out of "Operation Vendor" – Involving very large scale importation of controlled drugs. Operation Quartz (Leading Junior) - Prosecution of large-scale amphetamine manufacture and other drug dealing. Surveillance lead investigation. Operation Teleut (Leading Junior). International tracking of Crystal Meth. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/crystal-meth-holiday-photos-gang-15204589 R v Valli. Large scale cannabis cultivation and subsequent very substantial POCA recovery. See: https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/15784236.bolton-cannabis-criminals-ordered-to-hand-over-more-than-1-million/ R v Campbell (Leading Junior). Prosecutions for money laundering based on lifestyle and links to organised crime. See: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4935743/matalan-worker-benefitsfraud-drug-money/ Aviation Crime R v Murgatroyd. Trial of a pilot for illegal commercial flying and reckless endangerment of his aircraft. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pilot-jailedcrash-landing-risking-15981019 R v Copeland. Representation of an airline captain who was over the prescribed limit of alcohol for flying. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48199429 Sexual Offences R v Gavin – Prosecution of 82-year old ex-social worker found guilty of sexually abusing boy in care in the 1970s. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-44682166 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/twisted-paedophile-former-social-worker14848484 Osman and Others – Prosecution of a “Gang Rape” trial where the 16-year old victim had been groomed and lured to the location. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/schoolgirl-gang-raped-after-being-10810544 R v A P – Successful defence of a social worker on historic sex abuse allegations. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2877826/female-social-worker-cleared-child-sex-abuse/ R v Nazir – Prosecution of the “University Prowler”, a sex offender who was travelling the length of the country targeting female undergraduate accommodation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukwales-south-east-wales-36401343 R v Mowled Yussuf and Others – Successful prosecution of three Somali men who gang-raped a 16-year-old girl in the bathroom of hotel where they had stayed to celebrate Eid. They were jailed for 30 years. R v Eddie Piwko – Online grooming where "Attempting to commit a child sexual offence" used to indict behaviour which fell short of a completed offence, where the prosecution could not prove that the defendant had met any of the girls he had been grooming - Manchester Evening News coverage. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/groomerjailed-despite-claiming-bid-8571756 R v John Quigley – Prosecution of a sensitive retrial involving historic sexual allegations. Manchester Evening News coverage. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/child-rapist-brought-justice-after-7617996 R v Raymond Hawthorn – A Pimp set up an escort agency offering young men and teenage boys for sex. 10 years imprisonment . Bolton News coverage. - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/child-rapist-brought-justice-after-7617996 R v Christopher Holmes – Manchester Evening News coverage. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/christopher-holmes-raped-unconscious-girl-6729079 R v Hicks – Follow link for coverage during the trial. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/9784037.young-girls-were-groomed-for-abuse/ Follow link for coverage after trial - https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10190813.paedophile-caretaker-is-jailed-for-four-years/ R v Albarouni – Stranger rape, please Click Here for coverage from the Manchester Evening News. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/i-thought-i-was-going-to-die-rape-victim-687362 R v Booth and Gilder – Child Sexual Exploitation and Prostitution. Follow link for details. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/im-not-a-pimp-sayswoman-688931 R v Robinson – Historic sex offences against two young girls. R v Occlestone – Historic Sex abuse. 15-year sentence for crimes committed in 1980's. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20609946 R v Lynam – Rape of a vulnerable person.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20609946 R v Galbraith – 20-year sentence following guilty verdict on 15 charges. Bolton News coverage. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10116313.nightmare-abuser-jailed-for-20-years/ R v Davies. Middle aged female offender on a male child. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-41683850 R v Timblin. Lengthy trial of a combination of serious historic and recent offences. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/notorious-drug-dealer-who-called-13175604 Henry is also on the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences panel and has prosecuted a number of cases of rape and family abuse, both with a recent past and historic allegations where there has been a long delay (25-years +) from commission of the alleged offences and their prosecution. Also involving extensive Social Services and other third party records Murder R v Rymel Downer – Attempted murder by way of drive-by shooting. Manchester Evening News coverage. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manjailed-attempted-murder-caught-7778317 R v Gaefelipour – Murder of ex-partner. Daily Mail coverage. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2831494/Murdered-nurse-wasnt-told-risk.html R v Mannan – Murder case which attracted a lot of national press coverage BBC news coverage of the case. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19927011 R v Taylor and Whiteley – Sadistic murder by two defendants who were a self styled "Bonnie and Clyde" which received extensive press coverage. Daily Telegraph coverage of the case. Stockport Express Coverage of the case. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19927011 Firearms/Robbery/Violence R v Ashraf – Prosecution of man charged with three counts of robbery that took place over a four-day period. Sentenced to 14-years with an extended sentence. https://www.manchestereveningnews.-co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-used-scissors-rob-mcdonalds-14823248 R v Fagan – Series of robberies against female victims along the “Falloweld Loop”. Detection largely achieved using mobile phone cell siting. Manchester Evening News coverage. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ruthless-career-criminal-who-attacked-8415168 R v Shahabi Shack – Gun shop owner Firearms appeal dismissed establishing a new legal principle. R v Corkovic & Waring – Armed robberies - total of 38-years in sentences. Press coverage. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207822/Career-crooks-brazenly-pose-spoils-crime-Facebook-photo-gallery.html R v Norman – Defence case representing the principal defendant in a ten strong team of people carrying out high value commercial burglaries and thefts from ATM machines across Manchester and Cheshire. ITV coverage. https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2012-10-30/greater-manchestercrime-gang-jailed "Operation Uganda" – Concerned the targeting of properties for high value burglaries and robberies by an organised gang. Prosecution depended largely on surveillance and analysis of phone billing evidence. R v Cameron and others (Leading Junior). Prosecution of gang for kidnap and threats with a firearm of an individual believed to have robbed their drugs runner. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/adria-cameron-ricardo-bell-court-15833421 R v Jones. Case involved possession of a stash of illegal firearms. Involved “antique firearm” defence. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gun-obsessed-78-year-old-11263847 Other R v Joyce – Successful prosecution of a ‘Hit and Run’, causing death by dangerous driving, whereby the son of the deceased witnessed the collision. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nine-year-oldboy-saw-10769353 “Operation Marco” (R v Mackin and Chevelleau) – Successful prosecution of a historic “Hit and Run” concerning the death of a five-year-old boy and the cover-up which had helped prevent its earlier detection. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/nawneemackin-jailed-samuel-walker-10487491 “Operation Dolly (Shah and Iqbal) (leading Junior) – Prosecution of a complicated, interlinked banking and credit card fraud. R v Wieczorek – Prosecuting, series of arson attacks. Sentenced to seven-and-a-half years. Coverage in Manchester Evening News. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchesternews/ salford-arson-re-breathing-dragon-12071774 R v Owen, Qadir and Ashraf – Fraudsters con people of more than £100,000 in elaborate car scam Manchester Evening News coverage. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greatermanchester- news/car-scam-fraudsters-jailed-john-7239794 R v Kamran Khan & Shamin Uddin – Death by dangerous driving caused by competitive driving Manchester Evening News coverage. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/drivers-who-mowed-down-caring-681947 R v Udin, Udin and Hussain – Honour based violence trial. Manchester Evening News coverage - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jalal-uddinmurder-trial-live-11842450 "Operation Groundhog" – Conspiracy to steal vehicles. Prosecuting, Investigation using extensive police surveillance and cell site analysis. R v Scraggs and R v Kee – Prosecuting, both cases of female defendant "glassings" in Manchester city centre clubs. Each involving horrific facial injuries. Both received extensive local and national press coverage. “Operation Mascot" – Prosecuting, football disorder case following a Stockport County match. R v Jama and Others – Prosecuting, Complicated conspiracy to defraud involving a number of employees of a mobile phone retailer.
Holly Nelson
Holly Nelson
Holly Nelson has built a strong reputation as an effective and persuasive advocate on the Northern Circuit. With a particularly affable nature she is able to relate to lay-clients and professional clients in a genuine and meaningful way, especially in cases of particular sensitivity. Holly’s main priority remains robustly representing each of her clients’ interests in court in a productive manner. Holly has developed a very busy criminal practice both defending and prosecuting in a variety of matters that are more often undertaken by significantly more senior barristers. Her regular instructions in the Crown Court include Class A drug conspiracies, serious violence and sexual offences. Holly has also obtained a numerous very impressive results when she has been retained privately for criminal defence work in the Magistrates Court where she is sought after by private clients for the full spectrum of criminal offences. In addition to general crime, Holly also has significant experience in regulatory fields having represented Trading Standards and Local Authorities in regulatory matters in the Magistrates and Crown Court. She regularly and reliably turns her mind to complex legal argument and is able to conduct significant legal research in novel areas of law. Notable Cases Firearms Operation Absolute - Manchester Crown Square – Led Junior for the Crown in the prosecution of three defendants charged with conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life following firearms discharges in Eccles and Whitefield. Operation Drever - Manchester Crown Square – Led Junior for the Crown in a prosecution of 4 defendants for conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life. Drugs Operation Alberta - Preston/Burnley Crown Court – Led Junior for the Crown in a 33+ defendant conspiracy to produce, supply and burgle cannabis farms in East Lancashire. Operation Drever (drugs) - Manchester Crown Square – Junior alone in the supply of Class A and B drugs in North Manchester. Operation Simplon - Preston Crown Court – Junior alone prosecuting the supply of 30kg+ cocaine and heroin where the defendant was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. Operation Feast - Preston Crown Court – represented defendant in a Class A drug conspiracy whose sentence resulted in a ‘walk out’ following negotiation with the Crown as to acceptable alternative offences. Operation Zodiac - Preston Crown Court - represented a defendant with an accepted starting point at sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. Defendant received a suspended period of imprisonment. Operation Horizon - Preston Crown Court – Led Junior for the Crown in a retrial relating to a seventeen-defendant operation arising from county lines drug supply to Barrow-in-Furness. (CCU) R v O  – Preston Crown Court - successfully defended a man charged with PWITS Class A and B who was found with 1kg of cocaine in his trousers. Cut-throat defence. Overnight return in second-six of pupillage. R v P  – Carlisle Crown Court – Junior alone prosecuted a trial of issue relating to PWITS 100kg cannabis. Violence R v M - (CACD) – Successfully appealed a sentence imposed overturning dangerousness finding and reducing sentence by eight months. R v V - Manchester Crown Court - Led Junior for the prosecution in trial of defendant charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to cause GBH, and possession of firearm with intent to endanger life. Operation Drever (B & H) - Manchester Crown Court - conspiracy to cause GBH with intent sentenced to 7.5 years’ and 4.5years’ imprisonment respectively. R v D – Preston Crown Court – successfully defended one of two women charged with a joint enterprise s47 assault in Barrow-in-Furness. Other Operation Sprite – Led Junior for the Crown in a conspiracy to burgle/steal high-value vehicles in East Lancashire with an estimated value of over £1m. R v R – Court of Appeal – appeal against sentence for the Defence. Submissions described as ‘very attractive” and “succinct”. Dingemans LJ referring to the “excellence” of her submissions. Client subsequently acquitted after 16 months’ imprisonment, and the quashing of a 54 months’ sentence at Carlisle Crown Court R v G – Carlisle Crown Court – successfully made a submission for the jury to be discharged following a jury irregularity which came to light after the Defendant had given evidence. Appointments CPS Grade 3 – General Crime Advocate Panel CPS Grade 3 – Counter Terrorism CPS Grade 3 – Fraud CPS Grade 2 – Serious Crime, Specialist Advocate Panel Scholarships Gray’s inn: Prince of Wales major BPTC scholarship Hebe Plunkett BPTC scholarship Ann Felicity Goddard pupillage scholarship
Hugh Barton
Hugh Barton
OVERVIEW Hugh Barton joined Lincoln House Chambers in 2002 after he and his family relocated from London to the North West. He specialises in serious criminal work, with particular emphasis on defence work and civil actions against the police. He is generally accepted to be the leading barrister for Claimants in this area in the North. He is described recently by Chambers UK as having “highly sought after advocacy skills” and the ability “to really cross-examine”. Hugh was born in London in 1963 and was educated at Latymer Upper School in Hammersmith. He read English and Classics at Exeter University before working and travelling in Central America (at first with an International Brigade in Nicaragua and then on his own). On his return, he started working for solicitors in London. Firstly doing Criminal work with Hodge Jones and Allen and later doing civil work with Leigh Day and Co. He worked extensively with Martin Day on their ground breaking High Court litigation against British Nuclear Fuels. Over this period he completed the conversion course and then Bar Finals. Prior to his move North, Hugh practiced from Doughty Street Chambers in London. Initially he enjoyed a general common law practice which included crime, family, civil litigation and public law. But after about 5 years he began to specialise on criminal defence work, police actions, Human Rights and appellate miscarriage work (frequently pro-bono). He cut his teeth on Benn and others, then the longest ever VAT fraud prosecution which concluded in the House of Lords. He was soon being instructed for the defence in numerous murder trials at the Central Criminal Court. He advised and then acted in numerous Appeals in the Court of Appeal via the Criminal Cases Review Commission. He also developed an interest in pro-bono appeals to the Privy Council in capital murder cases from the Caribbean. Having joined Lincoln House Hugh has set about establishing himself in the North West. He has begun prosecuting for the first time and enjoys the challenge of prosecution briefs after years of defending. There are obvious parallels between prosecuting a criminal case and acting for a claimant in a civil trial. On the defence side Hugh has quickly built up a heavy weight practice. Set out below are just a few examples of his recent cases. Bird and others (murder and robbery of money lender) Defending. Client had sacked previous 2 legal teams. Defendant discharged on first day of trial after Hugh’s legal submissions. R v Hanna – Defending – Fraud involving environmental charity. R v Hussain and others – Election fraud. R v Patel and others – Leading junior defending in multi-million revenue fraud. R v Tufail – £2 million money laundering and related confiscation proceedings R v Makwiza – Conspiracy to defraud, nationwide benefit fraud. R v Carroll – Conspiracy to rob – lengthy trial after which defendant acquitted after successful challenge to prosecution DNA evidence and cell site evidence. R v Midgley – £3 million confiscation proceedings linked to cigarette importation. R v Bolton – Murder – death from asthma attack after assault, complex causation issues with expert evidence. R v Metcalfe – High profile case in which a father shopped his son to the police for possession of a firearm. 5-year minimum term was not imposed due to “exceptional circumstances”. R v Motl – brutal murder for money of defendants’ employer before fleeing to Czech Republic. R v Molloy – large scale conspiracy to supply cannabis between England Wales and Scotland. Successfully argued that entire proceedings a nullity and trial collapsed. R v Webb – conspiracy to cause explosions-sophisticated attacks Nationwide on banks and cashpoints gaining access through explosions caused with oxy acetylene gas first offences of this type in this country. R v Clark – Multi-Million pound multiple importations and distribution of all different class A and B drugs and associated money laundering. C said to be at the very top of the organisation). R v Thompson – Conspiracy to supply Cocaine, Heroin and Firearms. R v Robinson – Conspiracy to supply Cocaine. R v Al Khatib – Missing body honour killing murder involving 3 stateless Palestinian brothers Hugh is frequently instructed in cases involving serious sexual assaults and historic abuse and sexual assaults on children. He is known for his sensitive but effective cross-examination of child witnesses. Recent cases (defending and prosecuting) include: R v S – Multiple rapes of different partners over 17-year period. R v Jackson – multiple historic rapes of children. R v D – rape of partner whilst defendant on licence having been released from sentence for raping former partner. R v N – alleged marital rape and domestic violence in Vietnamese marriage. R v J – alleged marital rape and serious domestic violence in Pakistani arranged marriage. R v H – historic sexual abuse of grandchildren. R v O – rape of vulnerable teenager who was picked up by defendants outside the gates of her care home. Hugh has also been instructed the represent third party interests in such cases in relation to issues of disclosure. He has intervened on behalf of public bodies such as local authorities who were in possession of sensitive relevant material and represented family members of complainant’s who objected to the disclosure of confidential material (in breach of their Article 8 rights). In the area of sentencing he has particular expertise in “dangerousness” and mandatory minimum terms (and how to avoid them). Hugh is known for his successful legal submissions and the clarity of his skeleton arguments. He is fully conversant with the jurisprudence of the ECHR and frequently relies on it in his submissions on Bad Character, Hearsay, Confiscation and Inferences from Silence. For example since the Court of Appeal decision in Horncastle (on hearsay) he has stopped three different prosecutions after successfully excluding the hearsay evidence. He has continued to enjoy conspicuous success in the County Court and High Court in his Police Action work. It is only in the last couple of years that he lost his first police action trial since moving to Manchester. Recent victories have led to damages in excess of £100,000. In the case of Gee V Merseyside Police he successfully argued for the admission of “similar fact” evidence into the civil trial. This was all the more remarkable as it related to allegations of misconduct made against officers made in the course of criminal trials in which the defendants had been convicted and the criminal prosecution of officers that resulted in acquittals. Having appealed to the High Court and lost, the police duly settled. Hugh was also instructed on behalf of members of the Viva Palestina convoy who sued Greater Manchester Police as a result of their arrest and detention under section 41 of the Terrorism Act. The case has now settled in the Claimants’ favour with a significant pay out. He also acted for a former IRA informer who was the subject of an assassination attempt after his identity was disclosed. In the case of Koraou he argued that GMP had breached their duty to carry out an effective criminal investigation under Article 3 after K was assaulted and his ear was bitten off. The case was very recently heard by the Court of Appeal together with the linked appeal of DSD & NBV. Judgement has been reserved. Hugh is currently instructed in a number of ongoing police actions, which include: W relates to a potential claim in negligence and breach of Article 3 (breach of duty to protect and investigate) against Police, Local Authority and Probation. An extremely vulnerable child was groomed and sexually abused after being placed at a special school located in very close proximity to a hostel housing a convicted sex offender. M who suffered a cardiac arrest after being tasered twice. J a vulnerable youth wrongly prosecuted for Arson (possible claims under Article 6, Misfeasance and Malicious Prosecution. C whose conviction for murder was quashed by the Court of Appeal (R V Joof ) after a major CCRC led investigation found extensive corruption amongst the police investigation and linked witness protection programme. Hugh continues to lecture on Human Rights and Criminal Law. In addition to the above he has also been instructed in inquests and applications for judicial review (most frequently related to POCA and enforcement). Hugh Barton is a barrister who is drawn to difficult and challenging cases. Regardless of whether the difficulties are a result of the demands of the lay client or the legal complexities of the case, he is at his best when he is being stretched to the limit. He is someone who will always seek out fresh professional challenges. He is prepared to act on a Conditional Fee and even Pro Bono basis where the justice of the case requires it. He is currently instructed in an appeal out of time against an old IPP imposed on a 14-year old youth under the old “Dangerousness Sentencing Regime”. More recently, Hugh has been instructed in professional regulatory work. Over the last 18-months he has been regularly instructed by the General Medical Council. This includes presenting at tribunal hearings but also High Court applications. He is keen to expend this area of practice.
Ian McMeekin
Ian McMeekin
Recommended in Legal 500, 2024 - Crime (General and Fraud)Ian McMeekin was called to the bar in 1987. He joined Lincoln House Chambers in 2008 and has since built a practice defending in all areas of serious criminal offences, including high-profile drug trafficking and related crime, murder, fraud, terrorist offences, armed robbery and sexual offences.Ian specialises in drug trafficking offences and has been involved in most of the largest cases in the North West over the last fifteen years, working as both junior to silks and lead junior, many of which have focused on abuse of process and failures in the disclosure process.Ian is currently defending in the Massey/Kinsella murder, one of the largest joint operations in Manchester and Merseyside to date. Drug Related Offences R v JD and others – Large scale importation of tonnes of class ‘A’ drugs. Liverpool CC. R v H and others – Importation of tonnes of cocaine from S. America. Birmingham CC. R v LT and others – Importation of tonnes of cannabis – largest on record. Manchester CC. R v WM and others – Wholesale national distribution of cocaine. Mold CC. R v TG-S and others – Duty fraud and tobacco importation. Manchester CC. R v PD and others – Head of OCG - large scale distribution of class ‘A’ and ‘B’. Manchester CC. Murder R v MF and another – Double murder (“assassination” of Paul Massey and John Kinsella –ongoing.) Liverpool CC. R v LA and others [‘The Gooch trial’] – Double murder against drugs background. Liverpool CC. R v MJ and others [‘The Cregan trial’] – MJ acquitted of murder following ‘cut-throat’ defence. Preston CC. R v C and others – Multi-handed murder in Stafford CC - gangland murder. R v RA – Murder (stabbing). Manchester CC. R v SW – Drug-related murder and escape from prison. Liverpool CC. R v ND – Drug-related shooting. Manchester CC. R v MJ – Murder (drug-related stabbing). Manchester CC. R v AW and others –Quadruple murder (‘The Walkden arson trial’). Manchester CC. Terrorist Cases R v MJ and others – Plot to murder UK and US soldiers in Afghanistan. Manchester CC. R v MJ and others – Appeal of R v Farooqi and others – reported case. London RCJ. R v AM – Preparing for acts of terrorism in Syria.
Isobel Thomas
Isobel Thomas
“Isobel is an impressively conscientious barrister with a superb eye for detail and excellent client care skills. Her advocacy is persuasive and forceful, whilst always remaining courteous and accessible in tone, and when cross-examining, taking witnesses in chief, and in addressing the jury and the judge, she demonstrates excellent judgement and skill.”- Legal 500, 2025 "Isobel is incredibly sharp, tactically astute, and has a peerless work ethic. Her written and oral advocacy is outstanding.'" Crime (General and Fraud) - Legal 500, 2024 Isobel Thomas prosecutes and defends in a wide range of criminal matters; including, but not limited to, murder and manslaughter, sexual offences, drug conspiracies, serious violence and fraud. Isobel has developed a reputation as a forceful advocate who is able to deal with complex and unusual legal issues.  Isobel is able to able to quickly build a very good rapport with clients and provides clear and is extremely proactive in her management of cases, providing practical advice at every stage in proceedings. In addition to her serious crime practice, Isobel is also frequently instructed by private clients in both driving matters and also regulatory offences including licensing, food safety, trading standards and actions brought by local authorities. Isobel is public access qualified. Isobel is a level 3 prosecutor. Murder, Manslaughter and Serious Violence Notable cases R v LH - Instructed alone to represent female defendant charged with Manslaughter. The co-defendant was charged and convicted of murder. LH was a vulnerable individual with long standing mental health difficulties. The deceased was her ex-partner and the co-defendant was her new partner. R v SA - Led junior for the prosecution in murder trial. Defendant convicted of planning and attempting the murder of his estranged partner, and the murder of her son who intervened in the attack to save her. Following the stabbings the defendant fled to the south coast with the intention of escaping by crossing the English channel in an inflatable dinghy. Defendant sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum period of 30 years. R v DW - Led junior for the defence in murder trial. This was a legally unusual and difficult case. Both defendants had already been tried and convicted for murder in 2018. The case involved a petrol bomb having been thrown through the window of a house in Salford, causing the death of four children in 2017. Their mother eventually died from the injuries she sustained in the fire in 2019. R v AM - Operation Camel. Junior counsel for the prosecution. The defendant, aged 39, was unanimously convicted of murder following a 9-day trial at Preston Crown Court. The court heard how the defendant subjected a vulnerable man to long-term physical abuse, including crushing his toe and extracting five of his teeth whilst he was still alive, before brutally murdering him by perforating his bladder and bowel. It was the prosecution case that the defendant’s treatment of the deceased was nothing short of torture. The Judge described the defendant’s actions as “barbaric and evil”. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 32 years. R v BD - Operation Yale. 8 week trial before a High Court Judge at Manchester Crown Court.  Instructed to defend client charged with assisting an offender. The defendant was originally one of nine charged with murder, which related to a shooting in Ashton Under Lyne. However, the murder charge for him was dismissed before trial. He was tried for assisting an offender, together with the alleged murderers. R v DN - Junior counsel for the defence in murder trial. The defendant was charged with murdering her ex-partner in a brutal attack involving an axe and a hammer. The defendant admitted manslaughter but denied murder, relying on the partial defence of loss of control.  Defendant acquitted of murder following a 10 day trial. She was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter. R v XXXX - Junior counsel for the defence in re-trial. The defendant had previously been convicted of 2 counts of conspiracy to murder. Those convictions had been overturned by the Court of Appeal. There were issues relating to abuse of process. Prior to the re-trial the Crown offered no evidence in relation to one of the conspiracies. R v AH - Three-week trial defending one of three brothers charged with a variety of offences including drug dealing, blackmail and witness intimidation. Drug Offences Notable cases R v CR & Others - Operation Rosslare. Junior counsel for the prosecution. Nine defendants, part of an Organised Crime Group, were sentenced to a total of 68 years and 4 months, having pleaded guilty to drug related offences. The operation involved large scale drug dealing of Class A drugs in the Stockport area. R v MN & Others - Instructed to defend one of 8 defendants charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. This case involved Class A drugs being brought from Yorkshire into the Lancashire area. R v PW & Others - Operation Trinket. Junior counsel for the prosecution in 7 week trial at Bolton Crown Court. 6 defendants were charged with Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs. The defendants had been involved in producing 375kg of caffeine and paracetamol, which the prosecution contended was later to be mixed with heroin as part of a multi-million-pound operation. Sexual Offences Isobel has completed the Vulnerable Witness Training Course. Notable cases R v WA - Defence counsel in rape trial at Preston Crown Court. The defendant was alleged to have raped the complainant at knife point. Defendant acquitted following a 5 day trial. R v JE - Instructed to represent defendant charged with historic sexual allegations against his brother together with offences (rape and violence) against his ex-wife and violence towards his children. Isobel successfully argued that the allegations relating to his brother should be severed. No evidence was later offered in relation to the allegations on the defendant’s brother as Isobel raised the issue of doli incapax. R v DL - Defending allegations of assault by penetration of a child under 13. The complainant was the defendant’s 5 year old step daughter. This case required an extremely sensitive approach. The complainant was assisted by an intermediary and cross examination questions had to be prepared prior to trial. R v JM - Successful prosecution following trial of a male charged with exposing himself in front of a family, including a 3-year old child. The defendant was subsequently detained under s41 Mental Health Act 1988. R v D - Defended a client charged with Indecent Assault on two girls under the age of 13. The offences dated back to 2000. Defendant acquitted after a 5 day trial. Fraud / Money Laundering / Confiscation Notable cases R v Campbell - Junior counsel for the prosecution in money laundering trial. The defendants spend over £100,000 of “dirty” money on lavish holidays, cars and house renovations. R v SH - Instructed to prosecute in a complicated two-day contested POCA hearing in which the Crown alleged that the defendant had substantial “hidden assets”. R v RS - Instructed to prosecute in a POCA (order value: £285,000) in which there was legal argument involving time to pay under the old/new s.11 POCA. Isobel successfully argued that the new s.11 applies to confiscation orders made before its implementation date. Regulatory Notable cases Bury MBC v The DH Bury Ltd - Instructed to prosecute in complicated 2 day premises licence appeal to the Magistrates’ Court. Cheshire EC v TLC - Instructed to prosecute a trial in which the defendant was charged with being in breach of a Temporary Stop Notice, contrary to section 171G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The defendant was convicted and fined £7000. Cheshire EC v AS - Instructed to prosecute an appeal brought by a taxi driver against the decision of the General Licensing Sub-Committee to revoke his Hackney Carriage Private Hire Drivers Licence. The decision of the Sub-Committee was upheld following the appeal. Oldham BC v RN - Instructed to represent shop owner in contested hearing in which he faced losing his licence. Health and Safety Executive v XXX - Instructed to represent a company charged with Health and Safety offences. The company pleaded guilty to a number of offences. Written and oral submissions had to be made in relation to the sentencing guidelines. Isobel successfully argued that this case was no tone of “very high” culpability
Ivan Bowley
Ivan Bowley
Very well known for his expertise in industrial disease claims.' - The Legal 500, 2018‘An expert in occupational diseases, including asbestos-related and other respiratory conditions.’ - The Legal 500, 2015 Shortlisted for Legal 500 Personal Injury Junior of the Year 2022 OVERVIEW At Lincoln House Chambers, Ivan Bowley is an established force in industrial disease work. Applauded as an “exceptional member of the Bar,” he is a barrister “head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to disease work.” Asbestos, work-related lung disease, cancer and noise-induced hearing loss cases all fall within his remit. Ivan has acted in numerous high-profile cases including the British Coal litigation.” Ivan Bowley joined Lincoln House in 1992 after practising in London. Having initially covered all areas of Chambers‟ work, Ivan specialised in personal injury and for many years he has worked exclusively in this field. His main area of work, for which he has acquired a national reputation, is in occupational disease and, in particular, asbestos litigation and other respiratory disease. Ivan works almost exclusively for claimants. Ivan Bowley specialises in industrial disease and serious personal injury, acting on behalf of claimants. For many years he has been one of the leading juniors at the Bar for industrial disease litigation. Ivan also practices at 12 Kings Bench Walk in London and has regularly been listed in Chambers and Partners Band 1 for personal injury on the Northern Circuit and as a leading practitioner in the Legal 500. He is listed in Band 1 of the Chambers and Partners’ list “Personal Injury: Industrial Disease – All Circuits”. Industrial Disease A substantial part of his practice involves representing claimants in some of the largest industrial disease group actions litigated in the UK. Notable cases include: . British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation (reported as Griffiths & Ors v British Coal (1998). Junior Counsel for the claimants at trial and in the subsequent management of over 500,000 claims on behalf of living/deceased mineworkers who developed a range of respiratory diseases caused by coal dust exposure. This litigation, which remains one of the largest personal injury claims worldwide, ran from 1995 to 2012. See also [2005] EWCA Civ 1737; [2007] EWHC 672 (QB); [2007] EWHC 1406 (QB) and [2007] EWHC 1948 (QB). Miners Knee Litigation (reported as Davies & Ors v Department of Trade and Industry [2006] EWCA Civ 1360; See also [2011] EWHC 11 (QB); [2012] EWCA Civ 1380). Junior Counsel for mineworkers in claims arising outof knee arthritis caused by working conditions in underground mining Phurnacite Litigation (reported as Jeffrey Jones & Ors v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change & Anr [2012] EWHC 2936 (QB); See also [2012] EWHC 3647 (QB); [2013] EWHC 1023 (QB) and [2013] EWHC 2484 (QB). Junior Counsel acting on behalf of living/deceased fuel plant workers who developed a range of cancers (including skin cancer, lung cancer and bladder cancer) and other non-malignant respiratory injuries due to exposure to harmful fumes at a patent fuel plant in South Wales British Coal Coke Oven Workers Litigation (reported as Robert Marvin Pearce v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change & Anr (2018). See also [2015] EWHC 3775 (QB). Junior Counsel on behalf of living/deceased plant workers who developed lung cancer, skin cancer and other non-malignant respiratory injuries due to exposure to harmful dust and fumes in various coke plants operated by British Coal. British Steel Coke Oven Workers Litigation (ongoing). See [2016] EWHC 3031 (QB); [2017] EWHC 2647 (QB); [2018] EWHC 107 (QB); [2019] EWHC 143 (QB); [2019] EWHC 1608 (QB). Junior Counsel on behalf of living/deceased plant workers who claim to have developed a range of cancers and other respiratory injuries due to exposure to harmful dust and fumes in various coke plants operated by British Steel. A major part of Ivan’s practice involves high value asbestos or other respiratory disease or cancer claims involving complex issues of liability, causation, limitation and quantum. He routinely appears on behalf of claimants in the specialist asbestos lists. Reported cases include: Johnston v NEI International Combustion Limited [2007] UKHL 39, (also reported as Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd & Anr); Pleural Plaque test litigation. Silcock (Deceased) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2009] EWHC 3025; set out the test for Show Cause hearings in specialist asbestos list. Ball v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012] EWHC 145 (QB); guideline quantum assessment in mesothelioma claim which resulted in the revision (correction) of the JSB/JC Guideline awards for mesothelioma. Patterson v Ministry of Defence [2012] EWHC 2767 (QB); success fees in disease litigation. Hamilton v NG Bailey [2020] EWHC 2910 (QB); guideline quantum assessment for non-malignant asbestos disease. Pinnegar (Skeen Deceased) v Kellog International Corp & ICI Chemicals & Polymers [2020] EWHC 3431 (QB); liability and treatment of historical evidence in respect of mesothelioma. Power v Bernard Hastie & Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1927; the right to recover damages under a provisionaldamages order by the deceased victim’s estate. He continues to provide generic, policy or strategic advice to claimant solicitors firms about asbestos and other disease litigation. Ivan is regularly instructed on behalf of claimants suffering from rarer forms of cancer arising out of occupational exposure to chemicals, wood dust, composite dust, radiation etc. Ivan also undertakes work involving VWF, NIHL, Non Freezing Cold Injury and dermatitis. Group Claim Litigation A substantial part of Ivan’s practice involves acting for Claimants in group actions. In addition to the cases mentioned above, Ivan has been instructed as sole counsel or with a leader in numerous other group or multi party actions as follows: Fire fighters exposed to toxic chemicals/fumes arising out of a fire/explosion at a chemical works in Armley, Leeds. Injuries ranging from skin lesions to brain injury. New Tredegar gas explosion – claims by residents injured in a gas explosion and consequent destruction of a large part of a street in a town in South Wales Steel workers suffering from HAVS due to vibration exposure. Motor vehicle manufacturing plant workers suffering from NIHL. Military personnel suffering from hearing loss due to noise exposure and acoustic trauma. BT engineers suffering from NIHL. Military personnel suffering from non-freezing cold injuries. Disaster litigation involving passengers on aircraft and ships.
James Pickup KC
James Pickup KC
''Recommended for fraud and corporate crime''. - Legal 500, 2016 "Recommended for his expertise in VAT-related cases." - Legal 500, 2015 OVERVIEW He has long been established as a specialist in commercial fraud defence and corporate crime with a reputation as someone who is “exceptional at client management” and “brilliantly focussed on getting the best out of the client” (Chambers and Partners). More recently, whilst he continues to defend in substantial commercial fraud prosecutions, he has widened his practice to embrace civil fraud and is now regularly instructed in the VAT and Duties Tribunal, both First and Upper Tiers, High Court (Chancery and Companies Court), Administrative Court and Court of Appeal, both criminal and civil. He has a wealth of experience in defending in the criminal courts in tax and duty fraud (R v Anwar 2003, R v Baig 2004/05, R v Sandhu 2007, R v Raykanda and Others 2006, and Rv Allad and Others). In the Tribunal, he is instructed on behalf of traders appealing against decisions of HMRC to withhold the repayment of VAT on grounds of the trader’s participation in fraud. In February 2010, he represented the lead appellant in the conjoined appeals of Mobilx, Calltel Opto and Blue Sphere Global before the Court of Appeal. This was the first opportunity for the Court of Appeal to consider the legality of the “Kittel” test and the proper approach of the FTT to its application in domestic law. Since Mobilx, he has appeared in a number of appeals before the FTT and others are to be heard in 2013/14. In July 2010, he represented the Directors of the bonded warehouse Abbey Forwarding Limited, who were sued for damages by the Liquidator (put in place by HMRC) for breach of duty, being their involvement in excise duty fraud. He also appeared on behalf of Rochdale Drinks Distribution before the Companies Court (Floyd J.) in March 2011 successfully overturning HMRC’s ex parte application to appoint a provisional liquidator on the ground that the company had been engaged in duty evasion. This decision was appealed by HMRC in September 2011 where RDDL were able to resist. HMRC’s argument that there should be a lower threshold of proof in cases where HMRC sought a PL having presented a winding up petition on assessments raised on suspicion of fraud. During 2010/2011, he was engaged on behalf of the Directors of Eastenders PLC in challenges to restraint and management receivership orders obtained by the CPS on grounds of suspected excise duty fraud. In January, the Court of Appeal quashed orders made by the Central Criminal Court in December 2010, and in February 2011 on a renewed application, the Directors achieved a similar result. He has conducted associated challenges to search warrants obtained by HMRC for the premises of Eastenders and other parties, before the Divisional Court in April, May and June 2011 as well as similar challenges to the legality of search warrants in the conjoined applications of Glenn & Co., Medway Soft Drinks and Dale Wholesale. In addition to his work in both criminal and civil fraud, he has experience in professional discipline work, both at Tribunal Statutory Committee and Higher Court level in the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal; representing Police Officers, Pharmacists and Solicitors.  
James Heyworth
James Heyworth
James practices predominantly in criminal law: acting for defendants in the Crown Court and at Court Martial. He has experience across the full spectrum of criminal offences; from murder and manslaughter, to sexual offences, violence and drugs. He also defends in regulatory cases: including fire and food safety breaches, health and safety offences and breaches of commercial trading regulations. James’ Crown Court practice predominantly involves defending in cases involving rape and other sexual offending: often where there are vulnerable witnesses to be cross-examined. He is experienced in the section 28 procedure utilised in such cases, and has defended in cases involving child witnesses and child defendants. In addition, he is regularly instructed to defend in “county lines” drugs operations and has extensive experience in that area. His cases have involved alleged members of organised crime groups from Liverpool, Manchester and London, and have frequently involved issues of modern slavery and firearms. James also regularly appears in the Coroner’s Court, representing interested parties at inquest. In particular, he has extensive experience of cases involving fatal diving accidents in both recreational and commercial settings. offences; from murder and manslaughter, to sexual offences, violence and drugs. NOTABLE CASES Murder R v King – Conspiracy to murder. Instructed to defend the principal defendant in a multi-handed conspiracy involving a planned shooting. Led by Paul Reid QC. R v Mackie – Led by Peter Wright QC in a case dubbed “The Candlestick Killer” by the national press. Manslaughter & Death by Dangerous Driving R v Craig - instructed to represent a SCUBA diving instructor charged with manslaughter by gross negligence, following a fatal diving accident at Stoney Cove in Leicestershire. During the month long trial before Mr Justice Pepperall, extensive expert evidence was heard in respect of both medical cause of death and diving practices and procedures. The jury were discharged having been unable to reach a verdict and the Crown offered no evidence, with a not guilty verdict being recorded. R v Morton – Instructed to defend a father who caused the death of his 13 year old son by administering him a morphine tablet for a headache. R v Logan – defended a former soldier accused of causing the death of a father and his two children by dangerous driving. Sexual Offences R v M– successfully defended a man facing multiple counts of historic rape of his wife. R v C- violent attempted rape of a sex worker. R v S – defended an executive accused of raping an employee. He was acquitted on all counts. R v E – historic rape and sexual abuse of a child. R v J – defended a 17 year old accused of rape of a family member. He was found not guilty following a trial in the Youth Court. Importation and “County Lines” drugs offences R v Olaloko – instructed to represent a member of a London drill rap group accused of people trafficking and drug dealing across county lines. R v Osman – defended one of the principal defendants in an NCA operation involving the importation of firearms, and Class A drugs, into the UK from Holland. R v H – represented a 17 year old caught up in a county lines organised crime group. The case involved issues of modern slavery and child exploitation. R v Hodson – county lines drugs conspiracy involving the transportation of drugs from Yorkshire to Blackpool. R v Baron – county lines drugs conspiracy involving organised crime groups from Liverpool and Preston. R v Nguyen – cannabis production conspiracy involving Vietnamese nationals and issues of modern slavery. Football Related Offences R v Hartley – Defended one of the principal defendants in a multi-handed violent disorder trial involving alleged members of the “Burnley Suicide Squad”. R v Spencer – Defended in a multi-handed football violent disorder case involving Burnley and Sheffield Wednesday fans. Serious Violence R v Houlgrave – Defended in a serious s18 stabbing trial and later represented the defendant in the Court of Appeal. R v Casey – Defended a former soldier and Iraq veteran, who suffered from PTSD in a serious section 18 wounding case. Fraud & Money Laundering R v Ratcliffe – represented an alleged organised crime group member involved in a series of armed robberies across the North West, with money being laundered through fixed-odds betting machines. R v Wilson- defended one of the principal defendants in a nationwide credit card fraud and money laundering conspiracy, investigated by the City of London police. R v Wen – defended a Chinese national in a multi-handed money laundering trial, involving the remittance of hundreds of thousands of pounds back to China. R v Markey – led in a multi-handed fraud which featured as part of the BBC “Rogue Traders” series. Regulatory Offences R v McMullen – Instructed to defend a client facing a series of commercial trading breaches arising out of his celebrity vehicle sales company. R v Britannia Corporation – Defended a company facing a series of fire safety breaches arising out of a serious fire in a house of multiple occupancy. R v Pound Bakery & Sayers – represented the well known bakers in proceedings arising from a series of food hygiene breaches. Inquests & Fatal Diving Accidents -Inquest touching upon the death of Richard Bufton: Instructed to represent the family of Richard Bufton, who died following a closed-circuit rebreather “try-dive” at Capernwray Quarry in October 2010. The inquest was held before a jury at the Coroner’s Court in Preston and involved a number of complex issues of causation: it being in issue whether the diving accident was as the result of a previous medical condition or factors arising from the dive itself, which was conducted on a closed-circuit rebreather. James was able to use his own experience of diving, and in particular diving closed-circuit rebreathers, to assist the court and my client with identifying a number of significant issues with the use of such breathing apparatus. Following a significant amount of expert evidence the jury returned a narrative verdict which confirmed that this was a diving accident and not the result of any medical condition. -Santos v Sub C – instructed to represent a Danish diving company in proceedings before the Admiralty Court. The case involved the death of a British commercial diver in German territorial waters, whilst undertaking work on an offshore wind farm. -Inquest touching upon the death of Kevin Miles: instructed to represent the interests of the daughters of Mr Miles, who died at Stoney Cove during a rebreather training dive. -Inquest touching upon the death of Roger Clarke Roger Clarke was an experienced SCUBA diver who was undertaking a closed-circuit rebreather training course. His instructor, Lance Palmer, had also serviced Mr Clarke’s rebreather before the incident dive. In accordance with the course requirements and guidance, the dive should have been to a maximum depth of 30m. Mr Palmer, and the safety diver with them, took Mr Clarke to the deepest point of Stoney Cove: an area called “the sump”. This part of the quarry is well known for its poor visibility and is at a depth of around 35m. Whilst in the sump, Mr Clarke’s rebreather issued a number of warnings and required Mr Clarke to “bail out” onto his open circuit breathing apparatus. Following detailed questioning of the eye-witnesses and experts by James, it became clear that there were significant failures in the servicing of the rebreather, inadequate supervision of Mr Clarke, and failures with regard to the planning and execution of the dive. Due to the issues with his rebreather, Mr Clarke did transfer onto his bail-out cylinder. However, he became unconscious and there was a failed attempt by the instructor and safety diver to return him to the surface. For another five minutes all three divers remained at 35m, with Mr Clarke no longer using any breathing apparatus. By the time he was then recovered to the surface he had sadly drowned. In his narrative conclusion, Mr Cartwright, area coroner for Leicester City and South Leicestershire, found that errors and omissions by the instructor and safety diver significantly increased the risks associated with the dive and may have caused, or contributed, to Mr Clarke’s death See www.divinglawyer.co.uk for more details. Inquest touching upon the death of Vera Tranter – represented, on behalf of his insurers, a taxi driver who was involved in a fatal road accident. Inquest touching upon the death of Pamela Pennington – represented Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council at the inquest into a suspected suicide. Private Client Work R v Glen Doherty – Secured the acquittal of a commercial saturation diver facing assault charges in the Magistrates’ court. R v B – represented a former policeman in a successful appeal to have his lifetime notification requirement removed. R v Philpott- instructed to represent the director of a limited company in respect of various alleged trading standards breaches. Court Martial & Forces Clients: R v KM (Court Martial) – represented an JNCO facing an allegation of sexual assault whilst on deployment to Sudan. Following conviction, James was granted leave to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court. The conviction was quashed by the CMAC and the prosecution offered no evidence against KM, with a not guilty verdict recorded. R v Dyson (Court Martial)- represented a Lance Corporal in the RLC facing an allegation of assault whilst on deployment to Kenya R v Piper (Court Martial) – defended a Colour Sergeant in The Rifles in respect of the alleged discharge of a parachute flare out in Germany. R v Nottingham (Court Martial) – represented a Corporal facing an allegation of negligence, arising out of an AFT in Germany, in which a number of personnel suffered heat related injuries. R v Butterworth (Court Martial)– Instructed to defend a former Army recruit facing serious sexual allegations. R v Whalley – Defended a Royal Engineer diver and Afghanistan veteran facing weapon and public order offences. R v Braithewaite – Defended a Royal Navy submariner for violent offences.  
Jeremy Lasker
Jeremy Lasker
Hugely experienced in all aspects of criminal advocacy and with an enviable composure/ presence in court, Jeremy Lasker is a formidable expert in the art of jury advocacy and is respected both by his professional colleagues at the Bar and by Judges alike. In criminal cases he both prosecutes and defends and has for many years been assessed by the CPS as a Category 4 [highest level] prosecutor. He is highly regarded both for his easy and approachable manner towards his professional clients and his ability to relate to and inspire confidence in the most difficult of lay clients. In the field of criminal work, Jeremy receives instructions not only from the foremost criminal firms of solicitors based in the North West but has also accepted instructions from solicitors across the UK and he has appeared in substantial criminal trials as far afield as Carlisle Crown Court [defending a local politician charged with corruption] to Basildon Crown Court [defending a client charged with drugs importation]. His experience covers the heaviest of criminal cases and he has defended lay clients facing the full spectrum of criminal offences. Jeremy is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and has been a Recorder of the Crown Court since 2004. Since 2010, he has been accredited by the Bar Council for direct access work. Drug Conspiracies This is a significant area of work. In substantial cases, Jeremy is happy to work as part of a larger team and has previously been instructed as Leading Counsel with a view to leading more Junior members of Lincoln House Chambers or instructed advocates from firms of solicitors. R v Graeme Walker [Sheffield Crown Court 2013 – instructed by Steele Ford & Newton solicitors] Operation Anagram. A successful defence of the only Defendant acquitted following a submission of No Case to answer in a Serious & Organised Crime Agency prosecution based upon telephone evidence said to have established involvement in a substantial conspiracy to import drugs from India. R v Tamoor Ahmed & 21 others [Preston Crown Court 2013 – instructed by Middleweeks, solicitors] Operation Oak. Defence of courier in the context of a massive nationwide Class ‘A’ drugs conspiracy R v Greaves & other [Minshull St Crown Court instructed by Forbes Solicitors] – successful defence in a notorious drugs case which spanned 3 trials over a 12 month period, prosecuted by a team of 3 counsel. The case involved allegations of the manufacture & distribution of Class A drugs together with aspects of police corruption and disclosure of police informants. This was also the case in which a juror was later jailed for attempting to make contact with a Defendant. Another Defendant after conclusion of the trial was later shot dead by police officers. R v Vohra & another [Preston Crown Court instructed by Forbes Solicitors] – successful defence of a well know local Blackburn figure area running a large car hire firm alleged to be a sham and the front for a class A drugs supply conspiracy. R v Diprose & others [Preston Crown Court instructed by Steele Ford & Newton (incorporating JGT)] – Leading defence brief for target criminal in Class A & B drugs conspiracy. R v Roberts & others [Basildon Crown Court instructed by Beswicks solicitors, Stoke on Trent] – Leading defence brief in drugs importation case. R v Waters [Leicester Crown Court instructed by Beswicks solicitors] – defence of night club owner alleged to have allowed his premises to be used for drug taking. Evasion of Duty R v C [Minshull St Crown Court] – Substantial cigarette importation matter. Not Guilty verdicts following successful disclosure argument. R v B [Preston Crown Court] – Instructed by Glaisyers Solicitors. Multi million pound cigarette importation case with several defendants. Mixed verdicts following 4 week trial. Homicide Jeremy has experience of defending clients facing charges of murder which have arisen in all circumstances: Stabbings e.g. R v Davenport [Chester Crown Court instructed by Beswicks solicitors, Stoke on Trent] Deaths arising out of sexual attacks e.g. R v Taylor [Stafford Crown Court instructed by Clyde Chappel & Botham solicitors] Deaths in the course of violent disorders e.g. R v Hodgson [Stafford Crown Court instructed by Beswicks solicitors, Stoke on Trent] Deaths in the course of robberies. e.g. R v Garrity [Preston Crown Court instructed by Jobling & Knape Solicitors, Lancaster] a 30 year old historic murder. Deaths in the course of playground bullying e.g. R v Harrison [Stafford Crown Court instructed by Beswicks Solicitors Stoke on Trent] Deaths arising out of domestic incidents e.g. R v Duerden [Burnley Crown Court instructed by Burnley CPS] He has prosecuted and defended in many cases where death has resulted as a consequence of dangerous or careless driving. He has both defended and prosecuted in cases of Voluntary & Involuntary manslaughter such as deaths arising out of incidents often described as single punch manslaughters [e.g. R vJukes Preston Crown Court instructed by Whittle Robinson solicitors, Preston and R v Burns & Smith Preston Crown Court instructed by the CPS] He successfully defended in the trial involving the youngest known victim to have died from Ecstasy in the UK. [R v Hodgson & another – Manchester Crown Court instructed by Holden & Wilsons] Sexual Offences The substantial increase in recent years of cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, often historic in nature, and the ever increasing complexity in the law in this area has led to the necessity of instructing counsel experienced in such fields. Jeremy both prosecutes and defends in this area of law. Although no grading for defence counsel yet exists, Jeremy Lasker is classified as a Rape Expert by the CPS. He regularly appears in cases involving both multi count indictments together with multiple defendants and/or multiple complainants. R v Imrich Bodor [Preston Crown Court instructed by Olliers solicitors] – Leading defence brief in a 10 week, multi-handed people trafficking case where the Defendant was convicted of people trafficking but acquitted of rape in circumstances in which it was alleged he had been selling exploited women for sex. R v Lester [Manchester Crown Court, instructed by Tranters Solicitors] – Substantially successful defence of a husband alleged to have raped and violently assaulted his wife over a period of years. R v Goldwyn Mather [Liverpool Crown Court instructed by Berry & Berry solicitors] – Leading defence brief on behalf of an alleged serial sex attacker. R v Maughan [Preston Crown Court instructed by Forbes Solicitors] – Defence of a violent father charged with raping most of his 9 children over. R v HUGHES & HUGHES [Preston Crown Court instructed by the CPS] – Successful Prosecution of 2brothers charged with the historic abuse of a number of young children. Fraud Offences Jeremy Lasker has had considerable expertise in this area of criminal work. For a period of time he was on the Serious Fraud Office panel of approved Counsel although in practice his experience is almost entirely in defence work. In this area he has been instructed as junior alone, as a led junior with Leading Counsel and as a Leading Junior himself. His experience is demonstrated by the following cases: R v Grey & others [Manchester Crown Court instructed by Platt Halpern] – Known nationally as the “London City Bond Case” A leading Junior for the defence in a multi million pound diversion fraud prosecuted by Customs & Excise R v Roden & others [Nottingham Crown Court instructed by Ralli solicitors] – Leading Junior in the successful defence of a multi million pound carousel fraud in which the Indictment was stayed following a successful Abuse of Process argument. R v Hague & others “Operation Shepheard” [Birmingham Crown Court instructed by Beswicks solicitors] – Defence of a director of a missing trader company in a Customs Prosecution alleging MTIC Carousel fraud with loss to the Revenue in excess of £60 million. R v Lipinski & others “Operation Emmersed” [West Midlands Fraud Centre instructed by Pannone solicitors] – Defence of a director of a buffer trading company in a Customs Prosecution alleging loss to the Revenue in excess of £20 million. R v Hilditch [Manchester Crown Court instructed by Kemps solicitors] – Defence of an insurance company Director with alleged involvement in a substantial conspiracy involving fraudulent insurance and re-insurance companies. Other Aspects of Work In addition to jury advocacy before the Crown Court, Jeremy Lasker has had significant success as an Appellate lawyer arguing appeals in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. He has in the past been instructed by solicitors acting on behalf of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and was successful in overturning a conviction for murder in a miscarriage of justice/ fresh evidence case e.g. R v Brannan & Murphy [LTL 2002] instructed by Stephensons Solicitors. He has been involved in a number of other notable cases including R v Gibson [80 Cr App Rep 24] regarded as one of the leading authorities on joint responsibility between father & mother in child abuse cases. Jeremy Lasker also undertakes Regulatory work on behalf of the General Medical Council which complements his skills as a Crown Court advocate.
Joe Allman
Joe Allman
Joe is an experienced and tenacious advocate, with a track record of excellence in dealing with cases of particular difficulty, whether because of the vulnerabilities of the witnesses, defendants or complainants involved, or the high level of complexity. Joe is a Category 4 prosecutor and a member of the CPS Serious Crime Group, and Counter-Terrorism specialist advocate panels, and has a high level of expertise in all aspects of serious and complex crime, particularly where there is an international dimension. Joe has extensive experience of prosecuting organised crime and offences which involve the professional exploitation of human beings. In recent years Joe has prosecuted some of the largest “county lines” conspiracies in the region, including those involving the trafficking of young people, and large-scale drug supply conspiracies organised and directed by serving prisoners. Joe now regularly leads in such cases. Joe served on behalf of HM Government as the Criminal Justice Advisor to the Kingdom of Bahrain, and Liaison Prosecutor in the United Arab Emirates, and was based in the British Embassy in Manama. He also worked with senior prosecutors and British missions in a number of other Middle-Eastern countries. He is often invited to participate in training overseas prosecutors, judges and law enforcement professionals. In recent years Joe has acted as a subject matter expert for the UN Office for Drugs and Crime, Office for Counter-Terrorism, on the subject of terrorist finance, in Ulaanbaatar, and on prosecuting serious crime, in Karachi and Hyderabad, Pakistan. Within the field of counter-terrorism, Joe has extensive experience in dealing with offences involving extreme right-wing ideology, including offences under the Terrorism Act, and those involving the propagation of racial or religious hatred. Joe has prosecuted a number of offences linked to organised antisemitism and hostility towards Muslims. Joe has a strong working knowledge of the mindset and the modus operandi of the far right and is particularly familiar with the more subtle tropes of antisemitism. Joe has prosecuted youths under the Terrorism Acts as well as individuals with significant psychiatric and other mental health issues. Joe served as a mobilised reservist in an infantry role in Iraq and has a strong working knowledge of firearms, component parts and ammunition. Joe is a member of the CPS Rape and Serious Sexual Offending advocate panel. Joe has devoted a significant part of his career to cases of this kind and has particular expertise in respect of historic sexual offending and sexual offences against vulnerable people. Joe is known for his sound advice on, and rigorous approach to third party and digitally stored material. Joe has prosecuted trials involving multiple-victim rape cases, and a case in which a victim of rape was murdered by her partner shortly after giving her ABE interview and before any proceedings had commenced against him. Joe enjoys a reputation for dealing sensitively and communicating in a manner appropriate to the needs of vulnerable victims, witnesses, and defendants. Joe makes time for this important interaction, whatever the demands of the case. Joe has a growing defence practice and particularly welcomes instructions in cases involving vulnerable or mentally disordered defendants, and those who may have been the victims of trafficking. Joe recently persuaded the Crown through formal submissions, to offer no evidence in a case involving an individual holding views aligned to the “Freeman on the land” belief system. Joe also recently secured a key reduction in sentence in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division for an individual whose treatment amounted to exploitation short of the defence under Section 45, in a case where the court emphasised the need for adequate detail in sentencing remarks (Ardit Saffa [2021] EWCA Crim 661; [2021] 4 WLUK 440). Joe is a pupil supervisor and recently supervised a senior officer in the Royal Navy during her time with chambers on her way to becoming a barrister in the Royal Naval Legal Service. NOTABLE CASES Organised Crime, Human Trafficking and “County Lines” Operation Highgate (leading, prosecuting): Ongoing Operation Quebec 2 (leading, prosecuting): Ongoing Operation Enigma (led, prosecuting): 40-defendant conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine in Blackpool, organised from HMP Lancaster Farms Operation Whippet (led, prosecuting): Conspiracy to produce cannabis on a commercial scale, and firearms offences, together with exploitation of illegal entrants into the United Kingdom by an organised criminal group, and related Immigration Act offences. Operation Ullswater (led, prosecuting): 24-defendant human trafficking and “county line” conspiracy to supply heroin and crack cocaine from Yorkshire into the Lancashire coast, using exploited teenage couriers. Operation Mallard (led, prosecuting): 13-defendant “county-line” conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine from Manchester into the Lancashire coast, involving cuckooing of properties tenanted by vulnerable individuals. Counter-Terrorism Division Operation Leaderess (sole counsel, prosecuting): Ongoing case involving alleged offences under the Terrorism Acts. Operation Reslate (QC led, prosecuting): Ongoing case involving allegations of attempted murder in a terrorist context. Operation Quickenbeam (sole counsel, prosecuting): Ongoing case involving alleged offences under the Terrorism Acts, and alleged offences involving stirring up racial hatred. Operation Bobbybush (sole counsel, prosecuting): Case concerning multiple offences of glorifying terrorism and stirring up racial and religious hatred, concerning the defendant using the Gab platform to share material promoting homophobia, and lethal violence against people of “non-white” ethnicities, in particular the Muslim and Jewish communities. The material notably included the headcam footage of the Christchurch mass murders, being disseminated as a tool of extreme right-wing propaganda. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-61043995#:~:text=A%20neo%2DNazi%20who %20encouraged,%22I%20am%20a%20Nazi.%22 Operation Budgeter (sole counsel, prosecuting): Youth case involving Terrorism Act offences connected with the extreme right-wing and violent racist and antisemitic mindset, in the context of a young person with autistic spectrum disorder. Operation Shadowist (sole counsel, prosecuting): Case concerning one of the United Kingdom’s most prolific antisemitic video streamers, who ran Youtube and Bitchute “channels” devoted to propagating antisemitic smears such as the blood-libel, holocaust denial and mockery of its victims, and endorsing violence against the Jewish community. Multiple offences of stirring up racial hatred. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59525076 Operation Nichelino (sole counsel, prosecuting): Case connected with the exposure by the Bellingcat group of the Ironmarch extreme right-wing forum, which involved a Cambridge graduate with autism spectrum disorder communicating with founder members of National Action, voluminous evidence of racist, homophobic, antisemitic and misogynist/Incel mindset and affiliations, and an offence of collecting information contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59525076 Subsequent appearance for the respondent as sole counsel against Queen’s Counsel for the appellant in the CACD, in an appeal concerning the relationship between the sentencing guidelines for mentally disordered defendants and offences under the Terrorism Acts, and the relationship between sentences for offenders of particular concern and the suspended sentence provisions of the Sentencing Act 2020, [2021] EWCA Crim 1461; [2021] 8 WLUK 288. Operation Princehood (sole counsel, prosecuting): Case concerning a former Cambridge University research fellow sending a powder substance to the parliamentary address of the Prime Minister together with politically charged material, prosecuted under Section S.114 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 following an investigated by SO15, Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/theresa-may-poison-scientist-christopher-doyle-cambridge-a9706316.html; Rape and Sexual Offending R v GC (sole counsel, prosecuting): Multiple rape offences by the defendant in the context of a controlling relationship and multiple retractions. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-25-raped -sobbing-vulnerable-21529090 R v MV (QC led, prosecuting): Rape and murder case, where the victim disclosed multiple rapes by her partner in the context of an abusive relationship and was then murdered by him after he was made subject to no further action by the police. R v C and G (sole counsel, prosecuting): Historic penetrative sexual abuse by step-father on step-daughter as a very young child, and identical allegation against his brother, in circumstances where both defendants cross-alleged each against the other, historic sexual abuse against children, as evidence of bad character. This case involved detailed analysis of large quantities of very old third-party records to establish the true position. A Youth Court Case (prosecuting): Multiple rape allegations tried in the Youth Court concerning teenagers from the cadet forces, in which screens, live-link, meeting between the complainant and, judge and defence counsel were deployed as a combination of special measures to enable a highly vulnerable victim to give evidence. R v PM (sole counsel, prosecuting): Historic penetrative sexual abuse by father on biological daughter post-2004, together with extensive penetrative sexual abuse against the defendant’s 12-year old daughter-in-law in the 1980s. The defendant was elderly at the time of trial and suffered from multiple severe disabilities. R v KS (sole counsel, prosecuting): Rape committed against a sleeping intoxicated victim in one part of the country, then subsequently rape against a victim who had consumed alcohol and drugs in another area, whilst on bail for the initial offence. Significant volume of CCTV, bodycam and digital material, and media interest. (Sentenced to 22 years with 3 years extended licence after trial). R v LI (sole counsel, prosecuting): Complaint against step-father of historic penetrative sexual abuse, in circumstances where a similar allegation against his brother, which was contained in the same ABE interview, had already been made the subject of no further action by a second police force on evidential grounds. Vulnerable complainant with multiple difficulties. R v AL (sole counsel, prosecuting): Historic child sexual abuse spanning conduct both within the United Kingdom and in Spain. Defendant extradited pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant after seven years, during which time the original ABE interview was destroyed. Cross-examined in the absence of a police interview of any kind, consequent to his having been extradited. R v SB (sole counsel, prosecuting): Grooming and sexual abuse of multiple child victims, all of whom had challenging backgrounds and presented significant third-party disclosure complications. Operation Rasheen (sole counsel, prosecuting): Stranger rape on a child with learning difficulties and multiple other disabilities, investigated by the Force Major Investigations Team, involving significant public appeal, and national media interest. R v MT (sole counsel, prosecuting): Rape of a male victim following the consumption by the victim of alcohol and drugs, and issues of “drunken consent”.. Violence and Homicide Operation Berbice (QC led, prosecuting): Conspiracy to murder and soliciting murder arising from a failed contract killing and subsequent attempt by the principal defendant to arrange for the victim to be murdered from his cell whilst on remand for the conspiracy. Three of the five defendants were handed life sentences. Operation Moorhen (QC led, prosecuting): Manslaughter case involving the defendant’s premature baby, where the defendant had previously been made subject to no further action, and where family proceedings in the High Court led to the re-consideration of complex neuropathology, osteo-articular pathology, an IPCC investigation, and a reversal of the earlier decision. The case involved conflicting advanced evidence on the subject of peri-mortem bleeding into bone fractures, a large volume of disclosure from proceedings in the High Court, and sensitive covertly recorded material ultimately being disclosed and received in the criminal trial. R v KV (sole counsel, prosecuting): Case concerning mistreatment of dementia patients by a care worker in the context of a care home. Significant disclosure of third-party records and successful bad character application framed around disciplinary records. Operation Phoebe (sole counsel, prosecuting): 24-defendant violent disorder concerning organised football hooligan activity linked to the “Burnley Suicide Squad”, comprising a single case management hearing for all defendants, three trials, and a sentencing exercise lasting a week, at the conclusion of which 21 defendants were made subject to football banning orders, 20 of whom received custodial sentences. Police Misconduct R v Michael Martin (led, prosecuting): Multiple counts of fraud and misconduct by a serving Merseyside police superintendent, with subsequent confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 conducted as sole counsel.
John Harrison KC
John Harrison KC
‘A highly accomplished silk in the field of financial services. John is a first-class advocate and has a clarity of thought and expression that cuts through a lot of irrelevant material’ – Legal 500 2023 (Business & Regulatory Crime) ‘John is a silk who commands respect. It is extremely easy for lay clients to like him’ Legal 500 2023 (Crime General & Fraud) ‘John is excellent at processing large amounts of complex evidence and is diligent in his case preparation. His advocacy is persuasive and juries love him’ Legal 500 2022 (Crime General & Fraud) ‘John has an incredible ability to cut through regulations and legislation to succinctly identify the key points. He is an effortless advocate. When he speaks, the court listens’ Legal 500 2022 (Business & Regulatory Crime) ‘Very well known for his expertise in health and safety matters’ Legal 500 2021 ‘Bribery and corruptions cases are a particular speciality’, Legal 500 2020 ‘Recommended for prosecution and defending serious criminal matters’ Legal 500 2019 ‘Very well known for his expertise in health and safety matters’, Legal 500 2018 Ranked as a Leading Silk – Legal 500 2024 John Harrison was called to the bar in 1994 and took Silk in 2016. John is a criminal law and regulatory specialist and has a specific expertise in regulatory areas including Financial Regulation, including both unregulated and Financial Conduct Authority regulated matters. He also has a particular interest in tax tribunal work. John undertakes advisory and litigation work for both prosecution and defence in respect of Serious Crime, Corporate Manslaughter, Gross Negligence Manslaughter, Environmental Law and Health and Safety Offences. John is an extremely popular barrister who has earned a reputation of being both a master tactician and an outstanding trial advocate. He is well known for his capability to handle the most complex of cases with a clear, pragmatic approach. John’s background in civil litigation and commercial law makes him particularly well placed to assist clients across a range of litigation areas. John regularly represents both Respondents and Interested Parties in all areas of Civil Recovery & Restraint including Civil Forfeiture, Investigation Orders, Restraint Proceedings, Cash Seizure, Enforcement Proceedings, Confiscation Proceedings, Civil Recovery, Account Freezing, Money Laundering Advice and Crown Court POCA. Although based on the Northern Circuit he has a national practice. For further information or to instruct John Harrison KC please contact the Director of Clerking, David Wright. Fraud: R v. Arnold – Defence – Parliamentary and police investigation into fraudulent expenses claimed by Jared O’Mara MP for whom Mr. Arnold was Chief of Staff. R v. Sorby – Defence - SFO prosecution. Sorby was the retired managing director of Sarclad Ltd who traded internationally in steel manufacturing equipment. The company had entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the SFO, after undertaking an internal investigation. The DPA was anonymised to XYZ. Sorby was prosecuted by the SFO following the outcome of their investigation, which was in reality, an adoption of the investigation carried out by Sarclad’s solicitors. After a lengthy trial Sorby was acquitted by the jury casting doubt over the DPA process itself. Satellite litigation included SFO v. XYZ. R v. Wharton – Defence - Operation Circus, the lead defendant in both international property investment and ponzi investment frauds. R v. Patterson – Defence - Operation Bamburgh 1, North East Property Buyers fraud involving mortgage, re-sale/re-mortgage and property investment scheme frauds. R v. Marr – Defence - Operation Bamburgh 2, conspiracy to defraud, property development and mortgage fraud, electronic presentation R v. Akegwure – CPS - Conspiracy to defraud, identity and credit fraud, company identities stolen and used to purchase or lease computer equipment R v. Roberts - Defence – Fraudulent trading and money laundering in relation to the selling of utility company contracts and the failure of the company involved. R v. Sargent & Brownhill – CPS - NHS fraud and false accounting, diversion of funds from service users of care homes by managers of those care homes. R v. Kiani – Defence - Conspiracy to defraud and fraudulent trading offences prosecuted by the SFO. Defending a complex asset stripping fraud involving ‘white wash’ company purchases, inter-company loans, and the use of factoring agents. Civil Recovery & Restraint Chief Constable of Cheshire Police v ACC & MCAP – Interested Party in Forfeiture Order Application - Instructed to advise and represent commercial clients in regard to several hundred thousand pounds subject to an account freezing order. When the Chief Constable of Cheshire Police applied for a forfeiture order, John Harrison KC was successful in his application to have his client joined to the proceedings as an Interested Party. At the Forfeiture Order Application the proceedings were concluded in the favour of the Interested Party with recovery of previously frozen assets. Corporate & Gross Negligence Manslaughter R v. Michael Holgate – Defence – Gross negligence manslaughter. The defendant was the operator of a haulage company whose HGV was involved in a collision causing a double fatality on the M62. R v. Greenfeeds Ltd – CPS – Corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, health and safety offences. Two workers drowned at a business manufacturing liquid animal feed. R v. Roofing Consultants Limited – CPS - Fatality following fall from height, health and safety offences. R v. Al Amin Warehouse – CPS - Corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, health and safety offences. Fatality following fall from height, health and safety offences. R v. Huntley Mount Engineering – CPS - Corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, health and safety offences. Fatality involving a young apprentice at an engineering company, health and safety offences. R v. Pyranha Mouldings – CPS - Corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, health and safety offences. Fatality at a canoe factory, health and safety offences. R v. Sherwood Rise Ltd – CPS – Corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, health and safety offences. Fatality at a care home, elderly resident neglected, health and safety offences. Serious Crime R v. Donaldson, Sladek & Hargreaves – CPS – Murderous group revenge attack after tit for tat escalating violence. R v. McGowan – Defence – Alleged murder of the defendant’s father. Acquitted after trial. R v. Rutowicz – Defence – Alleged joint murder of the defendant’s friend. Acquitted of murder after trial R v. Musgrave - Defence - Alleged group attack by way of summary justice in Hartlepool, acquitted after trial. R v. O’Donnell – Defence - Conspiracy to murder in Bolton, acquitted of conspiracy to murder after trial having admitted conspiracy to commit robbery. R v. Ghazanfar – Defence - Group revenge attack on several other young men, one of whom was killed. R v. Goodall – Defence – Gang related murder involving numerous defendants. Joint enterprise and bad character both major factors in the case. R v. Liam Johnson – Defence – Conspiracy to murder, two brothers paid to kill complainant, attacked with axe and knife, complex issues witness intimidation & cut throat defences. R v. Callaghan, Ojengbede & Others – Defence – Attempted murder, shotgun used, drug turf war, complex factual case with extensive bad character issues. R v. Barker-Jones & Others – Defence – Aggravated burglary and double attempted murder, revenge attack on father and son, complex issues as to defendants mental state. R v. Onfroy & Hollis – CPS - Murder to steal drugs and money, convicted after trial. Crime - Terrorism: R v. Wright – Defence – Offences of disseminating terrorist publications, manufacturing a firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of components of a 3D printed firearm for terrorist purposes and collecting information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Extreme right wing ideology terrorism offences by Telegram Chat, Telegram Channels and the manufacture of a 3D printed firearm. R v. Hussini – Defence – Offences of disseminating terrorist publications. Distribution of Islamic state terrorism videos capable of encouraging terrorism. Environmental: EA v. Fenny – Defence - Unauthorised waste operation offences at various sites in Middlesbrough area. EA v. Smith – Defence - Waste management offences described as the worst ever seen in South Yorkshire.
Jonathan Sandiford KC
Jonathan Sandiford KC
“Focuses his practice on prosecution, with a strong track record in trading standards prosecutions,” “He has remarkable attention to detail” “Very experienced in prosecution work” “Noted for his experience in prosecution work” THE LEGAL 500 Jonathan Sandiford KC has maintained his reputation as a top-class advocate throughout his career. He has over 25 years��� experience in complex and sensitive cases including fraud and Trading Standards prosecutions, murder, terrorism, hate crimes (racial, religious and sexual orientation) and large scale drug dealing. His expertise and attention to detail have made him a firm favourite with prosecution agencies specialising in both crime & regulatory areas and, whilst those relationships continue to go from strength to strength Jonathan is also regularly instructed to defend by leading solicitors firms. Jonathan was sworn in as Queen’s Counsel in March 2020, prior to taking silk Jonathan regularly undertook work that might have usually been instructed to a QC, this was as a direct result of the confidence and trust in his abilities shown by the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorist Divisions as well as the eCrime Team of the National Trading Standards Board. Between March 2014 and September 2016 he was retained by the Crown Prosecution Service to advise the IPCC in respect of the investigation into alleged misconduct by South Yorkshire Police and others in the aftermath of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster. In 2015 he was instructed as Junior Counsel to prosecute youngest ever defendant charged and convicted of terrorism offences in the UK for inciting another to launch a murderous attack on the ANZAC Day Parade in Melbourne, Australia. He has prosecuted a number of cases involving the stirring up of racial, religious and other forms of hatred via the internet including the leading case of Sheppard and Whittle [2010] 1 Cr.App.R 26 in the Crown Court and later the Court of Appeal. In 2016 – 2017 Jonathan was instructed to prosecute two defendants first case in the United Kingdom involving the importation and supply via the Dark Web of the highly concentrated and dangerous opioid, Fentanyl. In 2017 Jonathan successfully prosecuted a defendant who was stopped at Manchester Airport as he tried to smuggle a viable improvised explosive device (IED) onto a Ryanair aeroplane at Manchester Airport with the intention of detonating it in flight. In 2009 Jonathan was one of the youngest persons to be appointed to sit as a Recorder (part time judge) on the North Eastern Circuit.
Kate Blackwell KC
Kate Blackwell KC
Kate is Head of Chambers at Lincoln House Chambers. “Kate comes very highly recommended for inquiry work. Her strengths are that she is very responsive, extremely intelligent, gets to the heart of the key issues straight away, and gives clear, practical advice.”- Legal 500, 2025 “Kate is an exceptional trial advocate, an extremely skillful operator, brilliant on tactical decision making, and great to work with.”- Legal 500, 2025 “Kate is a superb advocate and her speeches are works of art. She is excellent with clients, her preparation is meticulous, and she has a tremendous court presence; she ticks every box.” - Tier 1 Crime (General and Fraud) - Legal 500 2024​ “Kate is a tenacious advocate who does not hold back from difficult questions, has a measured manner, and is always thinking ahead. She is all over the detail and is great at leading a team.” - Tier 1 Inquests and Inquiries - Legal 500 2024​ “Kate is an exceptional Silk. Always on top of every detail, always prepared, always responsive to both the solicitor and the client on a case. Judges love her - and so do clients. She will give tough advice as she is always focussed on getting the best result. One of the best criminal silks in the country and an exceptional strategic thinker.” Tier 1 Crime (General and Fraud) - Legal 500 2023  “Kate is extremely hard working, sees the bigger picture, and manages clients and other counsel deftly and tactfully. She inspires confidence in her strategy and enthusiasm from her team.” Tier 1 Inquests and Inquiries - Legal 500 2023 “One of the best silks in the country with an acquittal rate second to none.” Ranked: Tier 1 – Legal 500, 2022​ “Fantastic with clients, and great at explaining complexities in a way that is understandable and clear. Reassuring and calm in the face of a challenge.” – Legal 500 2022​ “A silk truly at the top of her game” – Legal 500 2020 and 2021​ “Barrister of the Year” – Manchester Legal Awards, 2019​ “Her speeches are pure genius.” – Legal 500, 2018​ “A Master Tactician.” – Legal 500, 2017​ “Barrister of the Year” – Manchester Legal Awards, 2017​ “Possibly the best crime silk on circuit; she has exceptional judgement and is an outstanding trial advocate” – Legal 500, 2016​ “A robust advocate who has a strong track record in serious crime cases.” – Legal 500, 2015​ “An excellent serious and business crime specialist” – Legal 500, 2014​ Kate has a formidable reputation as a first-class silk due to her skill, judgement and outstanding performance in serious and complex cases. ​ Kate Blackwell KC is one of the UK’s leading silks specialising in criminal law and public inquiries. She is sought after for high-profile cases. Kate is recommended by the leading legal publications year after year, she is considered one of the premier KC's in the country and has been awarded the coveted Manchester Legal Awards Barrister of the Year Award in both 2017 and 2019.​ The professional guides rank Kate as a “Tier 1” advocate.”​ Kate is instructed by leading specialist firms of solicitors nationwide in the full range of criminal offences but is particularly well known for her expertise in sexual offences and her representation of high net individuals charged with cases of dishonesty, commercial fraud, corruption, violence and drugs offences.​ Kate regularly presents lectures and seminars on all aspects on public inquiries serious crime, fraud, regulatory crime and health and safety law (including corporate manslaughter). She has advised a number of prosecution agencies (Police, HSE, CPS) on evidence gathering and case preparation.​ Kate handles a high proportion of private client work. She is the counsel of choice for many solicitors who want to offer a bespoke and exceptional service to their private clients. She has successfully represented professionals including sports personalities, solicitors, accountants, bankers, insurance executives and medical professionals charged with business crime and all manner of sexual offences.​ Following success in a recent case the client said “Kate was absolutely fantastic. I was extremely impressed by how quickly she grasped the case and focused on the most relevant points to have the case dismissed before trial. I would have no hesitation in recommending her to anyone that required the very best legal advice.”​ "We can honestly say that throughout the whole process matters were dealt with professionally and efficiently at all times. From the very first introduction meeting to this conclusion we believe that we were given excellent and clear advice and thorough, professional case management. We also felt supported and that we had someone on our side throughout the difficult time."​ "We thank you for bringing our family back together. For our little girl to have her daddy home is something that is so precious to us and her. You're our very own super hero, it's been an absolute pleasure working with you."​ "Words cannot express the amount of happiness I can see in my parents eyes after such a long time and I cannot thank you enough and would like to give you the whole credit for this part of my life".​ PUBLIC INQUIRIES ​ United Kingdom Covid Inquiry​ Kate has been appointed Counsel to the Inquiry for the United Kingdom Covid Inquiry. She led Module 1 into the state of preparedness of the United Kingdom for a pandemic together with Hugo Keith KC. During the public hearings, Kate examined former prime minister David Cameron and former Chancellor George Osborne. Kate is currently leading the report writing for this Module and will return to the Inquiry next year to lead Module 11 into the effect of the pandemic on all public services. She is to lead the final module that will close the Inquiry. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2023/jun/19/austerity-not-responsible-for-nhs-weakness-during-covid-pandemic-says-cameron-video​ The Thirlwall Inquiry Kate represents the former Chief Executives of the Countess of Chester hospital following the conviction of Lucy Letby for the murder and attempted murder of several neonatal babies. Baroness Casey Review ​ Kate provided legal advice to the Review Team conducting the Baroness Casey Review into the standards of behaviour and internal culture of the Metropolitan Police Service. The review discussed whether the Met’s leadership, recruitment, vetting, training, culture and communications supported the standards that the public should expect. It found that the organisation was institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic.​ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/21/metropolitan-police-institutionally-racist-misogynistic-homophobic-louise-casey-report​ Manchester Arena Inquiry​ Kate was instructed to represent NHS England in the Manchester Arena Inquiry – an independent public inquiry to investigate the deaths of the 22 victims of the 2017 Manchester Terror Attack. ​ Brook House Inquiry​ Kate was instructed as Leading Counsel representing Serco in the Brook House Public Inquiry. This inquiry has been established to investigate the decision, actions and circumstances surrounding the mistreatment of individuals who were detained at Brook House ​ Immigration Removal Centre in 2017. The second phase of the hearings are due to begin in February 2022. https://brookhouseinquiry.org.uk/​ Gosport Independent Panel Inquiry​ Kate was appointed by the Secretary of State for Health, as Lead Counsel and Panel Member to the Gosport Independent Panel in 2015. This Panel was constituted to examine and report on historical events which relate to the care, treatment and deaths of the patients of the Gosport War ​ Memorial Hospital (GWMH) in Portsmouth. The Panel’s work was ongoing for four years and the Panel’s report was published in June 2018. It received wide media national and international coverage. The Panel revealed the “Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power” as it estimated that at least 450 lives had been shortened at the hospital by an unjustified opioid regime. As Legal Lead, Panel member and Law Team Manager she wrote and conducted the extensive legal validation of the complete project. www.gosportpanel.independent.gov.uk/panel-report​ Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Inquiry​ On 10 May 2013, in a written statement to Parliament, the then Home Secretary, the ​ Rt. Hon.Theresa May MP, announced that the Government was setting up the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel (DMIP) to review police handling of the murder investigation. Kate was appointed as Counsel to the Panel in September 2013.​ The remit of the Panel is to shine a light on the circumstances of Daniel Morgan’s murder, its background and the handling of the case over the period since 1987. In so doing the Panel is seeking to address questions arising, in particular those relating to police involvement in Daniel Morgan’s murder; the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice and the failure to confront that corruption; and the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at the News of the World and other parts of the media, and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them.​ Kate has negotiated with numerous organisations, including the Metropolitan Police Service, in ensuring maximum possible disclosure of material to the Panel, in accordance with the Terms of Reference. She has met with senior officers of the MPS and the NCA in order to consider confidential and secret information and drafted agreements to ensure the protection of documentation and other information. The inquiry report was published in June 2021. www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk​ The Shipman Inquiry​ Kate was instructed to represent the Greater Manchester Police as Junior Counsel during this public inquiry into the murders committed by Dr Harold Shipman. Kate had been junior counsel for the prosecution during the criminal trial which resulted in guilty verdicts for murder in relation to a number of patients.​ INQUESTS & REGULATORY LAW​ Kate has been instructed in many substantial inquests in a number of roles by professional bodies, individuals and government departments. Kate has a wealth of experience in defending individuals and companies charged with breaching regulations and has prosecuted many cases for the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency and the Office of Rail Regulation. ​ Cases of interest and notoriety include the following:�� 8-week inquest touching the death of PM – Representing the National Offender Management Service in a case where a security operative employed by G4S in Iraq shot dead 2 colleagues.​ Office of Rail Regulation – Prosecuting railway company convicted of breaching Health and Safety Offences where a disused depot had been left with live overhead cables causing the electrocution of a group of 13 year old boys, one of whom died.​ Environment Agency v BP – Defending company manager charged with breaching environmental regulations in his waste management company.​ R v D & others – Defending a director of Railtrack charged with gross negligence manslaughter and significant breaches of health and safety regulations.​ R v T – Prosecution of a company whose breaches of H&S led to the death of employee at place of employment. Cross examined director of company over 4 days.​ R v I – Prosecution of a company charged with breaching “waste” regulations. European legislation considered.​ R v D – Defence of company director in prosecution brought by trading standards involving millions of pounds worth of goods and strong international element.​ R v W & others – Fatal accident on demolition site.​ SEXUAL  OFFENCES Recent cases include: R v ME – successful defence of footballer charged with rape R v TL – successful defence of student charged with rape R v JB – successful defence of student charged with rape R v JD – successful defence of international businessman charged with rape R v MA – successful defence of dentist charged with historical rape R v MM – successful defence of businessman charged with coercive and controlling behaviour R v H – successful defence of a man charged with running a paedophile-ring including the abduction and abuse of a 14-year old boy.​ R v J – successful defence of  a psychiatric patient charged with sexual assault upon 2 nurses R v B and others – successful defence of father of a 4 year old for rape R v S – successful defence of Indian national charged with rape. ​ R v T –successful  prosecution of teacher convicted of grooming a rape of an 11 year old pupil over a 5 year period.​ ​R v M – successful prosecution of doctor for grooming and rape of vulnerable child with severe learning difficulties.​ R v G – successful prosecution of 3 men for kidnap, rape and assault of several sex workers, one of whom had been trafficked.​ R v B – Multiple historical abuse by music teacher.​ R v D - Indecent images charges against former police officer in position of trust.​ R v J – successful prosecution of  Premier League and England International footballer for child sex offences. Advised from the point of charge and presented the case through to trial, sentence and Court of Appeal. Convicted and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. Successfully defended conviction and sentence appeals. ​ R v B - Case involving taking and producing thousands of images of young female and serious sexual assault. Legal applications included the anomaly produced by the age differential in the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003.​ BUSINESS CRIME​ Throughout her career, Kate has been instructed in substantial cases of mortgage fraud, VAT fraud, corruption and MTIC fraud. She regularly represents high net-worth individuals and companies facing financial investigation. Her keen knowledge, thorough preparation and tenacity are key skills for which she is highly sought after. She advises professionals prior to and during the course of criminal proceedings.​ Recent cases include:​ R v A – Defending an international  business man charged with conspiring with others to launder money. HMRC offered no evidence after extensive written argument, all restraints lifted.​ R v LS & others – Defending a woman in a multi-million pound fraud and money laundering operation. Following lengthy disclosure arguments the case collapsed leading to not guilty verdicts for all the defendants.​ R v W & others – Defending a man in a substantial waste disposal/weighbridge fraud. Not guilty verdict entered against him in circumstances where the majority of other defendants were convicted.​ R v C & others – Defending a woman in an MTIC fraud of EU exporters. At the time this was the largest and most complex fraud of its type, involving at least £400 million worth of mobile telephones being traded and a loss to the Revenue of at least £85 million. ​ R v F & others – Defending a Maltese national in a £13 million diversion fraud involving a strong international element and a culture of non-disclosure and misinformation. Successful defence in circumstances where client had developed severe mental health difficulties during course of the trial.​ R v W & others – Fraudulent trading and blackmail. Successfully defended a woman who was the only one of 4 indicted defendants to be acquitted.​ R v B & others – The provision of advice given to a company director during the currency of an investigation into a £ multimillion MTIC fraud.​ R v O & others – Prosecution of 3 defendants charged with fraud on a substantial scale involving the commission of “disqualified director” offences.​ Oldham Trading Standards v VM & others – Defending a woman in a conspiracy alleging the fraudulent running of a kitchen business. Case stopped as an abuse of process after a 4 month trial. ​ R v R & others – Representing the main defendant in an alleged MTIC carousel fraud depriving HMRC of over £100million.​ Operation Oceanus – Successfully prosecuting three defendants charged with fraudulent trading and "disqualified director" offences.​ HOMICIDE AND VIOLENCE​ Kate has been involved in the prosecution of many such cases, often advising on disclosure, PII and conducting lengthy and complicated “ex-parte” hearings. For the defence she has made many successful disclosure and abuse of process applications.​ Cases of interest include the following:​ R v HS – Part of the prosecution team in a trial involving allegations of multiple murder.​ R v H – Defending man charged with the manslaughter of a police officer.​ R v C – Defending man charged with murder of man whose body was found to have suffered 97 separate injuries.​ R v A & T– Prosecuting mother and father whose neglect led to the death of their premature baby.​ R v K – Prosecuting man convicted of murdering his partner in the presence of their 3 children.​ R v C & others – Prosecuting a 7-handed murder and drugs conspiracy.​ R v GP – The "Lady in the Lake" murder case. Prosecuting a defendant charged with murdering his wife and hiding her body at the bottom of Coniston Lake, Cumbria.​ R v A & others – Prosecuting part of the "Oldham Riots" cases.​ R v S & others – Prosecuting the 6-handed murder of an Ormskirk businessman.​ R v A & others – Prosecuting an extensive people trafficking and false documents case.​ R v F & F – Prosecuting identical twins for gangland shooting. One of first anonymous witness applications to be made.​ R v MNK & others – Prosecution of armed robbery based upon DNA evidence.​ R v J – Defending in retrial of defendant for murder of PC Sharon Beshenevsky. ​ R v C – Defending schizophrenic man charged with attempted murder by multiple stabbing.​ R v K & others – Prosecution of a major drugs conspiracy extending from the North West to Wales and Scotland.​ R v FM – Defending a man charged with conspiracy to supply large quantities of heroin involving the use of entrapment. Preliminary legal argument lasted 5 weeks. Successfully reduced case against defendant by half.​ R v JI – Defending the main defendant in a multi-handed case involving a major Rochdale drugs gang; issues of autrefois acquit and bad character based upon previous acquittals.​ R v H & others – Defending in an extensive drug ring supplying serving prisoners and involving prison officers.​ R v P & P – Prosecuting husband and wife prison officers convicted of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in a public office.​ R v L – Prosecution of a police officer charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice both a trial and re-trial. ​ R v S – Prosecution of doctor for murder of a number of patients and the forging of a will. Kate is an employee of KBQC Law Ltd.  
Kathryn Johnson
Kathryn Johnson
Kathryn was called to the bar in 1989, joining Lincoln House as a tenant in 2007. Prior to joining Lincoln House, Kathryn practised from Winckley Square Chambers in Preston and has retained her Lancashire connections by appearing regularly in Lancashire Crown Courts. For the first 20 years of her career, Kathryn specialised specifically in both the defence and prosecution of the most serious criminal offences brought before the criminal courts. This is work that Kathryn still maintains for both privately paying clients and those with the benefit of legal aid. In addition to Criminal work, Kathryn has spent the last 10 years developing her practise into the line of regulatory work, this work includes cases brought in the criminal courts and before specialist tribunals. Kathryn undertakes the majority of her work as a junior alone but does have significant experience as a leading junior. Kathryn is a Category 4 Prosecutor and is on the GMC list of advocates able to undertake FTP, IOT & HCE as well as several other hearing types dealt with in medical practitioner disciplinary proceedings. Kathryn is known for her fearless advocacy and her determination to always get the best possible result for her clients. A large proportion of Kathryn’s work load is repeat instructions, this is testament of her approachability and excellent client relationship skills. Criminal Law Kathryn’s practice encompasses all areas of criminal law and with an equal split between Prosecution and Defence work. She is regularly instructed in cases of murder, manslaughter, death by dangerous driving, rape and sexual assault, people trafficking, drug conspiracies, child cruelty, serious violence (including firearms), arson, fraud and dishonesty Kathryn is an acknowledged specialist in cases of sexual allegations, prosecuting and defending in many cases of rape including allegations of a historical nature and those involving stranger attacks. Cases include those involving young defendants charged with such offences, requiring particular sensitivity. Kathryn has demonstrated her knowledge and expertise in this area, delivering lectures on developments around the topic and on Sexual Offences Prevention Orders. Notable Cases R v Shacklady – Prosecution – A gang related murder and the supply of drugs. The Defendant, at the time, was considered the “number one target” of the Lancashire Police. R v Finch – Defence – A case involving the alleged stranger rape of a prostitute. R v Clegg – Case was recently concluded in the Court of Appeal. It had involved the rape and false imprisonment of a prostitute. R v Leonard – Defence – A case of murder. Kathryn was led by Tony Cross QC at Preston Crown Court R v Keany – Defence – Attempted murder of a young child. R v S – Prosecution – This case involved a 13-year old charged with rape against an 8-year old. R v Reddy – Defence – Kathryn led Gareth Jones in this 4 week trial at Leeds Crown Court. The Defendant was charged with conspiracy to defraud. R v H – Prosecution – Complex sexual activity with a child. R v E – Defence – Multiple rape trial at Manchester Crown Court. R v A – Defence – Child abduction trial at Manchester Crown Court. R v Uddin – Defence – 6-week sexual grooming trial at Manchester Crown Court. R v J - Defence – Complex money laundering trial at Exeter Crown Court. R v Benson & Bowman – Prosectuing – 2-day child neglect trial at Carlisle Court. R v H – Defending – Substantial drug importation trial at Liverpool Court. Regulatory Law (Professional Discipline) Kathryn regularly acts for the GMC in IOT hearings, High Court Reviews, and FTP hearings. With cases often spanning several weeks and requiring very careful preparation and particular skill, Katherine undertakes work covering all aspects of conduct from clinical negligence to sexual misconduct. Kathryn accepts instructions to deal with the defence of other members of the medical professions including nurses, dentists and those subject to HCPC proceedings. Notable Cases Dr X – A doctor who removed the wrong eye lens and attempted to cover up his error. Dr X – A plastic surgeon who had botched breast implant operations. Dr X – An eminent surgeon who had failed to declare private income and so evaded over a million pounds worth of income tax. Dr X – A GP who had failed to consider test results ordered in relation to a child who subsequently died of heart failure. Regulatory Law (Crown and Magistrates Court) Kathryn undertakes a wide range of regulatory matters which are dealt with in the criminal courts. These include trading standards/trade descriptions, food safety, fire regulation and health & safety breaches. Kathryn has a specific interest in road traffic & transport regulation and has acted in some of the largest tachograph cases dealt with in the North of England. Notable Cases R v J and Others – Defence – Substantial tachograph conspiracy. Kingston-upon-Hull Crown Court. R v Snaith – Defence – 9-week tachograph case acting for the company employing a number of drivers. Public Inquiry/Inquest Law Alongside of undertaking further training to develop knowledge in the line of inquest work, Kathryn has spent the last seven months working full-time on an inquiry instructed by the Department of Health. The inquiry investigated deaths at a hospital in the 1990s. The role requiring the consideration of a very substantial amount of documentation disclosed by organisations and including the assessment of the inquest transcripts of the deceased patients. The case provided valuable insight into the nature of inquests, an area of work in which Kathryn is particularly keen to develop further.
Katie Laura Jones
Katie Laura Jones
Katie was called to the Bar in 2003 and has been a member of Lincoln House since 2008. An experienced practitioner, Katie has built up a reputation as a fearless advocate who is highly skilled at combining a robust and sensible approach with her ability to deal with witnesses and defendants sensitively and compassionately, when required. She is organised and diligent in her preparation of her cases, identifying and communicating potential issues early on, and she is approachable in manner to professional and lay clients alike. She has a wide range of experience before various courts and tribunals. She is often asked to provide advice on complex issues at short notice, and is always happy to assist wherever possible. Katie spent the first 12 years of her practice practising almost exclusively in criminal law, both for the prosecution and defence, and predominantly in the Crown Court. She has extensive experience of conducting a wide range of cases across the criminal calendar. She is a Category 4 prosecutor, and spent many years as a member of the CPS RASSO panel. More recently, Katie has successfully expanded her practice into Regulatory Law and Inquest work. She began to expand her practice into Regulatory law in 2014, and this now accounts for a significant proportion of her practice. She is regularly instructed by the General Medical Council in Fitness to Practise hearings before the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal. She also regularly appears on behalf of the GMC before the Interim Orders Tribunal, at Review hearings, and for Restoration cases, and is often instructed by the GMC to appear in the High Court, in relation to applications to extend Interim Orders. In addition, Katie also has experience of representing registrants before the MPT, and of acting for students on vocational courses in relation to fitness to practise procedures. Katie is a member of the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers and is authorised to represent members of the public under the ‘Public Access’ scheme. Since 2019, Katie has sat regularly as a Fee Paid Judge of the First Tier Tribunal, Health Education and Social Care Chamber, ticketed to sit in the Mental Health Review Tribunal. She also sits as a Recorder in the Crown Court, having been appointed in 2023. Katie has also successfully expanded her practice to include Inquest work, and is regularly instructed to represent a range of Interested Parties at Inquests. Her skillset and knowledge base mean that she is particularly well suited to cases involving issues relating to mental health/mental capacity, and/or clinical care provided by healthcare professionals. In addition, Katie has experience of conducting cases before a range of First Tier Tribunals such as the First-Tier Tribunal (Care Standards) and Special Educational Needs Disability Tribunal (SEND), and also has experience of dealing with licensing appeals before the Magistrates’ Court. As a result of the direction that Katie’s practice has taken in recent years, she has developed a particular interest and expertise in dealing with cases which involve a medical/healthcare/mental health background. There is often a cross over with areas of law or procedure with which Katie is very familiar, given her long standing experience of criminal law, and her extensive knowledge of regulatory and mental health law. She finds that her breadth of experience in dealing with serious criminal and regulatory allegations, and her familiarity with a range of jurisdictions, makes her ideally placed to advise on such cases. She often provides written advice on complex issues when this is required to progress a case, and she is always happy to discuss a particular issue/case with her Instructing Solicitor, to help them to ascertain if an initial written advice/conference would be helpful in the context of their case. In addition to her advocacy and advisory work, Katie provides training to in house legal departments/Instructing Solicitors on a range of subjects. She is happy to deliver bespoke training on particular areas of interest, either remotely or face to face. Katie has a keen interest in sport (in particular rugby, running and triathlon), and is especially interested in the area of safeguarding in sport. Katie is one of a number of approved counsel in Chambers who is able to accept instructions in respect of the Safeguarding Case Management Programme, through Sports Resolution, which provides case management assistance to National Governing Bodies in relation to safeguarding matters, providing advice and assistance following a referral or disclosure, investigations and hearings. Examples of cases conducted in recent years: Inquest touching on the death of NB – Article 2 Inquest, representing family, concerning issues of capacity, adequate provision of medical care, expert evidence on care provided. Inquest touching on the death of SB – representing Local Authority, concerning issues of involvement of mental health services, capacity, and an examination of the approach by multiple-agencies; Inquest touching on the death of LH – Article 2 Inquest representing family, concerning death in prison; Inquest touching on the death of JCP – representing Local Authority, concerning issues of capacity and self-neglect; GMC v Dr A – representing GMC before MPT, misconduct (dishonesty); GMC v Dr G – representing GMC before MPT, misconduct; conditions 3 years GMC v Dr O – representing GMC before MPT, conviction and misconduct; 12 months suspension; GMC v Dr LL – representing GMC before MPT, misconduct (dishonesty), 12 months suspension. GMC v Dr S – representing GMC before MPT, misconduct, 6 months suspension; Inquest touching on the death of PW – Inquest representing Local Authority, concerning issues of safeguarding/mental capacity/s117 aftercare/neglect; GMC v Dr F – representing GMC before MPT, dishonesty, 12 months suspension; GMC v Dr G – representing GMC before MPT, misconduct, Conditions; AN v Oldham MBC – representing Appellant in taxi driver licensing appeal, successful on appeal; AJ v Oldham MBC – representing Appellant in taxi driver licensing appeal, successful on appeal; R v G – defending, successfully argued that exceptional hardship should apply in totting up case; GMC v Dr G, representing registrant on review hearing, successfully persuaded Tribunal that doctor’s FTP was no longer impaired; R v JG – prosecuting – assistant head teacher accused of historic sexual abuse; R v S  – prosecuting – multiple rapes and other sexual offending – convicted; R v RR – Defending – Rape and s18 Assault – background of DV – acquitted; R v S – Defending – Possession with Intent to supply Cannabis – acquitted; GMC v Dr K – representing GMC before MPT – misconduct by dishonesty – Dr suspended; R v W  – Defending, Dangerous Driving – acquitted; R v D  – Defending, s28, foster carer accused of Assault on children in his care, acquitted; R v A and others – Prosecuting – multi-handed kidnap and Affray – case proceeded to trial but was successfully resolved during trial with acceptable guilty pleas; R v P – Prosecuting – Ill-treatment by carer contrary to s44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – convicted; R v R – Defending – witness intimidation – acquitted; GMC v Dr W – representing GMC before MPT – misconduct, dishonesty, Dr erased from register; R v D – defending – Rape and Assaults – acquitted of Rape; GMC v Dr S – representing GMC before MPT – health, Dr suspended from register; R v M  – prosecuting – historic rape – D pleaded guilty to offences during trial; R  v H – prosecuting – racially aggravated assaults – convicted; Dr F  – representing the GMC before MPT – conviction case – Dr suspended from register; R v A  – prosecuting – multiple sexual assault allegations – convicted; GMC v Dr J – representing GMC before MPT – misconduct, dishonesty – Dr suspended from register; R v M – prosecuting – various sexual offences – convictions; Dr S  – representing the GMC before MPT – misconduct by dishonesty – Dr suspended from register; R v S – prosecuting – exposure – D found unfit to plead/stand trial, found to have committed the act, Supervision Order made; GMC v Dr K – representing GMC before MPT – misconduct by dishonesty – Dr suspended; R v W  – Defending, Dangerous Driving – acquitted; R v D  – Defending, s28, foster carer accused of Assault on children in his care, acquitted; R v A and others �� Prosecuting – multi-handed kidnap and Affray – case proceeded to trial but was successfully resolved during trial with acceptable guilty pleas; R v P – Prosecuting – Ill-treatment by carer contrary to s44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – convicted; R v R – Defending – witness intimidation – acquitted; GMC v Dr W – representing GMC before MPT – misconduct, dishonesty, Dr erased from register; R v D – defending – Rape and Assaults – acquitted of Rape; GMC v Dr S – representing GMC before MPT – health, Dr suspended from register; R v M  – prosecuting – historic rape – D pleaded guilty to offences during trial; R  v H – prosecuting – racially aggravated assaults – convicted; Dr F  – representing the GMC before MPT – conviction case – Dr suspended from register; R v A  – prosecuting – multiple sexual assault allegations – convicted; GMC v Dr J – representing GMC before MPT – misconduct, dishonesty – Dr suspended from register; R v M – prosecuting – various sexual offences – convictions; Dr S  – representing the GMC before MPT – misconduct by dishonesty – Dr suspended from register; R v S – prosecuting – exposure – D found unfit to plead/stand trial, found to have committed the act, Supervision Order made; GMC v Dr G – representing the GMC before MPT – health case – conditions imposed on Dr’s registration; GMC v Dr S – representing the GMC before MPT – caution – Dr suspended from register; R v LL – defending – s18 Wounding – acquitted; R v L – defending – s20 GBH – acquitted; R v M – prosecuting – s18 Wounding – convicted; Dr D – representing GMC before MPT – Conviction – Dr suspended from register; Dr M – representing GMC before MPT – Misconduct (dishonesty) – Dr erased from register; Dr S – representing GMC before MPT – Misconduct (dishonesty) – Dr suspended from register; Dr A – representing GMC before MPT – Misconduct (dishonesty) – Dr suspended from register.  
Kimberley Obrusik
Kimberley Obrusik
Kim is a popular and experienced leading junior. She specialises in high-profile cases and is regularly instructed to prosecute and defend in cases involving serious organised crime groups. She accepts instructions in regulatory cases, business crime, professional discipline and inquests and is regularly instructed in evidentially dense, multiple defendant cases, including cases involving fatalities and cases of homicide. Kim was called to the Bar in 2010 and practiced from chambers in Preston before joining Lincoln House Chambers in 2022. Kim’s practice focuses on serious crime. She has an abundance of experience across the whole ambit of criminal law and is willing to accept instructions, both as trial advocate and junior counsel, in cases involving extreme violence (including Murder & Manslaughter), large scale drug conspiracies, serious sexual offences, fraud and dishonesty. Kim has been involved in some of the Northern Circuit’s most significant multi handed drug conspiracy matters in recent years. Kim is well known for her excellent client relationships and client care as at the heart of her work. Through very thorough early case preparation, Kim quickly inspires the loyalty of both her lay-client and those instructing her. Kim is also well known as being a very powerful and persuasive advocate. Upon completing her undergraduate degree Kim spent time in New Orleans where she undertook an internship with the Capital Post Conviction Project of Louisiana. During this time she was responsible for the investigation and preparation of court documentation for two of the office's most notorious cases (A. Frank and M. Weary). “Kimberley’s communication skills are second-to-none, whether that be with vulnerable or difficult clients, the judiciary, juries, or police teams and the CPS. Her preparation is particularly detail-orientated and her advocacy style is robust but searingly charming”- Legal 500, 2025 NOTABLE CASES Organised Crime (Firearms & Drugs conspiracies) Operation Brent - Preston Crown Court - Led Junior for the Crown in the prosecution of seven defendants for conspiracy to rob and inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent. Operation Thunder - Initially instructed as led junior for the Crown in a prosecution of 22 defendants for conspiracy to supply class A drugs. I was later instructed as Leading Junior for the Crown for the three listed trials Operation Melford - Led Junior for the Crown in successful prosecution of eleven defendants charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Operation Lawson - Successfully defended one of eight defendants for a county lines conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Operation Jennet - Preston Crown Court. Successfully defended one of seven defendants for a county lines conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Operation Spoonbill - Teesside Crown Court. Successfully defended one of ten defendants charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs in Blackpool. Operation Enigma - Preston Crown Court. Represented the defendant at the head of a conspiracy to supply class A drugs involving 39 defendants. R v LH – Represented one of three defendants- successful application to dismiss- firearms. R v HF - successful application to dismiss- firearms licencing offence. Upcoming cases Operation Quantum - instructed as prosecution counsel in a 7 handed drugs conspiracy. Operation Rockingham - instructed defence counsel. Operation Frozen - instructed defence counsel. Operation Gaskett  - instructed defence counsel Serious Violence R v PH - Defended in trial of the facts concerning the attempted murder of the defendant’s wife. The defendant was not fit to plead or stand trial due to a diagnosis of dementia. He had previously served a life sentence for the murder of his first wife. R v CA & Others - Instructed to prosecute 8 defendants, a number of whom were youths, for offences of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent and violent disorder. R v SA - Instructed as junior defence counsel in the attempted murder of the defendant’s ex-partner and the murder of her 15-year-old son. Operation Pintail - Successful prosecution of four defendants for a spree of commercial armed robberies across Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire. R v Ward & Others - successfully prosecuted 4 defendants for their role in the burglary and extensive criminal damage committed at Thwaites Brewery in Blackburn in 2018. Operation Leaf- Junior defence counsel in a perverting the course of justice trial where the defendant was convicted of making false allegations of rape and human trafficking. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/eleanor-williams-jailed-lyingrapes-trafficking Operation Calloway- Defence counsel in multi-handed trial involving firearms, s.18, conspiracy to supply drugs, perverting the course of justice and arson. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-gangstersblasted-terrifying-street-25498004 Sex R v CD- instructed to defend- defendant acquitted of rape and sentenced to a suspended sentence for sexual assault. R v PB- instructed to defend- acquitted of 4 counts of rape after a retrial. R v DB- instructed to defend- following a successful s.41 application based on extensive viewing of telephone evidence, all sexual offences including rape not pursued by prosecution. R v KH- instructed to defend in the youth court- a 14-year-old defendant who was charged with serious sexual offences including rape and assault by penetration. R v JW & Others - successfully prosecuted 4 defendants for their role in the burglary and extensive criminal damage committed at Thwaites Brewery in Blackburn in 2018. https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/men-jailed-over-313000-thwaites-15867566 R v PH & RJ - Instructed as junior defence counsel, being led by Peter Wright KC. https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/trial-date-set-chorley-prison-25902101 Private Client R v RR- case involving the possession of indecent images of children & obscene publications suspended sentence imposed. R v SG- acquitted of rape following a 6-day trial. R v DG- acquitted of driving offences in the Magistrates court. R v AC- defendant charged with assault by penetration, sexual assault of an adult and sexual assault of a child under 13 years- mixed verdicts. R v JM- committal for sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm- suspended sentence imposed. R v WH- defendant charged with coercive controlling behaviour in an intimate relationship- listed for trial in 2024
Kitty Colley
Kitty Colley
Kitty Colley specialises in all areas of serious crime. She is renowned for her expertise in the most serious offences including Murder & Manslaughter, Fraud & Money Laundering and Drug Conspiracies and is widely considered as being one of the leading regional practitioners in Sexual Offences. She is a highly skilled trial advocate of significant experience having been in practice since being called to the Bar in 1992. Kitty is a consummate professional and has a thorough, analytical and adaptable approach. She is particularly skilled in the handling of young and vulnerable witnesses and defendants, including those with mental disability and incapacity. She is highly personable, putting clients from all backgrounds at ease, and has an established reputation as being a tenacious advocate. Kitty offers a top-class service to private clients in the full spectrum of criminal offences and in cases before tribunals. In addition to criminal law, Kitty also has a keen interest in coronial law and, having dealt with many professionals in criminal proceedings throughout her career, professional disciplinary law. Kitty is an extremely popular and active member of the profession who has attracted wide judicial endorsement and been heavily involved in the training and development of her colleagues at the bar. In additional to being involved in numerous circuit educational programmes, Kitty has held the position of Senior Lecturer in Criminal Litigation & Advocacy on the BVC (BPP Law School), she is IATC trained and Hempel method trained and has been an external advocacy assessor and trainer for the CPS since 2008. Kitty was Guest Speaker at Middle Temple Scholars Day in 2018 and 2019 and Lead Trainer for the Questioning of Vulnerable Witnesses training program with the Inns of Court College of Advocacy. Kitty also acts as a mentor to Leeds University Law Students. Murder & Manslaughter Kitty has experience as both leading and junior counsel in murder, manslaughter, child cruelty cases (where death occurred) and death by dangerous driving. Since 2019, she has been instructed by both prosecution and defence in several homicide cases. Recent Cases of interest include: R v D- Murder-successful prosecution, upheld on appeal- man who was stabbed through the heart in the street. Leading junior. Operation Palenville: Murder - prosecution junior counsel Operation Parking Mike -Murder- prosecution junior counsel - 7 defendants- Sheffield CC. R v B: Murder: defence- Domestic violence/Loss of Control by daughter. R v T: Murder: defence- vulnerable victim in relationship with D. R v P: Murder- prosecution- Asian community-victim killed by husband in family home. R v C : Defence- Multiple violent and sexual offences upon a 3 year old boy, involving complex medical evidence. Private Client Kitty regularly receives instructions from private clients accused of a range of criminal offences, however, as a result of her recognised leading status in serious or historic sexual offences this is an area in which she is in particularly high demand. She regularly succeeds in securing not guilty verdicts for clients facing allegations of rape and sexual abuse. Cases of interest include: R v C – Not Guilty: Successful defence of (former) premiership footballer, charged with rape. Unanimous Not Guilty verdict after a 9 day trial. Jury deliberated for 45 minutes. R v B – Non-recent rapes and sexual abuse of step-daughter: not guilty. R v D – Non-recent sexual assault of child by a businessman of good character; not guilty. R v G - Private historic sexual abuse case in Haredi Jewish Community, Manchester R v X - Sexual Abuse: Doctor of Chinese Medicine- private client defence R v S - Ex-husband of serving specialist police officer accused of rape of friend - acquitted. Fraud & Money Laundering & POCA Cases of interest include: R v L – Mortgage fraud of £1m, with others; plea and community sentence- defence R v AH and other: Prosecution-contested POCA £4m benefit from Class A drug supply conspiracy R v TJ and Others – Controlling prostitution for gain and money laundering- prosecution. R v T - Charity Fraud – 6 week trial- multi-defendants- defence Drug Conspiracies Cases of interest include: R v FL and others: Drugs- prosecution/complex case conspiracy to import ad supply cocaine/POCA. R v W and others: Drugs conspiracy/complex case/ conspiracy to supply heroin and production of cannabis. Sexual Offences “Recommended for cases involving either recent or historic sexual offences.” – The Legal 500 (2021 and 2022) Over the past 15 years, Kitty has become one of the most highly rated specialists in cases involving rape and other serious sexual offences. She has both prosecuted and defended the most serious cases. Instructions include cases of stranger and familial rape (including at gunpoint or involving extreme violence), as well as recent and non-recent complaints and those of the utmost complexity, sensitivity or public interest. She is very experienced with multi-count indictments, multiple complainant and multiple defendant cases. Child Sex Exploitation Kitty has been instructed by the defence in all CSE operations across Yorkshire since 2015. She was appointed as lead defence advocate in the Rotherham exploitation trial in September 2016. Kitty is highly experienced in multi-handed sexual offences cases and has a sensitive understanding of the particular dynamics involved. Vulnerable witnesses Kitty has extensive expertise in questioning and dealing with the most vulnerable witnesses and defendants, including those with severe communication difficulties and mental-health issues. In one case, she dealt with an autistic complainant who could only communicate through drawing. She has extensive experience of pre-recorded cross examination of vulnerable witness since the Section 28 pilot scheme launched in 2016. Cases of interest include: CSE-defence- Operations Kellerabbey, Polymor, Tendersea, Hazelshot ,Tournway and Tapeton. R v S – defence-Knife point stranger rape of school-girl in a graveyard/defendant with personality disorder. R v P : defence- rape and robbery of elderly lady in her home. R v JH- defence-16 yr old boy accused of multiple rapes of girlfriend. R V JG: prosecution- gunpoint kidnap of stranger and sexual assault. R v W- prosecution: Foster carers charged with sexual abuse of 3 vulnerable children in their care. R v W. prosecution- rape of a female police officer. R v D prosecution- familial historic sexual abuse over 4 decades involving 3 generations, including foster children. R v M and D- prosecution- paedophile ring with 10 victims involving internet grooming and pornography. R v D – prosecution-Rape by a police officer of a vulnerable woman whilst on duty. R v C – prosecution-Rape and burglary of an elderly lady. R v C & S- prosecution of internet grooming to abuse young children/undercover operation. Reported cases R v JOC [Crime – sexual offences] – Non-recent complaint. Rape. Appeal point on presumption of incapacity/doli-incopax. R v Perkins: [Crime – sexual offences] – Status of victim personal statements. R v Lomax [Crime-historic rape] S
Lara McCaffrey
Lara McCaffrey
Lara is a capable and diligent barrister known for her excellent writing skills, analytical mind and meticulous attention to detail. Her ability to master voluminous material with ease and precision means that she is regularly instructed in paper heavy cases. She is quick to dissect complex information, identify the key issues and present them in a clear and succinct way. Lara recently acted as junior counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and the Manchester Arena Bombing Inquiry, where she had been described as “an asset” and “a star...her work is of the very highest quality.” She is commended in particular for her drafting skills and efficiency; “she has been given a lot to do, with tight deadlines, and has consistently delivered a high standard of work.”  Lara is currently instructed as Junior Counsel on Module 2 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry. Lara successfully completed her pupillage at 25 Bedford Row in London, where she became a tenant in 2016. Her practice involved work across all areas of criminal defence, with a particular focus on violent crime and cases involving vulnerable witnesses. Shortly after gaining tenancy, Lara was instructed as junior counsel to represent the principal in a multi-million pound conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The case was regarded as one of the most complex and significant investigations into serious organised crime in Northern England. It covered some 250,000 telephone calls spanning a sixteen month investigation, in which nineteen defendants were arrested. Lara was responsible for detailed analysis of cell site evidence and co-location of telephones, along with crucial aspects of disclosure and witness anonymity. She was also instructed as a led junior in a murder case which involved complex issues of causation, substantial legal argument and forensic analysis of pathological evidence. Lara previously worked for the Prisoners’ Advice Service, where she was responsible for advising clients on issues such as parole, categorisation, adjudications and appeals to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. She gained extensive experience as a County Court Advocate on the South Eastern circuit, appearing on behalf of litigants in over 1,650 hearings in the County Courts, the High Court, and in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. She was instructed by numerous firms of solicitors to deal with a broad spectrum of civil matters including case management hearings, residential and commercial landlord and tenant disputes, applications for summary judgment, bankruptcy proceedings, appeals and small claims trials. Lara was ratified by the Free Representation Unit to represent clients in the Employment Tribunal and trained at the National Centre for Domestic Violence, where she handled sensitive cases involving victims of abuse. INQUEST & INQUIRY WORK Notable Cases Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Lara was instructed as junior counsel to the Anglican Church investigation. The first phase of the investigation consisted of two case studies: a.The Diocese of Chichester, where multiple allegations of child sexual abuse have been made; b.b. Peter Ball, the former Bishop of Gloucester who was convicted of child sexual abuse offences in 2015. The second phase of the investigation considered the extent to which the wider Church of England and the Church in Wales historically protected children from sexual abuse. It also explored the effectiveness of current safeguarding arrangements. The Anglican Church investigation included 88,876 pages of disclosed material, six preliminary hearings and three substantive hearings between March 2018 and July 2019. Lara took a leading role in the review of disclosed material and supervised the redaction process. She was responsible for drafting Rule 9 statement requests and assisted with preparation for the public hearings, which she attended as junior counsel. The first Anglican Church investigation report was published in May 2019, with a second report published in September 2020. Lara was heavily involved in the drafting and editing of both reports, as well as the warning letter process under Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006. The published reports can be found here: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/publications/investigation/ anglican-chichester-peter-ball. Manchester Arena Inquiry Lara was instructed as junior counsel to the Manchester Arena Inquiry, which was set up to investigate the deaths of the victims of the 2017 terrorist attack. She was involved in the work of this Inquiry for three years, during which time she was responsible for a wide range of matters. These included the review of medical expert evidence and CCTV footage, preparation of reports, compilation of witness lists and drafting of Rule 9 statement requests. Lara worked on the analysis of the security arrangements within and outside the Arena, the experiences of each person who died (including when and where they died, and their survivability) and intelligence relating to the radicalisation of Salman Abedi. She was heavily involved in the Inquiry’s examination of the emergency response to the bombing. This strand of the Inquiry investigated the inter-agency planning and preparation for responding to mass casualty incidents, the decision-making of the police, fire and ambulance services, and whether any inadequacies in the response contributed to the loss of life. Inquiry Into The Death Of Jermaine Baker The Inquiry investigated the circumstances of the death of Jermaine Baker, who was killed during a pre-planned firearms operation by the Metropolitan Police Service on 11th December 2015. Lara was instructed to conduct the preparation for the Inquiry hearings. This involved the analysis of a large volume of material and the examination of issues such as strategic and tactical planning, reliability and transmission of information, command and control, post-incident procedures, and the training and competency of the deployed firearms officers. Brook House Inquiry The Inquiry investigated the torture, inhuman or degrading treatment of individuals who were detained at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, as shown in the BBC Panorama programme ‘Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets.’ It examined the methods, policies, practices and procedures that caused or contributed to any mistreatment, along with the adequacy of the complaints and monitoring mechanisms provided by Home Office Immigration Enforcement and external bodies. Lara reviewed the evidence and prepared the Rule 9 witness questions for members of the senior management team at Brook House. This included a close analysis of their decisions, actions and the circumstances surrounding the mistreatment of detainees. CRIMINAL LAW Notable Cases “Operation Petral” – Lara was instructed as junior counsel to represent the principal in a multi-million pound conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The case is regarded as one of the most complex and significant investigations into serious organised crime in Northern England. It covers some 250,000 telephone calls spanning a sixteen month investigation in which nineteen defendants were arrested. Lara has been responsible for detailed analysis of cell site evidence and co-location of telephones along with crucial aspects of disclosure and witness anonymity. R v G – The defendant faced trial for murder. Lara was instructed as Junior Counsel to Queen’s Counsel. The matter involved complex issues of causation, substantial legal argument and forensic analysis of pathological evidence. R v H – Lara represented a defendant in the Crown Court on charges of dwelling burglary and high value theft. The defendant had fourteen previous convictions for similar offences and was advised to expect a sentence after conviction in the region of five years' custody. At trial, Lara successfully applied to exclude the key identification evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Crown subsequently offered no evidence and the jury was directed to acquit on both counts. R v L – Multi-handed conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation involving ten defendants, all bar one of whom pleaded guilty on the full facts of the conspiracy. Lara negotiated a basis of plea to the substantive offence only and was able to significantly restrict the defendant’s financial benefit. R v M – Successfully resisted application to appoint an enforcement receiver on a conspiracy to import £4 billion of cocaine. R v W – The defendant stood trial on an indictment alleging three breaches of a restraining order. After cross-examination of the Crown’s witnesses, Lara made a successful half-time submission and secured acquittals on all three counts. R v B – Defendant with an extensive criminal record appealed his sentence of 20 weeks immediate custody for domestic assault. The appeal court both halved and suspended his term of imprisonment. R v B – Defendant appealed her conviction for section 4 public order in which the Crown relied on an audio recording of threats made to the complainant. The appeal court quashed the conviction following legal submissions on the ingredients of the offence and the Crown’s failure to prove the requisite intent. R v N – Defendant stood trial on a domestic violence charge. Through legal argument, Lara was able to exclude the key evidence of a prosecution witness and a 999 call recording. The defendant was acquitted. Lara then successfully resisted the Crown’s application for a restraining order and secured a defendant’s costs order.
Laura Barbour
Laura Barbour
Laura joined Lincoln House as a tenant in September 2007 after the successful completion of her pupillage under the supervision of Suzanne Goddard Q.C (crime) and Abigail Holt (civil). Following in the footsteps of some of Lincoln House’s most respected advocates, Laura maintains a diverse practice, specialising in criminal law, industrial disease claims and general personal injury. Her firm grounding in criminal law, acting for both defendants and prosecuting authorities in the Crown Court, has equipped her well with the skills to conduct contested civil claims. Laura has a varied criminal practice and currently is instructed to represent defendants charged with such serious offences as: grave child cruelty (a three month old baby with several fractures to his limbs), sexual assault on a child, possession of heroin with intent to supply, and s.18 (GBH with intent) assault with a weapon. She has been instructed for the Crown in a number of serious cases including Operation Tanglewood: the prosecution of four defendants charged with importation of cocaine valued at over £1m. She has been instructed as Junior for the Crown in the consolidated trial of Operations Blythe and Minister: respectively an alleged conspiracy to supply class A drugs with a potential yield of £5,000,000 and a police misconduct case in which a police officer sold sensitive police intelligence to a defendant charged in the drugs conspiracy. Alongside her criminal practice, Laura has a particular expertise in industrial disease work, having been selected by Ivan Bowley to join the Lincoln House Chambers industrial disease team. She has extensive experience in the British Coal Litigation, however, she has a keen interest in all cases of industrial disease. Additionally, Laura has a busy general personal injury practice, acting for both claimants and defendants across the broad spectrum of negligence claims. Laura has a strong track record appearing before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Laura’s personal experience in dealing with individuals suffering from mental illness and disability means that she is well placed to deal with clients who may appear to be ‘difficult’. She has specific experience appearing before the Mental Health Review Tribunal Criminal Law Since joining Chambers Laura has had experience in all areas of criminal law, regularly advising and acting for both prosecuting authorities and defendants in cases of dishonesty, violence (including s.18), witness intimidation, drugs offences, public order offences, and road traffic offences - from initial advice to Crown Court trial and sentence. She also accepts instructions in relation to confiscation proceedings following conviction and has experience of conducting enforcement proceedings. She has successfully appealed sentences at the Court of Appeal. Laura holds a place on the Attorney General’s C list and has a particular interest in duty and drugs offences having been retained as contract counsel for Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office in 2007. During her time at RCPO, Laura gained insight and experience which she has found advantageous both when prosecuting and defending. Laura is currently instructed by the Complex Case Unit as Junior for the Crown in R v Knox and others, a seven handed drugs conspiracy and police corruption case. The trial has been ongoing since September 2009, with Laura taking a very active role in lengthy PII hearings, disclosure issues, together with detailed and varied legal arguments. She remains able to accept instructions in other cases. Laura is also a Category 3 Prosecutor. Professional Discipline Laura has extensive experience in professional disciplinary hearings, having represented both doctors and nurses before their respective regulatory bodies: the Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. As well as conducting interlocutory hearings such as Interim Orders hearings, Laura has an impressive track record appearing in substantive FTP hearings. Laura has recently spent six months seconded to the policy team at the GMC and the Medical Practitioners Tribunals Service. Laura has gained grass roots level experience of the regulatory process, liaising on a one to one level with everyone from Investigation Officers to Assistant Registrars to Principle Legal Advisors. Industrial Disease Like others in Chambers, Laura has a particular interest in Industrial Disease. Laura has been mentored by Ivan Bowley in the conduct of claims in Griffiths & others v British Coal Corporation - 'the British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation'. She gives advice to Claimants and Patients in British Coal Respiratory cases under the Claims Handling Agreement. She also provides Claimant’s Representatives with pragmatic advice on case conduct. She has been recommended by the Co-ordinating Group (CG) to solicitors looking for either written advices or representation at the High Court hearings. She appears regularly before the High Court and can be seen at most of the coal “sessions” which are held across the country, usually on a termly basis. Personal Injury Laura has a varied personal injury practice and is interested in all aspects of personal injury litigation. She accepts instructions from Claimants and Defendants in both small claims and fast track cases. She has experience in advising on liability and quantum, drafting statements of case, conducting pretrial hearings and applications, trials (including multi-track) and disposal hearings. Tribunal Work Laura is experienced in presenting cases before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Tribunal. With the advantages won through Crown Court experience, she secured an award for her client in a difficult case in which the client appeared prima facie to have been involved in criminal conduct and in which previous counsel had given negative advice as to prospects. She also accepts instructions in quantum only cases: in a recent case she obtained an award of over £30,000 for her client (the case having been assessed previously as meriting an award of about £5,000). Notable Cases R v D (under Operation Nimrod) – Instructed to represent a client with severe mental health problems: in this case he had previously ‘sacked’ three other counsel. Following a two day abuse of process (entrapment) hearing, including a days cross examination of an undercover officer and a very senior officer responsible for the policy governing Nimrod, the crown offered no evidence in respect of all thirteen counts of possession with intent to supply heroin; R v F – Instructed to represent a defendant who, together with her husband, was charged with harassment of her neighbour - a solicitor. Following a seven day trial which generated national media interest the Defendant represented by Laura was acquitted; R v X (Court of Appeal) – Successfully conducted an appeal against sentence where the Appellant had assisted the prosecution in a murder investigation (please contact chambers for the neutral citation of this case); R v S – Instructed to represent a defendant charged with s.47 assault. Following Laura’s detailed cross examination of the complainant, the Crown offered no evidence. Direct Access The majority of barristers can only be instructed by solicitors or authorised institutions, which in some cases leads to a duplication in costs. Laura is accredited for direct access by the public without the need to be instructed by a solicitor. This means that any member of the public can approach her directly for advice or representation. Laura undertakes the following work upon instruction directly from the public, which includes professionals: Criminal Law including Road Traffic,  Judicial Review, County Court claims, Directors Disqualifications , Tax Tribunal and Criminal Injuries Appeal Panel. Personal Laura was born in Scotland but has put down her roots in the North West. She enjoys eating out and cooking for (brave) friends. She is a big fan of the live stand-up comedy and music scene in Manchester.
Lee Hughes
Lee Hughes
Lee is a regulatory barrister ranked by Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners in several areas of practice including business crime, health and safety, inquests and inquiries and professional discipline. He is also regularly instructed in cases involving fire, road traffic, transport, environmental, Border Force/HMRC, OFSTED and trading standards. Prior to moving to the Bar Lee was a solicitor in some of the country’s best regarded regulatory practices. He knows from first-hand experience what solicitors need from their instructed counsel and for that reason has built a strong practice. Legal 500 2025 “Lee is a formidable barrister with skills beyond his year of call. His background as a solicitor means that he is hands on with the preparation and approach to any case, he places lay clients at ease, and immediately instils confidence” “Lee is very quick to get to grips with the issues in a case and he always comes to a conference or hearing fully prepared with an almost forensic analysis of the papers, and he asks relevant and insightful questions of clients and witnesses." "As well as being an exceptional barrister from a legal perspective, his way with clients is also something to be admired as he has a very understated yet charming manner which puts clients at ease and makes them feel genuinely part of any conversation.” “Lee is excellent with clients, he is clear and straightforward in his advice, and he does not shy away from difficult conversation, and as a result, clients trust his judgement. He is always well prepared and grasps the detail and issues in his cases with ease, in even the most difficult cases, and he is not afraid to roll his sleeves up and get stuck into the case preparation.” Legal 500 2024 Lee principally defends businesses, directors and professionals in a wide range of proceedings but also prosecutes for the Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency, Insolvency Service and Local Authorities. Lee is ranked in tier 3 in Legal 500 for general crime and is on the CPS general Crime list, the CPS Serious Crime Specialist Panel and the SFO Panel. Lee is Junior Counsel to the Crown (Regional C Panel) on the Attorney General’s Civil List. Lee is authorised to represent members of the public under the ‘Public Access’ scheme. CASES OF INTEREST Professional Disciplinary GMC v DR – represented a doctor at a fitness to practise panel before the Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service following allegations of dishonesty. The tribunal gave weight to the “good mitigation” in the case and suspended the doctor for just one month. GMC v DR – represented a doctor at a fitness to practise panel before the Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service following allegations of dishonesty. The tribunal gave weight to the “good mitigation” in the case and suspended the doctor for just one month. GMC v DR – advised a doctor in respect of restoration following findings of dishonesty. Doctor restored to the register. NMC v N - Represented a nurse in an interim orders hearing before the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Avoided suspension, despite serious allegations. GMC v DR – represented a doctor at a Review Hearing following impairment through misconduct and adverse physical or mental health. GMC v DR – advised a doctor in respect of restoration following findings of dishonesty. Teaching Regulation Agency – represented a teacher accused of sexual impropriety with a student. GMC v DR – represented a doctor in respect of fitness to practise proceedings following serious allegations of dishonesty. The doctor was suspended. GMC v DR – instructed to represent a psychiatrist in fitness to practise proceedings following the death of a patient. The GMC chose not to pursue the case to the MPTS. Health and Safety and Fire Safety HSE v B – represented a farmer prosecuted for health and safety failings following the death of his young relative. HSE v MS and CS – secured the acquittal of a director prosecuted by the HSE for breaches of the general duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and contravention of a Prohibition Notice LA v Q and others – represented a company and a director prosecuted in the Crown Court following a fatal fall from height. Fire Service v G – represented a former health and safety officer in the Crown Court prosecuted for risk assessment offences spanning a period of 10 years. LA v G – represented a children’s nursery in the Magistrates’ Court for sentence after a child’s fingertip. was severed. Secured an exceptionally low fine for the company. LA v D – successfully represented a Local Authority in an appeal against a Prohibition Notice. HSE v G – defended a roofer in the Crown Court following a fall from height in which a worker was seriously injured. Multinational Company – advised a multinational company regarding its fire safety management responsibilities for vacant commercial and residential properties. HSE v H&S consultancy – advised a health and safety consultancy disputing a Fee for Intervention invoice and prepared submissions on behalf of the company. HSE v I – advised a company in liquidation regarding prosecution for health and safety offences. HSE v EJ – instructed to advise a company in respect of a police investigation into the death of an employee whilst repairing a forklift truck and subsequently an investigation by the HSE into breaches under the Health and Safety at Work Act. HSE v S – prosecuted a secondary school following a field trip during which children were lost in snowy conditions and one child was injured when they slid down a hill. HSE v A – represented a company following a fall of height from 6 metres. The court reduced the starting point due to Lee’s “powerful mitigation”. Lee is regularly instructed by the Health and Safety Executive to prosecute cases in the Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court, as well as to appear in the Coroners’ Court. Inquest and Inquiry work Manchester Arena Inquiry – instructed by the Solicitor to the Inquiry as part of the junior counsel team, assisting with preparation for the Inquiry, with particular focus on the criminal aspect of the inquiry. Sat as a noting brief in the criminal trial of Hashem Abedi. Gosport Independent Panel – appointed by the Secretary of State for Health, as Junior Counsel to Kate Blackwell KC. The panel was constituted by the Minister to examine and report on historical events relating to the care, treatment and deaths of patients of the Gosport War Memorial Hospital in Portsmouth. Assisted generally in preparation of the final report, but also specifically in respect of health and safety matters. Grenfell Public Inquiry – instructed by Government Legal Department to assist the Home Office with the disclosure exercise following the fire that occurred in 2017. Inquest touching the death of a prison inmate – represented the director of a private prison in an Article 2 inquest following the stabbing of an inmate by another inmate. Inquest touching the death of a diver – represented an enforcement body Inquest touching the death of a mechanic – represented a company following a workplace accident involving a forklift truck. Inquest touching the death of an elderly resident of local authority accommodation – represented the local authority in an Inquest that explored the Council’s obligations towards an elderly resident. Inquest touching the death of a motorcyclist – represented the driver of a vehicle involved in a collision with the deceased. Inquest touching the death of a student – represented a university following the death of a student in student accommodation. Inquest touching the death of a former employee – instructed to represent a company following the death of a former employee. General Crime Led junior for the Crown in Operation Chronicle – two defendants convicted of murder and sentenced to 19 and 17 years respectively. Led by Craig Hassall KC. Prosecuted the Insolvency Service’s first Covid Bounce Back Loan prosecution. Led junior for the Crown in Operation Teleut, which concerned an international conspiracy to smuggle crystal meth. The defendants were convicted after trial. Led junior for the Crown in Operation Quartz which concerned the manufacture of amphetamine at one laboratory and a linked conspiracy to produce amphetamine at another laboratory, which was under construction when police raided it. The case involved two trials and complex POCA proceedings. Led junior for the Crown in Operation Lithe. Operation Lithe concerned 29-armed robberies of convenience stores across the North West. A gang armed themselves with weapons including machetes and meat cleavers, and attacked shops, usually at night. All of the alleged robbers were convicted, and lengthy prison sentences handed down. The case involved POCA and Serious Crime Prevention Orders. Led junior for the Crown in Operation Woodvill, which concerned a police investigation into unrest in Oldham after a speech was given by Tommy Robinson. A trial is listed in October 2022 Led junior for the defence in a murder prosecution, in which the juvenile defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Led by Simon Csoka KC. Led junior for the defence in the country’s largest ever drugs conspiracy. Led by Peter Wright KC. R v B – represented a defendant charged with a s20 wounding after striking a partner with a hammer. The defendant was given a suspended sentence of imprisonment. R v V – prosecuted a prisoner for escaping from lawful custody after jumping from a moving prison van whilst on a dual carriageway. The defendant was convicted. R v G – The defendant was accused of robbery. Lee made a successful application to dismiss based on identification evidence. R v W – The defendant was accused of breaching a Sexual Harm Prevention Order by having history-deleting software on his phone. Lee made a successful application to dismiss the offence based on the Crown’s misunderstanding of the technical evidence. POCA R v M&S – represented two interested parties from whom over £30,000 had been seized during investigations into a relative’s criminal offending. The interested parties recovered £27,000. Op Lithe – led prosecution junior involved in the resolution of POCA applications for multiple defendants. Op Quartz - led prosecution junior involved in the resolution of POCA applications for multiple defendants. HMRC v Ahmadi – successfully represented HMRC in cash forfeiture proceedings. Seizures by HMRC and Border Force BF v A – successfully represented an importer of alcohol at the First Tier Tax Tribunal following seizure of wine by Border Force. Goods restored. HMRC v R – achieved restoration of a seized vehicle days before a hearing in the First Tier Tribunal, persuading HMRC that they had no prospects of success. Advised many companies and individuals in respect of condemnation and restoration proceedings. Have secured restoration either in the first instance or after review in numerous cases, recovering goods worth tens of thousands of pounds. Regularly instructed in these matters. Road Traffic R v M – successfully represented a driver in a trial in the Crown Court in a prosecution for causing death by careless driving. R v S – represented a driver accused of driving without due care and attention following a collision with a pedestrian. The case was dismissed at the close of the prosecution case. R v M – represented a driver whose mum forgot to insure his car. Special reasons were found. R v M – represented a driver in the Magistrates’ Court, charged with driving without due care and attention. After cross examination of the injured person made a successful submission that there was no case to answer. R v A – successfully defended a driver who failed to respond to two requests for information (section 172 Notice) on the basis that it was not reasonably practicable to respond to a request that was not received. R v CC – achieved an acquittal in the Crown Court for a driver charged with causing death by careless driving. R v LC - represented a defendant who caused serious injury by driving dangerously. 14-month sentence. R v G – represented a “totter” in the Magistrates’ Court, convicted of his third speeding offence in three weeks and having amassed 15 points. Successfully argued exceptional hardship. Traffic Commissioner PS – successfully represented a company in a Public Inquiry before the Traffic Commissioner. Licence retained, despite dishonesty at a previous Public Inquiry. JS – successfully represented a company in a PI before the Traffic Commissioner. Licence retained, despite non-compliance with an undertaking and various requirement of the licence. L – successfully represented a company before the Traffic Commissioner. Licence retained, despite multiple failings in respect of the licence. W – represented a company at a Public Inquiry before the Traffic Commissioner, where there was alleged to be breach of a restricted lience. P – represented a skip company at a Public Inquiry before the Traffic Commissioner. E – represented a company at a Public Inquiry before the Traffic Commissioner – no regulatory action taken. Licensing LA v HF – represented a Local Authority in an appeal by a taxi driver against a refusal to grant him a licence. Successfully applied to have the case dismissed after the taxi driver’s evidence. LA v TD – successfully represented a Local Authority in PII proceedings relating to evidence to be used in an appeal against a withdrawal of a taxi licence. LA v M – represented a Local Authority in an appeal against a Review of a premises Licence. Case dismissed and full costs awarded. Later successfully resisted an application to reopen the case and achieved a further award of full costs. CRL – advised a scrap metal dealer in respect of an application for a licence. R v M – represented a director in a prosecution for operating without a scrap metal dealer’s licence. OFSTED / Education Advised a children’s home regarding an appeal following receipt of Notice restricting accommodation. A dvised a children’s home regarding a suspension of registration, cancellation and an interview with a Responsible Individual. Advised a children’s nursery regarding an appeal against a suspension notice. A dvised a Training Academy regarding an investigation by The Education and Skills Funding Agency. Advised a childminder regarding suspension notices and cancellation. Advised a childminder regarding suspension. Prosecuted for a local authority in a case involving repeated non-attendance at school. Trading Standards R v M & Q – represented a company and director in the Magistrates’ Court for trademark offences. R v Y – represented a company prosecuted for food safety offences. Environmental L v Housing Authority – represented a Housing Authority in the Magistrates’ Court in a private prosecution brought by a tenant under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. LA v Q – represented a local authority in a prosecution of a couple who had breached enforcement notices served under planning legislation. EA v L – advised a director in relation to an application to dismiss in the Crown Court. LA v PL – represented a care home and its owner in a prosecution for a breach of a Tree Preservation Order. Data Protection ICO v A & Ors – instructed as junior counsel to Paul Greaney QC. Successfully defended a multinational organisation against a prosecution under data protection legislation Other matters Successfully represented a professional regulator as a defendant in judicial review proceedings in the High Court
Leila Ghahhary
Leila Ghahhary
Ranked as a leading barrister in the categories of Inquiries & Inquests and Business & Regulatory Crime: “Leila has excellent judgement and insight and is able to think through particularly difficult problems with ease and good humour. She is particularly skilled at being able to see the big picture in matters where it is often easy to get lost in granular detail, and she is also an absolute pleasure to work with, including under highly stressful and pressured conditions.” Legal 500, 2025 ‘Leila’s written advice is comprehensive yet succinct and written in a way that is accessible to both lay and professional clients. She has a commanding court room presence and is clear in her oral argument and submissions; one of the go-to counsel for inquests operating on the Northern Circuit.’ Legal 500, 2024 “Leila is a superb leading junior in inquests and inquiries. She is a highly skilled advocate who presents well-reasoned arguments, captures the attention of the tribunal and always considers the bigger picture. She is meticulous in terms of approach and a fantastic team-player who will take on board the views of others.” Legal 500, 2023 “Leila is incredibly approachable and communicative, and it is very easy to develop a positive working relationship with her. Her written and oral advice is both concise and comprehensive, and provided in a manner which is appropriate to the recipient, be that a lay or professional client. She is brilliant on her feet and has a commanding presence in court.” Legal 500, 2023 “Leila is a fantastic addition to any team. Her attention to detail and knowledge of niche regulatory areas is worth its weight in gold. Leila is refreshingly hard working and gives masses of time and attention to any job” Legal 500, 2022 “Leila’s attention to detail and thoroughness are outstanding. Leila is a fantastic team player and ensures that everyone’s view is considered. Leila’s view is invariably sensible and clear” Legal 500, 2022 “A ‘commanding and authoritative presence on her feet’, Leila Ghahhary is also one to watch in this area of practice” Legal 500, 2021 “Leila is an exceptional find! She has a background in local authority work which ideally suits some of the issues that arise in inquests and inquiries. Leila is an extremely competent advocate, compelling and impressive on her feet, always meticulously prepared and provides her clients with utmost confidence.” Legal 500, 2021 “Leila is becoming a true expert in this field. Her background is superbly suited to the difficult and unusual regulations that appear in many cases. She is an absolute delight to work with and often has razor-like insight into complex cases. Her client care is second to none and she is always a real help.” Legal 500, 2021 “She has good judgement and a commanding presence in court” Legal 500, 2020 Overview Leila is a highly regarded international barrister who specialises in public, regulatory, international and human rights law.  The professional guides rank Leila as a Tier 1 advocate. She practises in the UK and Canada and is regularly instructed to represent and advise local and central government departments, individuals and a variety of public and private organisations before a range of courts, tribunals and constitutional panels across a multitude of jurisdictions, legal areas and issues arising under public, regulatory, international and human rights law. Leila has been appointed onto: The Attorney General’s Panel of Counsel. She regularly receives instructions from the Government Legal Department to represent and advise a variety of government departments on a range of public law and civil matters. The Panel of Specialist Advocates in Health and Safety and Environmental Law providing advice and representation to the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, the Office of Rail and Road, the Care Quality Commission, the Office of Nuclear Regulation and Natural Resources Wales. The Equality and Human Rights Commission Panel of Counsel providing advice and representation to the Commission on matters relating to equality, public and human rights law. Leila regularly acts in complex, high-profile public inquiries of national significance representing government departments, public and private organisations, individuals, and acting as Counsel to the Inquiry. Leila is currently acting as Counsel for the UK Government’s Cabinet Office and No.10 Downing Street in the UK Covid19 Public Inquiry and as Counsel to Canada’s Foreign Interference Inquiry. Leila was instructed in the Manchester Arena Inquiry as Counsel to several of the bereaved families of those who died as a result of the bombing at the Manchester Arena in 2017. The Inquiry was established to investigate the circumstances of the deaths of the victims of the 2017 terrorist attack. Leila was appointed by the Secretary of State for Health, as Counsel to the Gosport Independent Panel. This panel was constituted by the Minister to examine and report on historical events which relate to the care, treatment, and deaths of the patients of the Gosport War Memorial Hospital in Portsmouth. Leila was instructed by the UK Information Commissioner on matters relating to UK data protection law arising from the Northern Ireland Renewable Heat Incentive Inquiry (the ‘Cash for ash’ scandal). This Inquiry related to a controversial renewable heat incentive scheme and the actions of politicians, their special advisors, and members of the energy industry. The controversy led to the collapse of Stormont. Leila was instructed as Counsel for an Interested Party in the Hillsborough Inquests which related to the events during and after the well documented Hillsborough football stadium tragedy in April 1989.  This case is one of national importance and significance and is the largest and longest Inquest proceedings ever to be held in the UK. Leila also has extensive experience acting in large complex regulatory cases, including the recent largest ever UK trading standards prosecution in which Leila, along with other members of the prosecution team, received high praise from the trial judge for their management and conduct of this especially complex, voluminous and challenging case. Leila’s international practice encompasses public international law and international human rights. Her work has involved matters concerning ICJ proceedings, the application of universal jurisdiction and atrocity crimes. It also includes acting as the Senior Legal Advisor for an international NGO. Leila also undertakes pro-bono projects with a number of international law and human rights organisations based in the UK, Canada, and USA. In 2023, Leila completed her second Master of Laws with Honours at Columbia Law School in New York City, graduating with Kent Scholar status and having been awarded the Parker School Certificate of Achievement in International and Comparative Law. Leila’s scholarship was focused on Public International Law, Global Governance, and International Human Rights and Leila was selected to undertake a lawyer leadership programme. Alongside her studies, Leila served as an editor for the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, as a Board Member for the Columbia Society of International Law and was also selected to undertake a UN Externship with UN Women: Peace and Security, during which she spent time working at UN Headquarters New York on matters relating to UN Women’s role on the Security Council. Prior to joining Lincoln House Chambers, Leila spent 10 years working in-house as a Local Government Lawyer within the Common Law Department of a Greater Manchester Local Authority. The work Leila undertook in this role was varied, complex, voluminous and covered the whole range of common law and statutory and corporate functions of a local authority, in relation to a wide range of legal issues relevant to all departments and levels of seniority within local government. Leila regularly represented the Council conducting court proceedings on a wide range of civil, criminal and regulatory matters, in all manner of courts and tribunals. Since joining the independent Bar, Leila continues to enjoy instructions from many local authorities on all aspects of local government business. Leila’s experience covers both the enforcement and administrative aspects of Public and Regulatory Law. Leila provides advice and assistance to both prosecution and defence on all aspects and stages of the regulatory enforcement process including enforcement notices, the investigation, the decision to prosecute, PII and disclosure issues. Leila accepts instructions on all types of public and regulatory law matters, her practice is not limited to the above list of areas. In this regard, Leila’s background of experience brings to any case the added advantage of first hand understanding of the wider statutory, public law and corporate issues which affect governance in a public law and regulatory arena. Leila also regularly delivers seminars and provides training to other legal professionals. These training courses are prepared and presented by Leila and have covered a variety of legal areas and issues. In particular, she regularly provides such training to Local Government Officers on all stages of criminal investigations, disclosure and the preparation of a case for prosecution. In this regard, Leila is accredited in Investigation Management. Leila’s practice includes a wide range of public and regulatory law, including: Public Law & Human Rights: Public Inquiries & Inquests Public International Law & International Human Rights Central and Local Government Law Equality and Human Rights Judicial Review Regulatory Law: Health and Safety Licensing Trading Standards Food Safety Environmental Protection Fraud Professional Disciplinary Housing, Planning and Highways (Enforcement)  
Lewis Bocking
Lewis Bocking
Lewis is a driven, conscientious and persuasive advocate. He is instructed to prosecute and defend in cases across the Magistrates’ and Crown Court, and other specialist tribunals, in criminal law and regulatory matters. Lewis employs a meticulous approach to case preparation, leaving no stone unturned, and represents his clients fearlessly. He is adept at handling complex issues of fact, law and procedure, such as bad character, hearsay, disclosure, and POCA issues. Lewis provides a consistent high-level of advocacy, with both his robust oral submissions and cogent written work. For those who instruct him, Lewis provides clear, prompt written advice on prospects of success in appeals, instructing experts, and other trial-related issues. Prior to pupillage, Lewis gained a wealth of experience at a leading national law firm’s Crown Court department. There, he regularly dealt with legally and factually sophisticated issues in matters ranging from firearms, ss.18 & 20 woundings, drugs, frauds, robberies, (aggravated) burglaries and domestic and sexual violence, such as coercive or controlling behaviour allegations. He also assisted senior partners with their caseloads, dealing with allegations of the utmost gravity, including a range of homicides, RASSO matters, large-scale drugs conspiracies and other OCG-based violence. Lewis is regularly instructed to represent vulnerable defendants with serious mental health issues and diagnoses; accordingly, he has a thorough knowledge about the disposal of such cases. Lewis is able confidently to manage voluminous forms of information and evidence, including sequences of events and expert reports. Lewis has built a reputation for his intellectual ability, diligence and tactical acumen, which is deployed to the advantage of those he represents. At the University of Cambridge, Lewis ranked top of his MPhil cohort, receiving a distinction and numerous prizes for his academic performance. For his LL.M, in which he obtained a Distinction, he analysed the practicalities of money laundering regulations. Lewis also holds a first-class law degree. Lewis has a specialist interest in sentencing, and received the Sentencing Academy Thesis Prize (2022) for his original research undertaken at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, which critically assessed the approaches of Crown Court judges to offence-specific sentencing guidelines. During pupillage, under the expert supervision of Simon Gurney, Lewis gained wide-ranging experience across Chambers’ practice areas and invites instructions spanning Chambers’ core specialisms.  
Lisa Roberts KC
Lisa Roberts KC
Lisa Roberts KC has a varied practice which includes a strong focus on crime and health and safety work. She often appears in inquests. Leader of the Northern Circuit 2020-2022 Lisa Roberts KC specialises in regulatory law, inquiries and advisory work for utility companies and large public bodies. She took silk in 2015 and is consistently ranked in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners as a leading silk. Inquiries: Lisa acts on behalf of police officers, large companies and public bodies in inquests and inquiries and has earned a strong reputation for guarding the interests of her clients. Notable Inquiries: Lisa has led large legal teams for the North West Ambulance Service in the Manchester Arena Inquiry (2020-2023); for the Health and Safety Executive in the UK Covid-19 Inquiry (2021-2023); for the former ACC of West Midlands Police in the Hillsborough Inquests. Energy Sector: Lisa has represented most of England’s Water Companies and is regularly instructed to advise them on regulatory compliance, engagement with the regulators and throughout court proceedings when prosecuted by the regulators. She is instructed by Thames Water in the largest ever investigation brought by the Environment Agency and by United Utilities in the largest ever prosecution for over abstraction. As well as regularly representing utility companies who are facing prosecution by the regulators, she also carries out private prosecutions on behalf of the utility companies. Lisa was instructed by United Utilities to represent them throughout a prosecution brought by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which followed the cryptosporidium event of the summer of 2015 (the largest of its kind) and has represented water companies in 4 of the last 6 prosecutions brought by the DWI. Regarded as a first-class, specialist silk in Health and Safety and Environmental Law, Lisa is instructed in some of the country’s leading cases. Lisa is regularly instructed to act on behalf of Federated and senior ranking police officers in criminal matters and Police Misconduct (disciplinary) hearings. Lisa also accepts privately-funded instructions on behalf of individuals facing criminal offences. Recently she has dealt with a number of high-profile footballing legends. Lisa regularly presents seminars and webinars on crime, regulatory and trading standards’ law to defence solicitors, corporate clients and industry regulators. “A very capable, outstanding young silk.” – Legal 500, 2018 Having built a formidable reputation over many years in the criminal courts, Lisa’s primary focus now is on Inquiry work, Regulatory work & Professional Discipline. Regulatory Law • Health and Safety • Environmental • Water Industry • Police Federation – criminal and disciplinary • Trading Standards • Medical Profession – criminal and GMC (defence) Inquests & Inquiries Private client criminal defence Utility Companies 2017 – 2023 Thames Water – Representing the company in largest national Environment Agency (EA) investigation into the water industry Thames Water – Defending company in prosecution regarding sewage discharge near Gatwick Airport United Utilities – Defending company in prosecution for UK’s largest case of over-abstraction United Utilities – Defending company in EA’s investigations into sewage discharges Environment Agency v Thames Water - 2021, Defending sewage treatment works spill. Environment Agency v Thames Water - 2021, Defending CSO breaches Wessex Water – Advising re DWI investigation EA v Thames - Defending DWI v Thames Water – Defending. United Utilities – Private Prosecution EA v United Utilities – Defending – Sewage pollution. EA v United Utilities – Defending – Sewage pollution. DWI v United Utilities – Defending – Cryptosporidium contamination. DWI v United Utilities – Defending – Drinking water contamination (pump and alarm failure). DWI v Northumbrian Water – Defending – Drinking water contamination (Reg 31contamination). Inquiries and Inquests UK Covid-19 Inquiry – Representing the Health and Safety Executive Manchester Arena Inquiry – Representing the Northwest Ambulance Service Hillsborough – Representing former ACC of West Midlands Police Dunkerley Steels – Representing company at Inquest into death of employee. AB – Representing HSE in suicide case where serious allegations made against conduct of HSE, all of which rejected by Coronor. WM – Representing company as one of number of IPs. AM – Representing shop manager at large retail outlet where child died. DJ – Representing G4S employee following death in custody. AB – Representing HSE following death at work and subsequent suicide of owner of company. Acted for Merseyside police officers in death in custody case. HSE v Recresco Ltd – Representing the HSE in fatality at work involving crushing by fork lift truck. HSE v Forgemasters – Representing the HSE in fatality at work involving collapse of steel casting (crushing). Regulatory Wrexham CBC v Bryn Melyn Care Limited – Defending (death of a child in care) West Suffolk Council v Persimmon Homes (Anglia Limited) – Advising defendant Oldham BC v Shop Direct – Defending HSE v Accrol Paper Ltd – Defending - https://www.lancashiretelegraph.15890125.Toilet_ roll_firm_fined_after_worker_lost_part_of_finger_in__avoidable__incident/ Didcot power station collapse – Representing one of those interviewed by police. HSE v Karro Foods Limited – Defending. Oldham Borough Council v Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd – Defending. Cardiff City Council v Persimmon Homes Ltd – Defending. 2016 - 2017 HSE v Sheffield Forgemasters Engineering Limited – Defending – explosion on oxygen pipeline – HSWA, DSEAR. HSE v Spectral Colours Limited – Prosecuting – Machine collapse, crush injuries - PUWER. Asset International – Defending – Power tools HAVS. Dunkerley Steels – Defending – Fataliity. Valmet – Defending – Non-fatal, fall from height Maxi Haulage – Defending – Non-fatal, fall from height. Aspin and others – Defending – Fatality, fall from height. Redrow Homes and WPI – Prosecuting – Fatality, traffic management. Severfield – Prosecuting – Fatality, FLT overturn. Freight First – Prosecuting – Fatality, runaway truck. 2015 NHS and Interserve – Prosecution of two defendants for asphyxiation of disabled child in hospital bed – widespread publicity. Nigel Parker – Defending – Gross negligence manslaughter. Collapse of chimney on building site. Prosecution by CPS of builder. High Court Judge. Leeds. Joseph Harrison – Crushed by hydraulic crane. Instructed directly by HSE and advised for last 12-months. Advising on pre charge stage regarding prosecution for fatality. Recresco 2 – Amputation at glass recycling factory Adrian Barker – Advised throughout and representing HSE at Inquest at which they are being ‘blamed’ by defence for suicide of MD at company where Joseph Harrison died. North Yorkshire County Council – Amputation of child’s finger at school. ACB Hydraulics – Pre-charge advice re S2 offence and resulting death. West Pennine Carpets – Near fatal injuries at carpet warehouse. Pre-2015 HSE v Gary Edwards and Aramex – Prosecution of individual and company. Fall from height. HSE v Galt Engineering and ‘the company director’ – Prosecution of individual and company. Fall down mine shaft. HSE v WPC Ltd – Defending – Serious crush injury at work. Environmental EA v CS and others – Defending – Waste permits at renewable energy company. EA v Grogan – Prosecution – Waste/scrap metal. Natural Resources Wales v Euticals Ltd – Chemical/environmental pollution at top-tier COMAH site. Police Federation Metropolitan PS v Chief Superintendent RA – All allegations of gross misconduct and honesty and integrity dismissed R v LK – Undercover officer, indecent images – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englandmanchester-46864974 R v DCI EB – Defending – Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. DC JC – Gross misconduct hearing – counter terrorism officer https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/counter-terror-detectives-sacked-skiving-11799836 R v Police Constable D.B. – Defending – Misconduct (Crown offered no evidence on all sexual offences). R v Superintendent M.C. – Misconduct hearing (acquitted). R v WPC T.D– Crown Court trial for misconduct (acquitted). .R v Police Constable G.W. – Three Crown Court trials for misconduct and theft (acquitted in all three trials). R v Police Constable S.J. – Crown Court trial for rape (acquitted). R v Police Constable C.L. – Crown Court trial for rape and multiple counts of misconduct (acquitted). R v Police Constable J.B. – Magistrates’ Court trial for assault (acquitted). R v Police Constable P.B. – Gross Misconduct hearing for assault (officer kept his job). R v Police Constable A.K. – Misconduct hearing – Sexual allegations. – Misconduct hearing – Violent allegations. Pre 2015 R v Police Constable R.T. – Crown Court trial – Sexual assault (acquitted). R v Police Constable J.B.M. – Crown Court trial – Theft (acquitted). R v Police Constable A.B. – Crown Court trial – Sexual assaults (acquitted). Private Client Work Ryan Giggs - assault x 2, controlling and coercive behaviour - defending R v Nicky Butt – Assault – successfully defended R v Arron Scholes – Defending, assault. IK – Pre-charge advice re alleged sexual offences RART v BC – Successfully defending civil forfeiture proceedings brought against Yorkshire businessman. RART v JO – Civil forfeiture proceedings against local businessman. R v SJ – Pharmacist accused of sexual offences. R v AB – Restauranteur accused of assault. R v CD – Marketing executive accused of assault. R v KA – Successfully defended taxi driver accused of sexual assault. R v CB – Successfully appealed sentence in Court of Appeal. Trading Standards Prosecution Lisa gives pre-charge advice to local authorities, for example to Cheshire West and Chester Council in Conspiracy to defraud. She presents seminars to local authorities on prosecuting Trading Standards’ cases. Defence Cardiff CC v Persimmon Homes Ltd – Defending, leasehold/freehold. Defending national energy supplier in ongoing investigation. AP – Defending – Pre-charge advice to energy supplier. R v Vance Miller and others – Defending in the largest ever prosecution brought by Trading Standards. After 4 months of evidence and legal arguments all defendants were acquitted. Burton Copeland solicitors instructed Lisa and have instructed her in many other Trading Standards’ cases, some of which feature below. R v MS and others (ongoing) – Defending MD of large kitchen business (said to be associated with Vance Miller) in multi-handed Conspiracy to defraud. R v DT – Successfully defended man facing Conspiracy to defraud and Consumer Protection offences resulting in Crown offering no evidence. R v SS – Successfully defended IT businessman facing Conspiracy to defraud resulting in Crown offering no evidence. R v M Ltd – Successfully defended multi-million pound car dealership – Fraud and Consumer  Protection Regulations – defence costs’ order made (2011) R v JJ – Successfully defended landscape gardener. R v Joan Higgins – Successfully appealed sentence which had attracted nationwide interest – Grandmother ‘tagged for selling goldfish to underage boy’ R v Dean Nixon – Successfully defended all Fraud allegations made against builder. R v John Smith – Successfully defended all Fraud allegations made against roofer. R v DT – Allegations of Fraud and Consumer Protection Regulations – Nationwide replacement window company (ongoing). Fraud R v BC and others – Successfully defended this Yorkshire boxer in a nine-handed drugs and money-laundering conspiracy. One of only two defendants to be acquitted by the jury. R v HR and others – Successfully defended local businessman in multi-million pound fraud and money laundering case which collapsed at beginning of 4 month trial. (VHCC case) Defence costs’ order made. R v TA and others – Defending – Crown offered no evidence against this teacher at beginning of two-month money laundering trial. R v GA and others – Defending – Crown offered no evidence against this lady of good character after hearing submissions of abuse of process. R v SB and another – Defending – Crown offered no evidence at trial against this businesswoman facing allegations of money laundering. R v Chaudhry and others – Prosecuting multi-handed drugs, counterfeit goods, mortgage fraud and money laundering case. Defendants pleaded guilty at outset of trial. (Complex Case Unit). R v Fawad Ahmed and Saliah Ahmed – Successfully prosecuted police officer and bank clerk in two month banking fraud. (Complex Case Unit). R v Davies, Porter and Allison – Junior counsel for the Prosecution in four month multi-million pound fraud. Homicide 2016 R v Bennett – Prosecuting – Murder. R v Child Defendant – Defending – Gross negligence manslaughter. R offered no evidence R v FP and others – Defending – Multi-handed murder. R offered no evidence. Pre-2016 R v JS – Defending – Acquitted of murder and other violent offences. R v Wayne McDonald – Prosecuting – Attempted murder of WPC. R v Wayne McDonald – Prosecuting – Double attempted murder. R v Rahan Arshad – Prosecuting – Quadruple murder of Defendant’s wife and 3 children. Full life term given. R v Fatima Ali – Defending – Woman who concealed birth of her child. (Berry and Berry). R v Connor & others – Defending – Double murder and attempt murder after an arson attack on a house in a Manchester suburb (Tranters). R v Ward & others – Defending – Conspiracy to murder that arose out of a family dispute (Draycott Brown). R v Faqir Mohammed – Prosecuting – First murder conviction in this country for "honour killing". R v Newport Crim.L.R. 518 – Defending – Murder. "Res gestae" conviction appeal. R v Jacques Ainsworth – Prosecuting – Death by dangerous driving. R v Liam Bertenshaw – Prosecuting – Death by careless driving. R v Warren Archer – Prosecuting – Death by dangerous driving. Medical Profession Dr SR – Defending – Health Education England appeal tribunal. Dr SR – Defending – Interim Orders Panel. Dr MP – Defending – IOP. Dr OM – Psychoanalyst. Dr SK – Defending – IOP. CQC v Adesanya – Successfully representing CQC in appeal to First Tier Tribunal. BB and civil aviation medical appeal tribunal. Robbery and Drugs R v Shortman and Others and R v Joy and others – Defending 2 cash in transit armed robberies (Berry and Berry) R v Corkowic and others – Prosecuting – Cash in transit robberies. R v Marley & others – Defending – Fake ecstasy tablets – Sentencing authority. (Stephensons) Sexual Offences R x IB – Defending – Rape – Not guilty. R x WH – Defending – Indecent images. R v SA – Successfully defended two month multi-victim grooming case (Abbeys). R v Patnaik – Prosecution of serial rapist who received 9 life sentences for rape and serious sexual assaults. R v Waring & McGuire – Junior counsel for the prosecution – 2 Police Officers charged with rape. R v Wright – Defending prison officer charged with sexual assaults (Russell Jones and Walker). R v AB – Successfully defended police officer charged with sexual assaults (Russell Jones and Walker). R v Molloy – Defending serial child rapist.  
Louise Kitchin
Louise Kitchin
Having worked for one of Manchester’s leading criminal firms and later successfully running her own business, as a freelance clerk and law costs draftsperson, Louise was called to the Bar in 1998. Louise’s instructing Solicitors include many of Manchester and the surrounding areas’ leading criminal defence firms. She is also a “Category 3” prosecutor undertaking serious prosecution work for a number of CPS teams. Having been at the Bar in Manchester for many years, Louise has been at Lincoln House Chambers since December 2004 where she maintains a very busy crown court and professional disciplinary practise. In 2014 Louise undertook a 6-month secondment to the GMC where she worked advising on, and developing “Guidance on convictions, cautions and determinations” in addition to other areas of policy development. Over the last 3 years, Louise has moved from prosecuting to defending before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service and she now represents Dr’s in GMC matters on a very regular basis. Louise is able to undertake the full range of GMC/MPTS hearings including Interim Order Hearings, High Court Extension Hearings, Fitness to Practise, Review and Restoration Hearings. In addition to representing Dr’s, Louise also has experience before other tribunals including the NMC, HCPC & Social Work England.
Louise Cowen
Louise Cowen
Louise became a tenant at Lincoln House in September 2011. She practices in criminal, regulatory and civil/public law. Prior to joining Lincoln House, Louise read Law at Cambridge University before going on to study for an MPhil and PhD in Criminology at the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University. Her PhD investigated how judges exercise discretion when sentencing mentally disordered individuals, and how psychiatrists and probation officers exercise discretion when preparing pre-sentence reports. She is consequently very familiar with mental health policy, legislation and case law. Louise studied the Bar Vocational Course at Manchester Metropolitan University, and was awarded a Commendation achieving the highest mark in the Criminal Litigation exam. She was also the Richard Isaacson Scholar in 2010. Louise combines her academic interests with her legal practice. She has worked as a Lecturer in Law at the University of Central Lancashire, where she taught criminal and civil litigation, criminal law and the law of evidence to undergraduate and postgraduate students. She is currently a supervisor in Law at Cambridge University, where she teaches criminal evidence and procedure to undergraduate students. She is a contributing editor to the Archbold Magistrates Courts Criminal Practice publication, and she is sentencing editor of the Archbold Review journal. Criminal Law Louise is an experienced criminal advocate. She has conducted jury trials on behalf of both the prosecution and defence in relation to the full range of offences. She is a category 3 prosecutor and has acted as prosecution and defence junior in serious and complex cases. She has advised on and conducted hearings in relation to POCA and other ancillary orders. In 2020-2021 Louise undertook an 8-month secondment with the North West RASSO Unit, during which she acted as reviewing lawyer in cases involving serious sexual offences. During this secondment Louise received specialist training regarding the prosecution of sexual offences Recent cases R v KS (June 2021) Defence counsel in case involving controlling and coercive behaviour. R v T and ors (January 2020). Prosecution junior in a multi-handed case involving allegations of conspiracy to steal/burgle. R v R and ors (October 2019). Prosecution junior in multi-handed case involving allegations of attempted murder, infliction of GBH and violent disorder. R v S and ors (June 2019). Defence junior in multi-handed case involving conspiracy to steal/ burgle. R v R (February 2019). Prosecution counsel in case involving allegations of fraud and perjury. Civil/Public law Louise has been instructed in matters of national importance throughout her career. Since 2019, Louise has been instructed as junior counsel to the Manchester Arena Inquiry. In 2017, she was instructed as junior counsel to the Gosport Independent Panel. Louise was also instructed as junior counsel on behalf of the claimants in the Kenya Emergency Group Litigation, which related to the actions of the British Colonial Administration during the State of Emergency declared in Kenya in 1952. Regulatory Law Louise has advised on and conducted hearings on behalf of local authorities in relation to taxi licensing, housing and anti-social behaviour. Louise is regularly instructed by the General Medical Council (GMC) to conduct Interim Order Hearings.
Marianne Alton
Marianne Alton
Call To The Bar: 2014 Marianne is a diligent and persuasive advocate who prides herself on meticulous case preparation and client care. She enjoys a reputation for hard work and sound judgement. As well as undertaking work typical of her call, she has acted as junior counsel in a series of significant pieces of criminal litigation including cases rooted in organised crime. Alongside maintaining a busy practice in England, Marianne is a trustee of a legal charity Evolve – FILA that provides pro bono assistance in Uganda to improve access to justice, build capacity within the legal profession and promote fairness, integrity and efficiency within the Ugandan criminal justice system. In November 2018, Marianne was selected as Young Pro Bono Barrister of the Year at the Bar Council’s Annual and Young Bar Conference in recognition of her pro bono work in Uganda. “Marianne is an exceptional and fearless advocate. She is incredibly thorough in her preparation and is able to assimilate large volumes of evidence, and she presents concisely and persuasively.” - Legal 500, 2025 CRIMINAL AND REGULATORY WORK: Marianne is regularly instructed in a wide range of criminal defence and prosecution work, including offences of serious violence, dishonesty, drugs, sexual offences, public disorder, regulatory offences and confiscation proceedings. Marianne prepares and presents legal applications and arguments, such as dismissal, abuse of process, disclosure, applications to exclude evidence and submissions of no case to answer. In addition to rapidly developing a successful defence practice, Marianne is regularly instructed to prosecute both in private prosecutions and on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service. Marianne has been appointed to the CPS General Crime Panel at Level 3, the CPS Serious Crime Panel at Level 3, the CPS Fraud panel at Level 3 and the CPS Counter Terrorism Panel at Level 3. She has also been appointed to the Serious Fraud Office ('SFO') Panel C List. ​Examples of recent cases are set out below. Examples of Marianne’s criminal work include:  Led - R v MO & others (Op Tradite North 2) – importation of class A drugs (ongoing). Led prosecution junior in a case involving 25 defendants, three trials (each with an estimate of around five months), over 100,000 pages of served evidence and a potential street valuation of £2 - £7 billion. Instructed by the International Justice and Organised Crime Division (IJOCD) of the CPS R v TAD & others (Op Gradative 2) – modern-slavery and conspiracy to supply and produce cannabis. Led prosecution junior in a case involving allegations of enslavement in the domestic context and later in the context of cannabis farms. Instructed by the IJOCD. R v JHS & others (Op Poppy) – conspiracy to murder. Ride-by shooting outside of a nightclub in the North East of England. The investigation was rooted in organised crime and involved a complex and heavy disclosure burden. Marianne was instructed as disclosure counsel for a year and a half and throughout the 11-week trial at the Central Criminal Court. Instructed by the IJOCD. R v PC & others (Op Gaines) – murder. Instructed as junior prosecution counsel. The deceased suffered a catastrophic brain injury after being struck to the head with a metal bar. Instructed by Manchester CPS. R v ZA and another (Op Clumber) – murder. Instructed as junior prosecution counsel. The deceased was stabbed to death with a large hunting type knife. Instructed by Manchester CPS. R v JW – attempted murder. Instructed as junior defence counsel. Stabbing in which the victim was left in a coma from which he never recovered. R v AC & others (Op Lithium) – disclosure counsel in a multi-million-pound MTIC VAT fraud. Instructed by the CPS Complex Case Unit. Junior Alone - R v GW – instructed for the prosecution. The defendant was prosecuted for possession of a shotgun and a sniper rifle. Instructed by the IJOCD. R v JB – section 18 assault, defending. The injuries were three incised wounds as a result of an alleged ‘glassing’, with one of the shards of glass having penetrated through the chin and into the base of the tongue. Defendant acquitted of section 18 assault following trial. R v MM – section 18 assault and robbery, defending. The Prosecution case was that the defendant had beaten the complainant around the face with a cricket bat and threatened him with a knife. Marianne drew attention to caselaw that indicated that the facts of the case could not found a robbery allegation. On the day of trial, the Prosecution accepted a guilty plea to section 20 assault only. R v MM – violent disorder, defending. Offence said to have taken place during the ‘Million Mask March’ in London. Successful application to exclude the statement of a police officer purporting to identify the defendant. Defendant acquitted following trial. R v BM – possession of class A drugs (cocaine) with intent to supply, defending. Acquitted following trial. R v KM – robbery (at knife point), defending. Trial centred on recognition evidence given by two witnesses and a police officer. Police officer cross-examined in relation to numerous breaches of the PACE codes. Defendant acquitted following trial. RSPCA v JK – fraud in context of alleged puppy farming, defending. Secured a stay of proceedings following submissions on abuse of process. R v DM – burglary, defending. The defendant (who was 19) was charged with a dwelling house burglary and theft of a motor vehicle. He had three previous convictions for dwelling house burglaries accumulated as a youth. Marianne drafted written submissions in relation to the sufficiency of the evidence. Following receipt of those submissions, the Crown dropped the burglary and theft charges and accepted a plea to aggravated vehicle taking. The defendant received a suspended sentence. R v PW – ABH, defending. Defendant contended that the injuries sustained by the complainant were self-inflicted. Acquitted following trial at Preston Crown Court. R v GM – ABH, defending. Successful half time submission on the basis of fundamental weaknesses and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. Examples of Marianne’s regulatory work include: R v JK – led junior for the defence in a Trading Standards prosecution concerning the sale of £1.5 million worth of counterfeit goods. Defendant received a suspended sentence. R v RU – defence of a man in a Trading Standards prosecution concerning the sale of counterfeit wheel caps. The Prosecution calculated the loss to trademark holders to be £84,570. Defendant pleaded guilty and Marianne persuaded the Court to impose a Community Order. The Prosecution had served a 42-page authorities bundle supporting the contention that the starting point should be custody. Examples of Marianne’s proceeds of crime work include: R v PC – confiscation proceedings, defending. Case resolved on the basis that the recoverable amount was nil and the benefit figure was a third of the figure originally advanced by the Crown. R v CF – confiscation proceedings, defending. Prosecution alleged hidden assets. Case resolved on the basis that the recoverable amount was a sixth of the figure originally put forward by the Crown. R v YC – complex forfeiture appeal. A settlement was reached resulting in the return of a significant portion of the seized monies to the appellant. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DEATH PENALTY WORK: Marianne has a keen interest in cases involving an international element and volunteers with the charity Evolve FILA, which currently provides pro bono criminal justice development consultancy advice in Uganda. Through the charity, Marianne has worked on numerous capital cases heard before the High Court and appellate courts of Uganda, almost all of which have resulted in the death sentence being set aside. Examples include: RI v Uganda – drafted submissions under supervision. Novel application in which the Supreme Court of Uganda was persuaded that their own decision to uphold a death sentence was a nullity as they had failed to apply their own caselaw. The application was allowed, the death sentence was quashed and a determinate sentence was ultimately imposed. BM v Uganda – drafted submissions in a capital case before the Kampala High Court. Defendant suffered from mental health problems and had served around 20 years in prison following his conviction for murder. Submissions addressed international and Ugandan caselaw on the test for the death penalty and the approach to be taken to cases involving individuals with mental disorders at the time of the offence and/or sentence. The death sentence was not maintained and a determinate sentence was imposed. KD v Uganda – assisted drafting written submissions in an appeal against conviction (murder) and sentence (death). The Court of Appeal of Uganda allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and released the appellant. ROAD TRAFFIC:  Marianne provides advice and representation in all areas of road traffic law. Examples of her recent cases include: R v TA – failure to provide a specimen of blood for analysis, defending. Acquitted. R v IB – careless driving, defending. Acquitted. R v MH – careless driving, defending. Drafted submissions on the definition of a ‘road’. Prosecution discontinued on day of trial. R v DB – careless driving, failing to stop, failing to report – defending. Acquitted. R v SM – careless driving – defending. Acquitted. R v WB – driving whilst using a mobile phone. Successful appeal to the crown court. R v ST – failing to provide driver information. Successful appeal to the crown court. R v JR – successful exceptional hardship argument. R v CM – successful special reasons argument. R v SL –suspended sentence following guilty pleas to dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified and using a car without insurance. R v GB – suspended sentence following guilty pleas to three counts of dangerous driving. PRISON LAW:  Marianne represents prisoners at Parole Board hearings including cases relating to post tariff lifer and IPP reviews. Many of her cases have involved contested expert psychological evidence. Recent cases include: The Parole Board v AJ – successful application for release at an oral hearing for a post-tariff IPP sentenced prisoner. OTHER EXPERIENCE AND PRO BONO WORK: After graduating from the University of Oxford with a degree in Philosophy and Theology, Marianne completed the Graduate Diploma in Law and the Bar Professional Training Course through the University of Law and was awarded a first class LLB. During her studies, Marianne received a number of scholarships and awards including an Exhibition from Pembroke College, Oxford and the Hardwicke Entrance Award, Lord Denning major scholarship and the Sunley scholarship from Lincoln’s Inn. Gaining experience prior to the Bar, Marianne has been involved in a number of projects that have developed her skills with a wide range of people from different backgrounds, including vulnerable people. This included spending a full-time, fully funded gap year working in a homeless centre in Salford. Marianne also volunteered for a number of charities and pro bono organisations, including the Free Representation Unit. For example, prior to commencing pupillage she acted pro bono in an employment case, resulting in an award of over £24,000 in favour of her client. Although she has now chosen to focus her practice on criminal and regulatory work, Marianne previously enjoyed a mixed practice and has a wide range of experience including in immigration and civil law. She has acted successfully before the First-tier and Upper tribunal – including in relation to cases turning on human rights arguments. In her civil work, Marianne undertook work for both claimants and defendants and acted successfully in small claim and fast track trials. In 2014, Marianne was awarded a Kalisher Trust scholarship which enabled her to spend six months working on a capital mitigation project in Uganda. The project assisted those convicted of capital crimes at the sentencing stage as well as on appeal. All of the cases with which she dealt were extremely serious in nature, being either murder or aggravated robbery cases. Marianne continues to be involved with the project on a pro bono basis and is a trustee of a legal charity – Evolve FILA – whose volunteer barristers have assisted hundreds of prisoners on death row in Uganda. Marianne regularly assists on capital cases heard before the High Court and appellate courts of Uganda through Evolve and is developing its access to justice project. In January 2018, Marianne was amongst a group of barristers and judges who presented at the Annual Judges’ Conference in Uganda on inconsistencies and disparities in sentencing practice and policy. As a result of the conference, a number of important reforms to sentencing practice are being implemented by the Ugandan judiciary, including revising their Sentencing Guidelines. In November 2018 Marianne was awarded Young Pro Bono Barrister of the Year at the Bar Council’s Annual and Young Bar Conference in recognition of her pro bono work in Uganda.
Mark Ford KC
Mark Ford KC
“Mark is one of the very best criminal defence advocates in the north. He is excellent with the client, he fights their corner vigorously and fairly, and he is very user-friendly for solicitors” - Legal 500, 2025 "Mark is a first-rate advocate, incredibly rigorous when it comes to preparation in paper-heavy cases, and a team player. He is excellent with clients, especially with vulnerable and young clients charged with serious and grave offences." - Crime (General and Fraud) - Legal 500, 2024 "Mark is one of a kind - his attention to detail is second to none and he can be relied upon to find out the material within a case which will challenge the prosecution case. He is very thorough in his case preparation and will leave no stone unturned in trying to find any areas of weakness for the Crown. He is a pleasure to work with, considerate and always open to discussions and welcoming the instructing solicitor's opinion on matters, never making decisions without asking for input first." - Legal 500, 2023 "Absolutely top-drawer silk for serious criminal cases." - The Legal 500, 2022 "One of the few advocates who can literally turn a hopeless case into a winner purely by court room performance." - The Legal 500, 2021 "A very determined barrister."- The Legal 500, 2018 Mark has for many years Mark undertaken criminal work at the highest level. Many of the cases in which Mark has appeared for both the prosecution and the defence have been of national significance. Two have been made into documentaries shown on national television. He has extensive experience in successfully representing clients charged with the most serious offences, including murder and manslaughter (including gang-related homicide, corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter), conspiracy to commit armed robbery, high level drug importation and distribution, serious sexual offences, multi-million pound frauds, money laundering, political corruption and regulatory offences (health & safety, trade descriptions & environmental). Mark has a strong privately funded practice, representing clients facing a variety of criminal offences, and has an exceptional acquittal rate. A client Mark successfully defended recently told the BBC "This man can do no wrong". Mark has been ranked by legal directories as a Leading Silk and a tier 1 Silk. Mark sits as a Recorder of the Crown Court and is authorised to try serious sexual offences. NOTABLE TRIALS Fraud & Money Laundering Mark has appeared in many high profile fraud cases, including as a leading junior. Notable cases include the following: R v N – Client charged with money laundering on behalf of an OCG alleged to be engaged in a major conspiracy to supply class A drugs from Liverpool to Scotland. Acquitted on the direction of the judge following legal submission after 6-weeks of evidence. The trial is continuing against the other defendants. R v N and others [leading junior] (Manchester Crown Court) – An SFO prosecution concerning a conspiracy to defraud a government agency of more than £100 million. R v L and others (Manchester Crown Court) – An SFO prosecution involving a conspiracy to defraud a banking syndicate of funds in excess of £220 million. Highly complex trial lasting more than 6 months. R v R and others [leading junior] (Manchester Crown Court) – A conspiracy to launder more than £120 million through money transfer facilities. R v J (Preston Crown Court) – Multi- million pound fraud against Rochdale Metropolitan Council. R v O and others (Central Criminal Court, London) – Fraud and money laundering involving inside knowledge of client’s insurance details and sophisticated creation and operation of false companies and identities. Presentation of case commended by trial judge. R v B and others (Sheffield Crown Court) – Fraud involving political corruption. R v C (Nottingham Crown Court) – Multi-million pound long firm fraud. R v A and another (Manchester Crown Court) – International banking fraud. Professional Clients Instructions are received regularly to represent fellow professionals, often, though not exclusively, in connection with white collar crime: R v C (Southwark Crown Court) – Solicitor charged with mortgage fraud. R v T and others (Burnley Crown Court) – Solicitor charged with mortgage fraud and breach of money laundering regulations. R v W (Manchester Crown Court) – Senior magistrate charged with fraud arising from expense claims against government agency. R v B (Manchester Crown Court) – Senior bank manager charged with theft of assets from high worth clients in breach of trust. Custstodial sentences. Murder and Manslaughter Mark has appeared in many cases of alleged homicide, as a led junior, junior acting alone, and as a leading junior. The following cases are representative of his practice rather than comprehensive: R v A and others: Conspiracy to murder. Successfully defended one of 3 defendants alleged to have travelled to an address in order to shoot members of a rival OCG, killing one and wounding a second. Case involved detailed analysis of complex timelines and CCTV evidence. R v C and others: Conspiracy to murder. Successfully defended client alleged to have arranged the killing of a person said to have owed money to his OCG. Remaining members of the group convicted. R v D and others: Successfully prosecuted to conviction a defendant alleged to have murdered a rival who was taken from his home address and shot twice. Case involved complex ballistics expert evidence. R v B: Client admitted murder of man lured to canal path and stabbed to death. Successfully defended on remaining charges of robbery. R v P, O, B & W: Defendants successfully prosecuted to conviction of manslaughter and robbery after victim attacked by group of defendants in order to steal his watch. R v W & N: Prosecuted 2 juveniles accused of stabbing 14 year old boy to death. Complex presentation of inter-connected CCTV and social media messaging. Convictions for murder and manslaughter resulted. R v B: Murder. Represented client already convicted of 4 counts of murder arising from the petrol bombing of a house Organised Crime R v B and others: Successfully defended client charged with conspiracies to supply firearms with intent to endanger life and to supply drugs of class A. Weapons recovered in the investigation included an Uzi sub-machine gun and a firearm used in an attempted murder. R v K and others: Client charged with laundering the proceeds of a national conspiracy to supply drugs. Client the only member of the alleged conspiracy to be acquitted. R v R and others: Legally and technically complex case concerning multiple conspiracies to import, export and supply drugs of high worth using the ‘dark web’. First case of type prosecuted in UK, and involving more than 1 million pp evidence mostly obtained by FBI. Highly technical expert evidence relating to computer data. Sexual Offences Mark has appeared in many cases of rape and serious sexual abuse. Of the 15 cases cited by The Times in their investigation into the grooming and abuse of vulnerable children, Mark prosecuted or defended in 7 of them. The following cases are provided as representative examples of his practice: R v W: Represented a teacher alleged to have entered into a sexual relationship with a pupil. Case attracted intense national media attention. Through deployment of expert evidence and detailed forensic analysis of social media data, demonstrated that sexualised messages alleged to have been sent by the client were likely to have been manipulated. Client acquitted. R v M: Client charged with historic sexual offences committed against players in academy at Crewe Alexandra FC when acting as a coach. Client acquitted. R v S: Professional client charged with sexually assaulting 5 year old. Complex DNA evidence successfully challenged. Client acquitted. R v C: Successfully defended pilot alleged to have engaged in serial rape and sexual assault of partner. R v M: Successfully defended client said to have held wife prisoner and raped her following an arranged marriage Football Association Disciplinary Football Association -v- Dario Gradi MBE - Instructed to represent Dario Gradi MBE following a decision by the Football Association to issue an Interim Suspension from all football related activity. The FA referred the case to the Safeguarding Review Panel [SFR]. At the time of the application to the SFR, DG was Director of Football at Crewe Alexandra FC, having relinquished full managerial duties in 2011. This was a high profile case. The referral immediately generated national media coverage. He had a long and distinguished career, and was awarded an MBE for services to football. Character references were provided from, amongst others, former England internationals. The case involved a thorough examination and application of the regulatory framework under which the proceedings were brought and the drafting of extensive written submissions. The following is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the issues considered, but included: Addressing the powers of the SFR; The right to legal representation in person, opposed by the FA but granted by the SFR; The relevance of historic civil proceedings brought against Crewe Alexandra; The safeguarding of children regulations; The applicability of local authority interventions; Risk assessments conducted by the FA and LA welfare officers; Expert evidence; The review conducted by Clive Sheldon QC and Operation 'Hydrant'; The police investigation into Mr Gradi's activities; The investigation conducted into the criminal activities of Barry Bennell; Forensic of the FA's Safeguarding Risk Assessment Report (described by the Chairman of the SFR, Christopher Quinlan QC as "a careful...coruscating analysis [supplemented by] helpful oral submissions"; The SFR concluded that Mr Gradi did not, despite the submissions of the FA, pose, or may not pose, a risk of sexual harm to children. Motoring Offences Mark receives regular instructions to represent clients charged with causing Death by Dangerous Driving and by Careless Driving. He is preferred counsel for DWF Solicitors and appears throughout the country on behalf of private clients and in insurance funded cases. Regulatory Mark is on the approved list for the presentation of cases on behalf of the General Medical Council. He has also appeared for defendants and companies in connection with breaches of regulations relating to Trading Standards, Housing, Fire Safety and the provision of Financial Services.  
Mark Friend
Mark Friend
OVERVIEW Mark has rapidly developed an extremely busy Crown Court practice, covering all aspects of criminal law. Although he is often sought as prosecuting counsel by the CPS his practice is predominantly based in defending a wide range of cases. He joined Lincoln House in 2011. Mark has extensive experience of cases spanning the entire spectrum of criminal law. He has been instructed in a variety of serious and complex cases that have received considerable media attention including prosecutions by the Serious Fraud Office, HM Revenue and Customs, Trading Standards, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Federation Against Copyright Theft (F.A.C.T.). Mark also undertakes regulatory cases and is often instructed to act on behalf of the General MedIcal Council. Mark has also acted as junior counsel in a number of cases including those involving allegations of serious sexual misconduct, large scale drug conspiracies, substantial frauds and money laundering. He has experience of video and TV link cases involving young and vulnerable witnesses and is regarded as a meticulous preparer of the cases in which he is instructed. Mark has a keen interest in road traffic law and has developed an enviable reputation for successfully defending motorists across the country in privately funded cases. Mark adopts a pro-active and determined approach to his cases, placing a premium upon thorough preparation and dedicated client care. Clients, both professional and lay, regard him as approachable and very committed. Mark is a member of the Sports Law Direct team which provides representation at disciplinary hearings and regulatory matters. He also offers awareness seminars for sporting figures on staying within the law both in and outside the sporting area – conduct, public order, alcohol, driving, sexual behaviour and privacy. "I’d just like to comment on how amazing Mark Friend was yesterday at Chester Crown Court. He managed to achieve a suspended sentence order for my client in a case which would have usually resulted in an automatic prison sentence. He really turned the tide with the Judge. In his mitigation he was so articulate but extremely emotive whilst managing to convey every aspect of the difficult circumstances and supporting evidence to warrant the Judge departing from his guidelines. "His family and I are so grateful to Mark." - Instructing Solicitor "Can I just and express my gratitude to Mr Friend, what an absolute fantastic job he did representing me, I really couldn’t of asked for a better barrister" - Feedback to instructing solicitor following acquittal in rape trial Fraud R v Mohammed & Others [Bolton Crown Court] – Large scale copyright and trademark infringement case. Prosecuted privately by the Federation Against Copyright Theft R v Nicholson & Others [Manchester Crown Court] – Junior counsel for lead defendant in large scale fraud involving allegation of complex deception by a number of legitimate and illegitimate companies. Prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office. R v Murcott [Carlisle Crown Court] – Extensive cheque fraud case. R v Chen & Others [Preston Crown Court] – Junior counsel in extensive fraud and money laundering case in which defendant was “exposed” on the BBC rogue Traders programme. R v Manir & Others [Bradford Crown Court] – Acted for lead defendant in fraud case involving large deception committed upon Abbey National. R v Schaffer & Others [Stoke Crown Court] – Extensive trading standards prosecution in relation to a complex conspiracy to defraud. R v Gleave [Bolton Crown Court] – Complex case involving a lengthy investigation into the largest ever theft from British Telecom. R v Niem Mohammed [Wolverhampton Crown Court] – Represented faith healer prosecuted for multiple offences of deception, fraud and blackmail. A case raising complex cultural issues. Crime R v M & Others [Manchester Crown Court] – Firearms case involving allegations of “gang-land” attempted murder. Included witness anonymity orders under new Criminal Evidence (witness Anonymity) Act 2008. R v Spelman & Others [Minshull Street Crown Court] – Case involving allegations of double death by dangerous driving receiving widespread media attention. R v Beaumont [Manchester Crown Court] – Drug importation case related to conspiracy to traffic drugs into Manchester Airport. R v Khan & Others – Operation Mandal [Bolton Crown Court] – Extensive allegations of a significant Class A drugs conspiracy in the Rochdale area of Greater Manchester. R v Reeves & Others – Operation Beath – [Liverpool Crown Court] – Instructed to represent defendant charged as a key player in an international conspiracy to import Class A drugs with a potential street value in excess of £100 million. R v Miller [Bolton Crown Court] – Instructed to defend a man of good character charged with causing death by careless driving following alleged momentary inattention at the wheel. R v Okoh & Others [Minshull Street Crown Court] – Complex case involving allegations of conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration through the arrangement of “sham” marriages in Manchester. R v Muirhead & Others– Operation Perryville [Bolton Crown Court] – In excess of 25 defendants charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs after lengthy police undercover operation. R v Young & Young [Carlisle Crown Court] – Allegation of murder; substantial police investigation involving complex telephone evidence. R v S [Birmingham Crown Court] – Vast case involving allegations of conspiracy to supply cannabis. Instructed to represent the lead defendant in the largest investigation into the industrial production of cannabis ever mounted by West Midlands Police. R v Wilding [Preston Crown Court] – Junior counsel for one of three defendants charged with a complex conspiracy to murder. R v H [Manchester Crown Court] – Instructed to represent a defendant charged with perverting the course of justice directly related to an offence of manslaughter. R v S [Manchester Crown Court] – Represented a defendant charged with allegations of historical sexual abuse. R v W [Bolton Crown Court] – Represented young defendant charged with familial sexual abuse. Complainant had unusual mental health issues that necessitated the consideration of difficult expert evidence. R v Green [Bolton Crown Court] – Substantial case involving a conspiracy to supply massive quantities of class A drugs across the UK with huge volumes of evidence obtained from throughout Europe. R v Richards [Manchester Crown Court] – Instructed to represent one of four defendants charged with undertaking a “spree” of violent armed robberies across Manchester using firearms. R v P [Minshull Street Crown Court] – Represented young defendant charged with rape. Sensitive case involving difficult issues of fact and law.
Martin Hackett
Martin Hackett
'Martin is an outstanding criminal lawyer. He is able to draw on a remarkable combination of experience at the English Bar and as a prosecutor before international courts, he is extremely incisive and penetrating in legal and factual analysis, and his advice is unfailingly practical.' - Crime (General and Fraud) - Legal 500, 2024 OVERVIEW Martin Hackett is an experienced Criminal Law Barrister who specialises in the most serious and complex cases. He is currently working for the European Union Rule of Law Mission in the Special Prosecution Office for the Republic of Kosovo as an International Prosecutor and Head of the War Crimes Unit. Seconded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in November 2013, Martin is practising as a Continental Civil Law Prosecutor with overall responsibility for more than 800 war crimes cases. His duties range from dialogue with the Serbian authorities for the development of joint investigations and disclosure in war crimes cases, to appearing as a Prosecution Advocate before international Judges in War Crimes trials. Martin has also advised the FCO, the Kosovo Government and the International Commission for Missing Persons regarding war crimes, corruption and organised crime. In addition to his international work, Martin has spent well over 20 years practicing in serious crime on the Northern Circuit, he has considerable experience in handling the most complicated and sensitive sexual cases, complex fraud allegations, large scale drug conspiracies and cases involving murder, manslaughter and serious violence. Martin is often instructed in cases where defendants or witnesses suffer from severe mental health problems. Martin is a CAT 4 Prosecutor. Prosecutor and Head of the War Crimes Unit EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) Martin has responsibility for developments in joint investigations in War Crimes, to appearing as Prosecution Advocate in Court before International Judges. As Unit Head he is responsible for over 800 war crime matters including old UNMIK cases, allocating these to other prosecutors, liaising closely with the Police War Crimes Investigation Unit regarding the priority and running a very active high profile team of Prosecutors and Legal Officers. Martin manages the Unit’s caseload and strategy and is accountable to the Head of Mission. His additional duties include interviewing witnesses, directing the whole investigation process, drafting documents and indictments for the court based upon International Humanitarian law concerning cases of war crimes. Martin provides representation to the Chief Prosecutor for the Republic of Kosovo about politically sensitive cases. He liaises with Serbian Prosecutors and Ministers to establish a protocol concerning international legal co-operation and disclosure of evidence plus he liaises over the repatriation of the bodies of victims. When required Martin takes over as Acting Head of the Special Prosecution Office. A main part of his role is to research, organise and manage evidence, conduct legal research and advice on specific cases, including substantive and procedural aspects of Kosovo’s domestic criminal law and international criminal and human rights law within the framework of the ICTY. He works to strengthen the domestic capacity of Kosovan Prosecutors, in this transitional phase of the mission, to ensure a lasting legacy regarding war crimes prosecutions. Other War Crimes roles Martin covers include: • Trial advocacy : opening and closing speeches, examination-in-chief and cross examination of witnesses, make submissions on motions when required during the trial process. • Liaise with NGO’s especially in the area of sexual violence during conflict • Supervise exhumation sites liaising with both the police and forensic teams. • Meeting and advising Kosovan government think tank upon corruption. • Meeting and advising UK Officials upon corruption and war crimes. • Advising the International Commission for Missing Persons about Kosovan criminal procedure and how it currently impacts upon ongoing missing persons cases. • Advising on The Mission Implementation Plan. • Advising on possible changes in Kosovo law to assist the transition process to full local Kosovo control over all war crimes matter. • Attendance at the International War Crimes Conference regarding Balkan co-operation. • Drafting Memorandum of Understanding between Kosovo and Serbia about the exchange of information in war crimes cases. Martin prosecuted two of the Mission’s most high profile cases: • The Drenica Group trial. It involves the prosecution of high ranking KLA members for war crimes committed in 1998. The allegations involve murder and torture. Martin is lead prosecutor in this ten defendant trial which has been running since May 2014. • The Rezella/Raska case. This involves large scale cross border investigation and dialogue with Serbia and relates to a massacre during the war where the bodies of the many victims have been concealed in Serbia. UK Criminal Law Work Work in the UK includes Defence & Prosecution roles in the most complicated and sensitive sexual cases, complex fraud allegations, large scale drug conspiracies and cases involving murder, manslaughter and serious violence. Martin is often instructed in cases where defendants or witnesses suffer from severe mental health problems or significant learning difficulties. In sexual offences a significant amount of the cases in which Martin is involved have been sensitive and traumatic and often involved allegations of serious child sexual abuse. Often the allegations were of a historic nature dating back many years. Examples of Defence cases include: R v JP - Defended a young man charged with murder as part of a joint attack in Bacup Lancashire were a young woman lost her life. A very high profile case nationally with extensive coverage in press. R v KS - Defended in an attempted murder involving revenge and prolonged torture of the victim. R v LN - Defended in a serious grievous bodily harm case where the defendant tortured the victim. R v KR - Defended a grandfather who was charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual offences. Successfully argued that inadmissibility of evidence obtained from the young victim had not be gained as a result of proper adherence by the police to the achieving best evidence standards. R v OT - Defended the principle Defendant in a paedophile ring involving the systematic abuse of a large number of vulnerable young children in Bolton. R v PQ - Defendant was suffering from a mental disorder was charged with historic sexual abuse younger family members. Argued abuse of process before the Circuit's presiding High Court Judge after cross examination of prosecution's consultant psychiatrist. R v PM - Defended case involving multiple counts of rape and child abuse alleged committed by Uncle upon young members of family. R v AM - Defended in a high profile sexual grooming and kidnapping case in Blackburn involving a number of defendants targeting young and vulnerable girls. R v TM - Defended multiple counts of tax fraud involving hidden assets and multiple identities. R v BF - Defended in drugs conspiracy involving the supply of heroin across east Lancashire and beyond. It involved complex telephone and police surveillance evidence. R v NM - Defended father who had been charged with multiple counts of rape over a number of years. It has associated perverting the course of justice charges based upon complex telephone evidence and also possession of a firearm. R v CD - Defended in an organised crime linked conspiracy to rob relating to a jewellery heist in Manchester and east Lancashire. R v ML - Defended in a complex online sexual grooming case where offender assumed a number of disguises to hide his identity. Examples of Prosecution cases include: R v X - Defendant, who had sexually abused and raped his daughter over a six year period leaving her with significant mental health difficulties. R v X - Defendant broke into an elderly woman’s home who had schizophrenia and subjected her to a horrific sexual attack involving rape, imprisonment and torture. R v X - Defendant who subjected his niece to years of serious sexual abuse within the family environment. R v X - Defendant who subjected his sister to beating and imprisonment in an ‘honour type’ case committed within the context of the Asian community. R v X - Defendant who was charged with gross negligence manslaughter where his girlfriend’s young child consumed ecstasy tablets which belonged to the Defendant and as a result she died. R v X - Defendant who had raped both of his step children over a five year period. One of the girls had significant learning difficulties and had to give evidence in court via an intermediary. R v X - Defendant who had raped three of his daughters over many years. One daughter was the mother of three of the Defendant’s children whilst she was still under 16 years of age. R v X - Defendant with serious mental health problems who was almost unfit to stand trial and had been in a secure mental institution for many years, was charged with sexually abusing the young children in his extended family. R v X - The mother of an 18 month old child was charged with manslaughter and child neglect over the child’s death. R v X - A fifteen year old Defendant charged with murder of a young woman in a vicious and unprovoked attack by him and a gang of his associates. R v X - An attempted murder case, where the Defendant, over a number of hours, tortured and tried to kill the victim with a knife, in the victim’s own
Matthew Howarth
Matthew Howarth
Matthew Howarth is a distinguished barrister with a diverse and impressive legal career spanning multiple areas of practice. His journey in law began in 2014 at Baker & McKenzie, one of the world's largest law firms, where he gained valuable experience in Banking and Finance litigation. During his early practice Matthew defended a large FTSE 100 Company as part of the LIBOR Scandal. He has extensive experience in Fraud and Financial Crime as a result, with a vast experience in dealing with complex issues arising from Legal Professional Privilege. Joining Chambers in 2016, Matthew has sought to develop a practice that encompasses Public Law and Regulatory. He also has a strong criminal fraud and POCA practice.  Matthew’s versatility is evident in his ability to represent clients across various courts and tribunals, from the Magistrates Court to the Court of Appeal. Matthew's expertise is widely recognized, as evidenced by his numerous panel appointments and his role on the Northern Circuit Executive Committee. Matthew has gained numerous prestigious appointments that make him stand out amongst his peers at the Bar. He has a strong practice on behalf of HMRC, the Government Legal Department and the Serious Fraud Office. Recently he was instructed as a junior counsel in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, and assisted in a Judicial Review for the Victim’s Rights Group ‘Hacked Off’ following the Phone Hacking Scandal. He has vast experience of dealing with complex Judicial Reviews applications and POCA matters, Regulatory offences and mainly Fraud (including VAT and MTIC). He sits on the Attorney General’s specialist Panel of Counsel, the Serious Fraud Office Panel, Regulatory Panel and is a specialist CPS POCA Prosecutor. He has extensive experience defending in these areas also. He is currently defending a multi-handed transfer of firearms and Class A PWITS matter in Nottingham. Recently Matthew has been appointed to the National Safeguarding Panel to offer legal advice on behalf of Sports Resolution In 2020 Matthew was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland. Matthew Howarth's career trajectory showcases a barrister of exceptional caliber, adept at navigating complex legal landscapes and providing top-tier representation across a broad spectrum of legal disciplines. Financial Crime, Fraud & POCA Matthew has extensive experience in POCA and Fraud matters. In 2021, Matthew was one of five barristers out of London to be appointed to the Serious Fraud Office Panel C of Prosecution. He is currently instructed in an on-going large scale investigation into Fraud on behalf of the SFO. Coupled with his experience from the Financial Litigation Team at Baker & McKenzie, he is routinely instructed to handle large scale complex financial litigation dealing with disclosure, legal professional privilege and advising on litigation. Matthew was one of two Manchester barristers appointed to the Attorney General’s Panel C in 2020. He often deals with cases brought by HMRC from Forfeiture and confiscation hearings, through to Commercial Account Freezing Orders and POCA proceedings in the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. He was appointed to the specialist CPS Panel Level 2 for POCA in 2021. Matthew also has experience with Tax Fraud. Recently he was instructed by HMRC to prosecute a multi-million pound MTIC Fraud case before the Tax Tribunals. (Kittle and Mecsek). He has also dealt with numerous VAT and Tax applications before the High Court on appeal. Matthew also has extensive experience in dealing with general criminal litigation and is recognised in this area of law by his appointment to the CPS General Crime Panel Level 3 and POCA Panel Level 2 in 2021, and Serious Crime Panel Level 2 in 2020. He is currently being led on a large scale drugs and gun conspiracy at Nottingham Crown Court. Public Law (Immigration and Judicial Review) As a specialist barrister for the Attorney General, the bulk of Matthew’s practice is in Judicial Review claims for False Imprisonment relating to periods of Unlawful Detention by the Secretary of State. He has recently dealt with a number of Judicial Review applications and interim relief hearings, and is often sought to advise on Quantum in the QBD and Administrative Courts. He has dealt with EEA cases under Dublin III and Non-EEA Hardial Singh claims and is often instructed to offer advice for Government Departments and grounds of appeal in this work. Recently he had conduct of a number false imprisonment claims made during COVID-19 under Article 3 & 5 ECHR and in relation to failure to provide s.95 and s.4 Accommodation. In addition to providing expert advice in unlawful detention/false imprisonment claims, both for judicial review and civil claims, Matthew has extensive experience in substantive claims for failure to provide asylum support. He has recently dealt with cases regarding unpublished policies and the impact of Lumba, as well as issues relating to adequacy and delay. Matthew has recently been instructed to conduct inquest hearings on behalf of the Secretary of State. He has experience developed as a junior in the IICSA inquiry and through the Phone Hacking Scandal on behalf of ‘Hacked Off’. Matthew is also experienced in Immigration litigation from the First and Upper Tier Tribunals through to Fresh Submission Judicial Review claims. He has been instructed recently to propose a number of interim relief applications before the High Court. Further to this he has had conduct of a Habeas Corpus claim in the High Court and recently before the Court of Appeal. It is currently pending application before the Supreme Court. Civil Cases Matthew has also conducted a wide range of multi-track and fast-track personal injury and public liability claims. He is routinely instructed in county court claims and to draft papers on behalf of Government and Claimants. He has also a great deal of experience with landlord and tenant disputes. Disciplinary/Safeguarding/Professional Negligence Coupled with this experience he has conduct of a number of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) appeals under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Group Act 2006 in the Upper Tier Tribunals and is on hand to offer representation within this area on a Direct Access Basis. He is willing to draft submissions and make representations on short notice. Matthew Has represented both the DBS and Appellants from initial advice on paper, drafting submissions for court, conference and on appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunals. Matthew is often instructed on a wide range of professional negligence matters against and for doctors, dentists and solicitors. He is routinely instructed to draft advices, assist with letters before action and represent professional clients at court Matthew is one of the few members of chambers appointed by the Sports Resolution panel to give legal advice in this area. He is direct access qualified. Regulatory Law & Road Traffic Offences In 2019 Matthew was appointed to the Specialist Regulatory Panel C of Prosecution Advocates. This recognised his experience in the fields of Environmental Law and Health & Safety Law. Matthew has extensive experience in representing haulage companies in relation to Road Traffic matters both in the Crown Court and before Traffic Commissioners Office in the Upper Tribunals. He has conducted a number of disputes in relation to tachographs and operators licenses through to fly-tipping offences. He is able to offer advice in this area. Recently he has advised Government on a range of Civil Penalty Appeals for Clandestine Entrants and Operator Licensing disputes. Matthew is routinely instructed to defend Environment Offences, from fly tipping through to advising large companies in relation to waste and water disputes. Matthew has also represented a number of companies. In the Crown Court he has conducted cases in relation to gross-negligence manslaughter through to Health and Safety at work offences in construction disputes. Recently he has appeared as advocate prosecuting and defending a number of licensing and Trademark/counterfeit goods offences. He has successfully represented a number of companies in relation to Fraud allegations as to HGV licences and individuals in Taxi license appeals. Matthew has gained substantial experience in Road Traffic Offences. He recently was instructed on a Death by Dangerous Driving at Leeds Crown Court through and is often sought to argue exceptional hardship/special reasons mitigation in the Magistrates Court. Through appointment on the Attorney General’s Panel Matthew has experience in a number of cases relating to Driving License Disqualification and appeals of DVLA decisions in relation to licensing following bans for drink driving or medical reasons. Summary of Appointments 2022 – appointed to the National Safeguarding Panel to offer legal advice on behalf of Sports Resolution. 2021 – Serious Fraud Office – Panel C appointment Crown Prosecution Service – Level 3 General Crime Panel Appointment and Level 2 POCA Panel Appointment 2020 – Attorney General Specialist Panel of Civil Counsel – C Panel Level 2 Serious Crime Prosecution Panel CPS Call to the Bar of Northern Ireland Michaelmas Term 2020 2019 – Specialist Regulatory Panel C Prosecution Advocate (Environment Agency and Health & Safety Executive) 2017 – Public Access Qualified. ‘Matthew was Junior for the Northern Circuit in 2019 and currently sits on the Northern Circuit Executive Committee as Representation on the Bar Council https://www.northerncircuit.org.uk/about-us/circuit-officers/’  
Mohammed Nawaz KC
Mohammed Nawaz KC
Mohammed Nawaz was called to the bar in 1995 and has specialised in serious crime and fraud throughout his career. He became a QC in 2021. In recent years Mohammed has defended in cases of murder, terrorism, major fraud, sexual exploitation of children, drug trafficking, bribery and confiscation proceedings – the vast majority of these cases have been of significant complexity and have received national media attention. The trials have required extensive, meticulous preparation and Mohammed always provides a tailored and specialised service to his professional and lay clients. Current instructions include a HMRC prosecuted VAT fraud trial of 4 months, people trafficking conspiracy involving 3000 asylum seekers, a substantial "grooming" case featuring multiple allegations of rape and sexual assault, offences under the Modern Slavery Act, major drugs and money laundering offences, firearms offences and Encro prosecutions. Some of Mohammed’s notable cases from the recent past are: R v X: Defence Counsel in a case of inciting terrorism. D was 15 years old. Using an alter ego of a Jihadi Commander he was alleged to have incited murder. His age/psychiatric vulnerabilities required vigilance. This was a difficult, voluminous and complex case. D was brainwashed by ISIS terrorists and the press made strenuous attempts to report his identity. A very favourable plea and sentence was negotiated and press attempts to report his name were successfully resisted. R v Anwar: Defence counsel in a trial of sexual exploitation of 14-year-old by 300 men. Cross-ex of the complainant presented many challenges and was commended and adopted by all other defence counsel. A vast body of information required streamlining to enable tightly defined and effective cross-examination. R v Ansari: Defence counsel in a £2m fraud trial involving hacking of company emails and creation of bogus online businesses to defraud customers on Black Friday. This was a complex and large-scale fraud and involved a three-way cut-throat defence. R v Tafham: Defence Counsel in a murder trial described as an “honour killing” of D’s mother-in-law for her complicity in wife’s affair. R v Khalid: Defence counsel in a trial involving alleged conspiracy to import 400kg of cannabis. R v Dedek: Defence counsel in a murder. D a foreign national and unfamiliar with Justice System had consumed large quantity of alcohol at the time of the stabbing. Using the defence of loss of control, the case was favourably resolved with the Prosecution accepting a plea to manslaughter. R v Reynolds: Defence counsel in a trial of supply of large quantities of Class A drugs. R v Akhtar: Defence counsel in a trial involving fraud/immigration offences. D was an Immigration Advisor with own practice and had serious medical conditions. A number of Counts were dismissed at the outset of the case. In relation to other counts submissions at half time were successful. The case required sensitive, careful and detailed cross-examination of professional witnesses and an extremely vulnerable lay witness over many hours. R v Rathod: Defence counsel in trial of fraud and laundering criminal proceeds. D and his family were alleged to have set up fake Sikh Temples to flout immigration laws. R v Smith: Defence counsel in murder trial. D (20) and deceased both drug dealers. D ran conjoined defences of self-defence/loss of self-control. R v Iqbal: Defence counsel in trial of conspiracy to defraud. D owned colleges with Home Office licences to run an international English test. Extensive, detailed cross-examination of witnesses based on large volumes of material. The case also required detailed legal arguments to exclude Prosecution evidence. R v Jamshaid: Defence counsel representing an International Cricketer in a spot-fixing/bribery case with the Prosecution being brought with the use of under-cover NCA agents. R v Patel: Defence counsel in an ongoing case of complex VAT/Counterfeit Fraud. 250,000 pages of evidence. Value of fraud – £85m. The allegations span 7 years and have extensive international dimensions. The case contains many legal and factual complexities incl. abuse of process, GDPR, European Law, trial in absence/extradition and exclusion of evidence.  
Naomi Duckworth
Naomi Duckworth
Noami Duckworth completed pupillage in September 2024 under the supervision of Rebecca Filletti. Naomi has gained extensive case management and advocacy experience, both prosecuting and defending, in a very wide range of criminal proceedings. She accepts instructions for cases in the Magistrates’ and Crown Court, and before several other specialist tribunals. Naomi has already secured several fantastic results for her clients and is developing an excellent reputation for very thorough preparation, client care skills and effective advocacy.
Neil Ronan
Neil Ronan
Neil Ronan’s practice encompasses all areas of serious and regulatory crime. He is regularly instructed in the most serious criminal cases on circuit. He is an experienced advocate; both at trial and in advancing complex legal argument.  He has garnered a reputation for client care and case management skills as second to none. Prior to his practice at the bar Neil spent 12 years as an expert witness and forensic scientist. In that time, he investigated and analysed evidence in thousands of cases, for both the prosecution and as a defence expert.  This included high profile cases and over 30 homicide case; for example https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/19/jailed-gas-blast-toddler-partingto-oldham Therefore, Neil has particular expertise in cases involving the following :- Drugs Arson endangering life DNA Trace and particulate evidence Explosions and Explosives Firearms and discharge residues Cell site and phone evidence At different stages in his career Neil has managed case loads as a case worker, legal executive and litigator. He has first hand experience of working within a number of legal service providers offices and has an excellent understanding of how he can add value to those instructing in his service delivery and case management. Notable Cases Murder, Manslaughter & Serious Violence R v S – Bolton Crown Court – Nationally reported Thomas Campbell Multi-handed torture and murder case -  Thomas Campbell killing: Ex-wife among three jailed over torture death - BBC News R v Z – Bradford Crown Court - Multi handed murder involving complex scientific evidence R v SB - Bolton Crown Court – Death by Dangerous driving. Secured a sentence for the client which had to be AG referenced. R v RS – Manchester Crown Court – Death by careless driving R v A – Bolton Crown Court – S18 involving a machete wound to the bone R v C – Manchester Crown Court – S18 involving a stranger stabbing with a knife in a park R v W - Sheffield Crown Court - Successfully defended in a three-week trial stemming from the violent disorder that ensued during the Rotherham race riots. The case entailed highly involved legal arguments to successfully exclude aspects of the CCTV footage the Crown sought to rely on. Arson / Criminal damage Regularly instructed in cases of Arson endangering life. Neil was also regularly instructed as an expert witness in the most serious cases in England and Wales R v S - Successful app to dismiss - arson with intent; fingerprint on Molotov cocktail bottle at locus and CCTV R v H - Successful app to dismiss on arson reckless - prisoner started fire locked in a cell on his own R v E, E and L – Manchester Crown Court - Conspiracy Arson with intent, Case involved an OCG group petrol bombing a house in which the owner was present. R v DS – Stafford Crown Court - A case of multiple counts of arson reckless to endangering life and assault which occurred in prison. R v F – Manchester Crown Court 2016 Instructed to defend in a multi-handed conspiracy to cause £250,000 worth of criminal damage Sexual Offences R v T – Manchester Crown Court – Multi handed stranger gang rape of vulnerable complainant. Case involved s28 process. R v R – Manchester Crown Court - Multi-handed Asian Grooming rapes by three brothers R v H - Manchester Crown Court - Multi-handed false imprisonment and sexual assault R v W – Bolton Crown Court – Sexual assault at a party R v McC – Nottingham Crown court - Sexual assault by employee on his employer Drug Offences R v A - Conspiracy to import 30kg of cocaine (Encro case) R v H – Possession with intent to supply cocaine – Secured suspended sentence though guilty plea was on day of trial. R v P - Possession with intent to supply cocaine – Secured suspended sentence though guilty plea was on day of trial. Neil is regularly instructed in cases of Possession with intent to supply and as a previously registered forensic practitioner in drugs analysis you can be sure he will thoroughly review the evidence for anything that will help his client’s case. Fraud, Theft & Dishonesty Offences R v M - Multi-handed £500,000 fraud R v A - Conspiracy to steal high end cars - value of approximately £3,000,000 R v H – Manchester Crown Court – Successfully secured suspended sentence for Client who stole thousands from her employer whilst on a suspended sentence for doing the same thing to her last employer.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7022467/Boss-blasts-mother-38-spared-jail-despite-spending-5-000-firms-PayPal-account.html R v A – Bolton Crown Court – Conspiracy (postal fraud) R v T – Reading Crown Court 2015 Instructed to defend a client in a case of burglary with the trial run in his absence. R v K – Bournemouth Crown Court 2015 Successfully defended a woman charged with dwelling burglary, criminal damage and harassing her ex-partner though she admitted being in the property and damaging the items at that time. Motoring and Traffic offences in the Crown Court R v RSR - Manchester Crown Court (Minshull Street) - Death by Careless Driving. One of the first cases to be sentenced under the new sentencing regime. Case involved the tragic death of a milkman. Defendant was a learner driver who was found to be using his phone at the time of the accident. Manchester: Milkman about to retire killed by speeding learner driver | UK News | Metro News R v SB - Bolton Crown Court – Death by Dangerous driving. Secured a sentence for the client which had to be AG referenced. R v RS – Manchester Crown Court – Death by careless driving R v A – Bolton Crown Court - Dangerous Driving https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/18794656.teenager-crashed-stolen-motorbike-coma-3-weeks/ Neil is regularly privately instructed in all matters relating to the Crown Courts inherent jurisdiction to review the verdict / sentence in the lower courts. Magistrates and Youth Court Neil represents both privately funded individuals and companies at trial in the Magistrates’ courts the length and breadth of the country. He has successfully defended in such matters as drink driving and s172 failure to notify offences. His decade of experience as a forensic scientist assists greatly in understanding the evidence which is necessary to prove/disprove drink driving offences. He also has experience of dealing with criminal matters in the youth court and examining young and vulnerable witnesses generally. R v K – Bolton Magistrates’ Court - Successfully defended a nurse charged with assaulting a patient in A & E. The incident was caught on CCTV and the Doctor and receptionist present gave evidence against the defendant. As a consequence, the nurse kept his job. R v S – Manchester Magistrates’ Court - Successfully defended a man charged with assaulting his partner and stepdaughter late at night in the family home. R v D – Oxford Magistrates’ Court - Successfully defended a man charged with assaulting his teenage girlfriend in a hotel room when her father was present outside the door of the room. R v H Ltd – Birkenhead Magistrates’ Court - Successfully defended a company charged with failure to notify who was driving when its truck was speeding. R v M – Oxford Magistrates’ Court - Successfully defended a stepfather charged with breaching a non-molestation order by his two step daughters. Publications National Library of Medicine - Forensic isotope ratio mass spectrometry of packaging tapes https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15565219/ New Scientist - Toothpick test turns cellphones into a drug dealer's worst enemy https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523520-600-toothpick-test-turns-cellphones-into-a-drug-dealers-worst-enemy/ Mycological Research – Genesis of taenia on the capillitium of Trichiales https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0953756208616469
Neil Fryman
Neil Fryman
OVERVIEW Neil Fryman joined Lincoln House in 2008, after having developed a considerable reputation as an effective advocate in heavyweight criminal whilst practising from Peel Court Chambers since 1989. Over the last twenty years, Neil has practised solely in crime and has increasingly specialised in substantial multi-handed conspiracy matters of significant gravity and public interest. Neil has a healthy mixture of both prosecution and defence work. Neil is a member of the Northern Circuit and of the Criminal Bar Association and is a Grade 4 prosecutor (2007). Neil deals with cases involving the Serious Organised Crime Agency (S.O.C.A) on a very regular basis. Neil’s practice focusses on, but is not limited to, offences such as murder, firearms, drugs, serious violence, people trafficking, serious sexual offences and robbery.  
Niamh Ingham
Niamh Ingham
Niamh is a busy junior practitioner, specialising in Crime and Regulatory work. Crime Since commencing practice, Niamh has obtained significant trial experience both defending and prosecuting. She has represented clients in a range of offences including: offences of violence, drugs matters, sexual offences, fraud cases and driving charges. Niamh has acted as junior counsel and deals with cases at all stages of case management. In addition to her defence practice, Niamh has developed an equally busy prosecution practice as a CPS Panel Advocate (Cat 3) and a RASSO panel advocate. Niamh has also acted in private prosecutions. Confident and approachable, Niamh has shown she has the necessary “soft skills” which allow her to communicate effectively with others as well as support clients through the process. In addition to her friendly and dedicated approach, Niamh is noted for her ability to present robust legal arguments. Regulatory Niamh has a flourishing regulatory practice and accepts instructions in all areas. Niamh regularly acts on behalf of the GMC in Fitness to Practice proceedings and has previously acted as defence counsel in such matters. The experience accumulated from both defending and prosecuting cases has given Niamh a wealth of knowledge which she is able to utilise in many different types of cases. Her experience as a criminal practitioner, with specialised RASSO training, is also invaluable given the adversarial nature of this type of work. Niamh has also acted for Social Work England and the Care Quality Commission in regulatory proceedings and has previously been appointed as Special Counsel in a case of serious sexual assault. Niamh has acted for the Home Office in forfeiture proceedings and receives instructions to act on behalf of Local Authorities in matters such as trading standard infringements and school non-attendance. Notable Cases - Crime R v B Represented a defendant convicted of distributing indecent images at a slip rule hearing; securing a reduction in the custodial term of 1/3. R v K - Successfully prosecuted a Defendant in the Crown Court charged with fraud; securing a conviction in 40 minutes R v F - Secured a non-custodial sentence for a Defendant charged with possession with intent to supply cocaine R v S - Successfully made a submission of no case to answer in a case with a Defendant charged with a Public Order offence, captured on BWV. The Defendant was of previous good character R v S - Secured an acquittal for a Defendant charged with assault. In advance of the hearing, I made an application for an intermediary, advised regarding an intermediary assessment and conducted a ground rules hearing. R v O - Secured a non-custodial disposal for a Defendant charged with possession of indecent images. Successfully argued against the imposition of a SHPO on the basis that it was not necessary in the circumstances. Social Work England Regulatory - Acted as Special Counsel in a case where the defendant was accused of serious sexual assault. Social Work England - Presented a case at an interim order review and successfully submitted that an interim order of suspension was appropriate. GMC v Dr L - Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal Service. - Represented a Doctor, in Fitness to Practice Proceedings, accused of dishonestly submitting a fraudulent CV to a recruiter. Awards Winston Churchill Award – Middle Temple BPTC Excellence Award – BPP University BPTC Regional Award – BPP University Cohens Excellence Award – BPP University Career Guarantee Scholarship – BPP University
Paul Williams
Paul Williams
Paul specialises in regulatory work, inquests and crime. In regulatory, Paul regularly presents to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service and is an active member of chambers’ GMC team. Paul is frequently instructed in lengthy and complex fitness to practice hearings (FTP’s) as well providing a regular Interim Order Tribunal service. In addition to GMC work Paul is regularly instructed to defend medical professionals before a range of other tribunals. He has an established client base specialising in representing nurses and dentists and will also accept instructions in HCPC matters. The service provided to health care professionals very regularly extends to those who are interested parties in inquests. He is adept at representing both individuals and bodies that might be exposed to criticism during inquests and inquiries and, whilst the majority of this work focusses on the health care professions, Paul has significant experience in a wider range of areas such as health & safety failings, accidents and situations involving psychiatric issues. Paul is instructed to act in the Manchester Arena Inquiry - an independent public inquiry to investigate the deaths of the 22 victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena Terror Attack.  He represents "MA" a security officer who was a central eye witness to the action of the bomber. Paul exclusively defends in serious crime and continues to be instructed in complex crime on a regular basis. Paul has experience across the full spectrum of criminal offences but is most often retained in sexual offences and dishonesty matters. Paul does not accept legally aided instructions unless the client is a medical professional. Paul is adept at representing both individuals and bodies that might be exposed to criticism during inquests and inquiries and, whilst the majority of this work focusses on the health care professions, Paul has significant experience in a wider range of areas such as health & safety failings, accidents and situations involving psychiatric issues. Paul has a keen interest in cases with complex medical and procedural issues and was junior counsel in the case of R v Norris, an allegation of serial murder by a practicing nurse. Instructed in large operational cases, Paul has extensive experience of cases involving covert surveillance, cell site analysis, telephone record analysis, RIPA applications, and terrorist related matters. Paul is the Discipline Chairman at York RUFC.  He represents senior players and the club at county disciplinary hearings. He oversees the junior section for their discipline and safeguarding issues.  He is also Captain of the York Cavaliers veterans rugby team.
Peter Wright KC
Peter Wright KC
"Known for acting in terrorism, drugs, murder, and serious fraud cases." - Legal 500, 2017 ''A well-regarded criminal prosecutor'' - Legal 500, 2016 "A heavyweight practitioner who regularly features in nationally reported matters." - Legal 500, 2015 “Highly regarded in cases of the utmost gravity” - Legal 500, 2014 OVERVIEW Peter Wright is a highly respected and extremely experienced advocate who has appeared in numerous high profile cases. Peter prosecutes and defends in respect of criminal offences of the utmost gravity and complexity including terrorism, murder, drugs and serious fraud. In September 2006, Peter was appointed Senior Treasury Counsel; the first person ever to be directly appointed to that position. In 2010, he stepped down to return to his defence work, for which he continues to be described as a highly respected senior practitioner, with a wealth of knowledge, experience and gravitas. Peter has appeared as leading Counsel in the series of trials arising from the alleged corrupt payments to public officials by journalists known as Operation Elveden; an OFT Investigation into International Cartel and Price Fixing Arrangements in the steel abrasives industry; the LIBOR scandal; civil and criminal proceedings arising from the investigation by the SFO into breaches of the UN Oil for Food Programme to Iraq; in addition to his “mainstream” criminal work in Corporate and gross negligence manslaughter; terrorism and murder. Peter also advises and represents companies and individuals who face investigation or proceedings under Health and Safety legislation, and in related cases such as fatal and other non-fatal accidents arising from incidents in the workplace.
Phil Holden
Phil Holden
Overview: Philip has almost 30 years experience in the law specialising in inquests, crime and sports disciplinary law. Inquests:- Philip has been instructed in numerous high profile and complex inquests. His clients include corporate bodies, hospital trusts, care homes, mental heath facilities and family members. He has appeared in a wide range of inquests including deaths in hospitals, care homes, community care and police custody. Philip is renowned for his sensitive and empathetic approach and for his persuasive and effective advocacy. The inquests he has undertaken involving fatalities in a clinical setting range from deaths of new-born infants to those within psychiatric hospitals and prisons. Philip is particularly noted for representing care homes and has an excellent track record for achieving positive outcomes for his clients. Philip was appointed as an Assistant Coroner in 2014 in the area of West Yorkshire (Eastern) and has also sat in West Yorkshire (Western) and Lancashire. He has considerable experience in both sitting on and appearing in lengthy and complex inquests including jury inquests and inquests where Article 2 is engaged. Philip sat as the coroner on the first inquest in the country to consider the death of an infant following heart surgery which had taken place in the aftermath of the temporary closure of several coronary centres resulting from concerns in relation to high mortality rates. The inquest attracted a significant amount of media attention and was extensively reported in the national press. Philip has frequently lectured on Coronial law and is available to present lectures on request. Criminal Law :- Philip acts only for the defence and has vast experience in the criminal courts. He is renowned for providing expert advice and robust advocacy in cases of the utmost complexity and gravity. Philip is regularly instructed in cases of terrorism, homicide, fatal road traffic accidents, fraud (including VAT carousel fraud), and large scale drug importation/supply cases linked to organised crime. He has appeared in over 30 murder trials to date many of which have lasted for several months and several of which have attracted national media attention. He appears as a leading junior, led junior and junior alone in cases of complexity and has vast trial experience in all aspects of serious crime. His recent lengthy cases have included a 5 month boiler room fraud and a six week fraud involving the importation of large quantities of tobacco. He is also currently instructed in two terrorist cases that have attracted national media attention. Philip, in addition, has particular expertise in representing those accused of driving offences and is regularly instructed in cases involving fatal road traffic accidents. He has a significant track record of successfully representing drivers charged with causing death and catastrophic injury by dangerous and careless driving. Sports Law :- Philip was appointed to the Lancashire RFU disciplinary panel in 2018 and as an RFU Judicial officer in 2020. He has represented numerous professional sportsmen, sportswomen and clubs before disciplinary panels and in the Criminal Courts. He is a sports enthusiast and has an excellent general knowledge of a number of different sports. He is a retired cricket and rugby playe
Philip Joseph George Boyd
Philip Joseph George Boyd
OVERVIEW Joe came to the Bar in 1993 having originally been a Branch Crown Prosecutor and national Head of Strategy with the CPS.  He has also been a lecturer at Chester Law College. He has a large criminal practice that incorporates all areas of criminal law including fraud, murder, manslaughter, drugs, violence and sex cases.  Joe is also regularly instructed in regulatory cases involving the Police. Joe has experience tackling a wide-range of intriguing and serious cases. He has been involved in a number of complex, high- profile trials, both defending and prosecuting. He continues to present seminars and lecture on regulatory and criminal topics to a wide variety of professional audiences. Notable cases Successfully defending a 90-year old who had slashed his neighbour`s throat with a carving knife. R v Pitt and Others – “Pitt-Bull” case – gang-related Murder and Drugs Conspiracies RSPCA-instigated investigation into poisoning raptors in North Yorkshire grouse moors R v Ward – Defendant extradited from Ireland to face inciting death by dangerous driving by employee in Manchester Prosecuting in the “baby-swapping” case where the parents of twins were alleged to have swapped their twins before one of them died. Prosecuting a matriarch in Blackburn who arranged for her nieces to be brought from Pakistan to go through arranged marriages with her sons and then enslaved in her household. R v Adetoro and Others – Rochdale “drive-by” shootings R v Bibi – “Enslavement” of daughters-in-law tricked to travel to England from Pakistan for arranged marriages R v Gregory – Baby-battering in Burnley R v Richards – Alleged protection racket targeting commercial premises in Salford Firearms/Armed Robbery R v Pequici – Albanian defendant with hidden cache of revolvers in Wigan R v Burton – Armed robbery in Nantwich R v Barton – Conspiracy to commit armed robbery in Blackburn R v Newell – Armed robbery in Warrington R v Vanden – Series of armed robberies in the North West R v Phythian – GBH, aggravated burglary and armed robbery in North Wales and Queensferry R v Ratcliffe – Armed robbery in Salford Fraud R v Chadwick and Others – Operation Pickawick – “diversion” Fraud R v Brooks & Others – Five-month “smuggling” Fraud R v Burns & Others – Two-month “high-yield investment Fraud R v Fernihough – Large-scale VAT fraud at Winchester Crown Court R v Ellison – Fraud by health centre practice manager in Rochdale Sexual Offences Rochdale child abuse case in Liverpool R v Arthur Thompson – Multiple historical sex-abuse R v Dineley – 30 year-old rape of sister R v Kane – Rape recorded on victim’s mobile phone R v Close – Serious sexual assaults on step-daughter while in Majorca Prosecuting a long-running case in Preston where a gang of East Europeans were responsible for snatching a young girl off the street in Slovakia, trafficking her into England where she was raped and imprisoned before being sold to an illegal immigrant and made to go through a “sham marriage” in Burnley R v Baig and Ditta – sexual assault and false imprisonment by mature defendants preying on teenage girls in Stockport.
Rachel White
Rachel White
Rachel is a criminal specialist with 18 years of experience. Her practice encompasses complex and serious cases that include allegations of murder, organised crime, violence, child cruelty, sexual offences, drug trafficking, dishonesty and fraud. She has appeared in several high-profile trials including R v RG (2017) (a murder committed during the course of a burglary where the householder was run over), R v GG (2018) (a fatal stabbing), R v GA (2018) (football related violence where the victim was left partially sighted) and R v DO (2018) (a husband accused of poisoning his estranged wife). She acts in cases of gang violence with firearms and offensive weapons and large public disorders. She also appears in cases where the background is domestic and the allegations are of assault, coercive and controlling behaviour or child cruelty. Rachel is regularly instructed to act for vulnerable defendants. She represented a mother accused of allowing the death of a child, who suffered from “battered wife syndrome”. She has defended veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic distress disorder and often acts for young adults with learning disabilities accused of crimes. Her particular expertise and sensitive approach to the preparation of such cases is seen as invaluable by both her clients and solicitors. Rachel is instructed in the full range of sexual offences, some of which have involved witnesses as young as three years old.  She has great experience in dealing with historic allegations of a sexual nature and those arising in an employment or professional context. Rachel remains conscious that some of her clients have previously never been before the courts, and she is always astute to the stress and anxieties that a prosecution can create. She is a member of the sexual offences panel. Rachel undertakes work involving financial misconduct by employees against large organisations, such as banks and care homes.  She also appears in complex frauds with multiple defendants, where the evidence is extensive and detailed. She has significant experience of defending those accused of dishonesty offences such as perverting the course of justice, blackmail and immigration offences associated with sham marriages. Rachel advises on the complex confiscation matters that arise in drugs conspiracies and appeared for the principal defendant in Operation Nexus - a multi-million-pound conspiracy to supply significant kilos of heroin and cocaine. In addition to appearing in criminal matters in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal, Rachel accepts instructions to act in inquests and in a range of regulatory actions. Rachel's inquest expertise focuses on deaths in custody. She has been instructed in inquest matters by a wide range of interested parties and is particularly well placed to deal with deaths that have arisen from or involve criminal offending. Rachel prides herself on maintaining excellent working relationships with her professional and lay clients. She has a conscientious and proactive approach to case preparation. She is able to accept instructions via direct access where appropriate and undertakes private defence work, as well as legal aid cases. Rachel is an extremely popular choice for demanding criminal cases. Her expertise encompasses complex and serious cases including allegations of murder, serious violence, child cruelty, sexual offences and drug conspiracies. Rachel has been instructed in several high profile murder and sexual offence cases that have gathered national public interest. Rachel has a wealth of experience in dealing with cases that involve medical evidence that arises in cases with non-accidental injury issues. Rachel’s commitment to client care, her sensitivity and her experience in getting the best from all her clients make her a frequent choice in cases involving young or vulnerable clients or witnesses who require very sensitive handling. She represented a mother accused of allowing the death of a child, who suffered from “battered wife syndrome”. She has defended veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic distress disorder and often acts for young adults with learning disabilities accused of crimes. Her particular expertise and sensitive approach to the preparation of such cases is seen as invaluable by both her clients and solicitors. Murder & Manslaughter Rachel has significant experience in a diverse range of murder and manslaughter cases. She has acted in cases involving gangs, firearms, fatal stabbings, poisoning, domestic murders, loss of control and other psychiatric issues. Rachel manages her practice to ensure she is able to prepare the case at the earliest opportunity and spend significant time in conference with clients. Rachel is able to access some of the leading QC’s in the country and is known as an efficient, hard working and proactive junior. She has been instructed in several high profile murder cases in recent years. Murder Case Examples R v RG – A murder committed during the course of a burglary where the householder was run over by his own vehicle. R v AF – A fatal stabbing in the context of a feud. R v GG – A murder where the issue of fitness to plead and the defence of loss of control arose. R v DO - A husband accused of poisoning his estranged wife. R v F – Allowing the death of a child in circumstances where father had murdered baby. Serious Violence Rachel acts in cases of gang violence with firearms and offensive weapons and large public disorders. She also appears in cases where the background is domestic and the allegations are of assault, coercive and controlling behaviour or child cruelty. Serious Violence case examples R v GA - Football related violence where the victim was left partially sighted. Sexual Offences Rachel is instructed in the full range of sexual offences, some of which have involved witnesses as young as three years old. She has great experience in dealing with historic allegations of a sexual nature and those arising in an employment or professional context. Rachel remains conscious that some of her clients have previously never been before the courts, and she is always astute to the stress and anxieties that a prosecution can create. She is a member of the sexual offences panel. Sexual Offences Case examples R v RD – Sexual Allegations made against Medical Director NHS trust by trust employees. R v EM – Sexual allegations against a grandmother by a 3 year old. R v M – Secured acquittal in well publicised rape trial in which HHJ Kushner appeared in the media to comment on intoxication. R V RD – Secured acquittal for soldier accused of historic sexual offences against three male complainants Financial Misconduct & Dishonesty Rachel often undertakes work involving financial misconduct by employees against large organisations, such as banks and care homes. She also appears in complex frauds with multiple defendants, where the evidence is extensive and detailed. She has significant experience of defending those accused of dishonesty offences such as perverting the course of justice, blackmail and immigration offences associated with sham marriages. Rachel involvement in the full spectrum of criminal offences also brings an expertise in POCA. In addition to POCA arising from financial misconduct Rachel also advises on the complex confiscation matters that arise in drugs conspiracies. Financial Misconduct & Dishonesty Case Examples R v W – Perverting the course of justice in relation to an offence of causing death by dangerous driving. Drug Offences Rachel is instructed in the full range of drug offences from simple possession with intent through to multi million pound multi defendant conspiracies to supply Class A drugs. Drug Case Examples Operation Nexus – Represented the main defendant in a conspiracy to supply significant kilos of Class A drugs. Other Criminal Offences Rachel’s work load is not limited to the offence groups shown above, she is regularly instructed to defend in cases across the full criminal spectrum, Rachel accepts private instructions in the Magistrates Court and is often instructed on a private basis for sexual offences, driving offences and lower level violence and drug offences in the Crown Court. Appeal Work Given Rachel’s extensive criminal practice, her skills with complex legal arguments and her desire to get the very best for her clients, Rachel is often instructed to pursue appeals to the higher courts. This applies to both cases in which Rachel has been instructed from the outset and also for clients who seek her assistance to appeal decisions in cases where she has not previously been involved. Appeal Case Examples R v SC – The Court of Appeal quashed Rachel’s client's conviction for child cruelty on the grounds of the admissibility of expert evidence. R v A – Successful appeal against a custodial sentence imposed for throwing a coin at a football match, causing the complainant to partially lose sight in one eye
Rachel Cooper
Rachel Cooper
“Rachel is a fearless advocate who will stand her ground where appropriate whilst having a calm and reassuring manner with defendants, especially those with mental health or learning issues. She will assist instructing solicitors wherever possible and will undertake work herself to help as required”- Legal 500, 2025 “Rachel Cooper is especially strong in cases involving clients with significant mental health needs"- Legal 500, 2025 Recommended in Legal 500, 2024 - Crime (General and Fraud) Rachel "has a broad criminal law practice and is often instructed on cases where defendants have significant mental health needs. She recently represented the defendant charged with death by dangerous driving after a collision decapitated a back seat passenger." - Legal 500, 2023 "Rachel always delivers 100% of the time. She is both very able and capable and it is immediately clear to lay clients from their first meeting with her that she is totally committed and her eye for detail and preparation is faultless. It is both a pleasure and privilege to work with Rachel. She is great whether dealing with a guilty plea and mitigation to conducting a full trial." - Legal 500, 2023 "It is both a pleasure and privilege to work with Rachel. She is great whether dealing with a guilty plea and mitigation to conducting a full trial." - Legal 500, 2022 OVERVIEW Rachel is an established senior junior barrister who’s practice is focused on criminal, professional disciplinary and regulatory law. She has a particular expertise in cases involving mentally disordered or vulnerable defendants, complainants or witnesses and is therefore frequently instructed in cases where defendants have mental disorders or challenging behaviour. Rachel has frequently been commended for her ability to maintain productive and harmonious client relationships whilst dealing with challenging behavioural issues. Rachel is also regarded as a tenacious trial advocate and is regularly instructed to both prosecute and defend in serious criminal litigation, both as the trial advocate or as junior counsel. Her practice encompasses the full range of cases including: murder and manslaughter, serious sexual and violent offences; large-scale drugs conspiracies; firearms and armed robbery offences; and serious fraud offences. In professional disciplinary areas Rachel has significant experience in representing medical professionals in tribunal hearing instigated by their regulators. Rachel has represented clients at all levels before the GMC and NMC. Prior to coming to the Bar Rachel worked for the Healthcare Commission and would routinely review treatments with medical experts. She has applied to this her practice in medical practitioner defence, and has considerable experience in dealing with medical, technical and expert evidence. Rachel is therefore very well placed to deal with allegations that arise from both criminal misconduct and also negligence. In other regulatory areas Rachel has particular experience in prosecuting and defending in regulatory offences dealt with in the criminal courts. She has particular expertise in prosecutions brought by Local Authorities. Areas of expertise include: health and safety, trade descriptions, food safety, fire regulation and environmental offences. Prior to joining the bar Rachel was a legal adviser in the Magistrates Court and so has extensive knowledge of road traffic law. She continues to undertake this work in the Magistrates Court on a privately instructed basis. Rachel is authorised to accept public access instructions. Murder, Manslaughter & Death by Dangerous/Careless Driving R-v- X - the Defendant was charged with perverting the course of justice following the death of a neighbour. Other Defendant’s tried at the same time were accused of murder. Rachel was successful in persuading the High Court judge, on the basis of a complex and difficult legal argument, that there was no case against her client. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-49392913 R v A and Ors – Junior counsel in a multi-handed case of murder and affray. The case was complicated by allegations of witness intimidation occurring during the trial itself. R v E and Ors – Junior counsel in a murder trial involving a single stab wound to the heart. The case attracted considerable local media interest, having occurred in a tight-knit local community. R v P and Ors – Junior counsel in a six -week multi-handed case involving allegations of neglect of elderly residents in a care home, resulting in serious injuries to a resident. The case involved complex medical evidence regarding the care and treatment of the residents. R v C �� An elderly driver who lost control of their vehicle resulting in the death of a pedestrian. Medical evidence suggested that the defendant likely suffered a hypolglaecemic episode due to diabetes. The client had an underlying condition that meant they were unable to feel the symptoms of an attack. In cross-examination at trial the Crown’s expert accepted that the defence expert’s conclusions were more likely to be correct. Although the client was convicted, they received an exceptional 3 year community order from the Judge due to the ‘extraordinary medical evidence in this case’. R v S – A client who lost control of their vehicle in wintry conditions and collided with an oncoming car, fatally injuring the other driver. The defence obtained an expert report from a forensic meteorologist who determined that the collision was likely to be due to ice on the road. Following pre-trial discussions between counsel, the Crown dropped the case on the day of trial. Grievous Bodily Harm R v W – A client accused of burning their stepchild’s hands. The Crown’s was relied on medical evidence that suggested the injuries would take several minutes to inflict. The defence case was complicated by being unable to obtain a defence report due to a reluctance by experts to become involved in a criminal case involving alleged abuse of a child. However, under cross-examination the Crown’s expert conceded that their conclusions were based on extrapolated data, and that the defendant’s explanation was plausible. The client was acquitted. Kidnap R v X – A multi-handed case involving allegations of kidnapping and assault using firearms. The defendant was accused of providing ‘the muscle’ to support the kidnapping. Rachel successfully adduced medical evidence to show that the defendant had recently lost an eye and was continuing to suffer medical complications from the same. Her client was the only defendant to be acquitted in the case. Firearms & Offensive Weapons R v C – A young defendant who pleaded to carrying an offensive weapon, putting him in breach of a suspended sentence for his previous conviction of robbery. Rachel successfully argued that the defendant suffered from PTSD andother conditions that merited a community disposal to facilitate treatment. The defendant was not sent to custody. R v P – Defendant who was charged with possession of a bladed article. Rachel successfully argued that the Defendant had forgotten to unpack the knife after moving house several days earlier and that this was sufficient to meet the needs of R.v.Mcalla (1988) 87 Cr.App.R in providing a reasonable excuse for possession of a knife. The Defendant was acquitted. Drugs Offences R v L – Cultivating cannabis case. This involved 186 plants over two main growing rooms. Rachel successfully argued that this was for personal, medicinal use and so should be distinguished from sentencing authorities that suggested lengthy sentences. The defendant received 6 months custody and the judge observed that, had the Defendant not involved his son in the cultivation, he would have considered a non-custodial sentence. R v T – Six-week trial of a multi-handed drugs conspiracy. The case was complicated by eventual disclosure of a large volume of surveillance and telephone evidence. Arson Rachel also has considerable experience in arson cases where the client has been motivated by feelings of suicide or self-harm, and often secures suspended or short custodial sentences in these sensitive cases. Fraud & Dishonesty R v B – Prosecuted a defendant accused on concealing a marriage in order to continue to claim single person benefits. The defendant argued that the marriage had broken down, but she had had two children with the defendant in that period. She was convicted. R v W – Defendant was found in possession of £35,000 of duty-free cigarettes. Pleaded to fraud offences and received a 20-month prison term. R v M – The Defendant had been found guilty of VAT-related offences and sentenced to 6 years custody. He was then found to be in default of his confiscation order and was sentenced to a consecutive 5 years. Proceedings were then brought against him for contempt of court, as he had failed to comply with the restraint order that remained in place from the commencement of the substantive offences. Prior to sentence it was indicated by the Judge that he intended to impose the maximum consecutive sentence of 2 years. With some discount for a guilty plea, Rachel successful argued that the court was obliged to consider the totality of the time that the Defendant had already served when imposing a further prison sentence, resulting in a proposed 18 month sentence being cut to 12 months custody. Child Neglect R v K – Prosecution junior counsel in a four-week case of child neglect which contributed to the child’s death. The case involved complex medical evidence and was further complicated by the unusual future of the deceased child being a twin - the medical evidence strongly suggested that the identity of the twins had been ‘swapped’ after the death. The defence also submitted that the child had suffered from rickets in the womb and sought to adduce an American medical expert to support this suggestion, whom the Crown successfully applied to exclude. People Trafficking R-v-A and others - junior counsel in a complex and paper heavy trial involving allegations of people trafficking, rape, drug dealing and burglary. https://www.lep.co.uk/news/crime/members-preston-gang-responsible-child-rapes-drug-dealingand-burglaries-sentenced-2505967 R v B – Junior counsel: A multi-handed case in which the defendants were accused of trafficking women to the UK for the purpose of prostitution. The trial was complicated by the use of multiple interpreters for the defendants. The defendant was convicted of people trafficking but acquitted of rape. Sexual Offences R v W - the Defendant, a transgender prisoner who was accused of sexual assault and rape. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838 R v W – in which the defendant, a transgender woman, was convicted of multiple counts of sexual offences against women. This was a developing case in which an on-going police investigation resulted in three new cases being laid against the defendant whilst the defendant was on remand due to assault allegations. Miss Cooper represented the defendant throughout the resulting allegations. These involved rape allegations against a recent partner; historic rape allegations; and allegations of sexual assaults against fellow prisoners. The latter resulted in the defendant being moved from a women’s prison into the male prison estate. The case involved many vulnerable witnesses and ongoing disclosure issues. Miss Cooper worked closely with the prosecution to clarify the developing cases whilst robustly defending her client, and preserving the dignity and anonymity of the witnesses during court proceedings. The defendant also had significant vulnerabilities that needed to be handled with sensitivity and understanding. This resulted in the defendant entering guilty pleas to a reduced indictment that properly reflected the criminal acts that had occurred. Professional Disciplinary GMC GMC v Dr B – Rachel was led by Suzanne Goddard QC in disciplinary proceedings against a reconstructive genito-urethral surgeon. The charges involved allegations of sexual assault against young patients and the doctor had been acquitted in two Crown Court trials, requiring analysis of the transcripts of Crown Court evidence in relation to the current charges. NMC NMC v T – Rachel was instructed by the registrant in relation to an interim orders hearing. The registrant accepted that she had struck a patient but stated that her fitness to practice was not impaired. Rachel argued that this was an isolated incident, at odds with the excellent character references provided for the registrant. Conditions would affect her ability to work. The panel chose to impose no conditions on the registrant's practice. Appellate Work Rachel has a broad range of experience in the court of appeal, Criminal division, for both the appellant and the respondent. I v R – For the Respondent: The defendant appealed his conviction following the discovery of new evidence that suggested a witness had lied at trial. The witness was interviewed and admitted telling some lies at court; however they did not affect the substance of the case against the defendant. Rachel represented the Crown in the court of appeal and called the witness in question. After submissions the Court agreed that the conviction was not unsafe.
Rebecca Filletti
Rebecca Filletti
Rebecca Filletti is ranked in both The Legal 500 & Chambers & Partners as a leading junior in general crime:"Rebecca is a highly intelligent, skilled, and persuasive advocate. She is already considered a leading senior junior in Manchester and she is instructed in serious and sensitive cases of a kind rarely briefed to someone of her call, but which she is more than capable to conduct with ease"- Legal 500, 2025"Regardless of the seriousness of the allegations, Rebecca always gives 100% commitment to a case in order to achieve the best result. She is a fearless and engaging advocate in court, but also has a very empathetic nature with those she represents, and she prepares all her cases extremely thoroughly and very quickly identifies the issues in a case." – The Legal 500, 2024 Edition. "Rebecca is incredibly thorough and leaves no stone unturned. Her dedication to her clients is exceptional and she has the perfect balance of making them feel special whilst maintaining the required level of professionalism. Her written advice is meticulous and her advocacy tenacious. She is an asset to the criminal Bar." – The Legal 500, 2023 Edition "Rebecca devotes herself unreservedly to every case from start to finish. A joy to work with and always enthusiastic. If you are looking for a barrister who applies in-depth analysis, preparation and support backed up with detailed, meticulous advice you won’t be disappointed" – The Legal 500, 2022 Edition "a superb oral advocate, always personable and persuasive in negotiation and in court. She is a forceful and courageous advocate who will not relinquish a good argument without a fight." – The Legal 500, 2021 Edition Rebecca is a highly regarded and experienced criminal practitioner. She specialises in criminal defence and has acted as counsel to defendants accused of the most serious criminal offences including murder, manslaughter, rape, historic sexual allegations (including intra-familial and multi-complainant allegations), child cruelty, terrorism, drug offences, fraud and offences relating to serious violence and firearms. Rebecca is approachable and skilled in representing young and vulnerable defendants. She has extensive experience of representing defendants with complex mental health needs and defences involving insanity, loss of control and diminished responsibility. Rebecca regularly represents mentally vulnerable defendants in hearings to determine fitness to plead as well as subsequent trials of issue. She is experienced in advising on the instruction of relevant experts and in the use of intermediaries. She also has particular expertise representing defendants who are victims of modern slavery and exploitation. In addition to the above, Rebecca has experience of representing military personnel in Court Martial proceedings and she accepts instructions to review and advise on the safety of historic convictions. Rebecca’s practice also covers Prison Law and Inquest and Inquiries where she has been instructed on high profile cases. Media Rebecca is regularly invited to speak about legal ‘hot topics’ in the media. She has most recently spoken on LBC radio about the sentences handed down to Hashem Abedi, the brother of the Manchester Arena bomber, and Adam Russell, an individual who walked through Gatwick Airport brandishing knives. NOTABLE CASES Murder & Manslaughter  D (2024) – Sole counsel representing defendant facing allegation of attempted murder in domestic setting. P (2024) – Junior counsel led by Rossano Scarmadella KC. Representing defendant facing an allegation of conspiracy to murder involving a firearm. C (2023) – Leading counsel representing defendant facing allegation of attempted murder involving a firearm. KY (2023) – Junior counsel led by Nina Grahame KC. Representing a woman charged with murder of her abusive partner. Exceptionally, a plea to manslaughter on the basis of loss of control was accepted by the prosecution following assessment of the defendant by numerous psychological and psychiatric experts and she was sentenced to 5 years and 3 months imprisonment. ‘Loss of control’ is a rare and difficult partial defence to murder, which required focused legal analysis of the factual scenario in which the defendant had stabbed the deceased with a knife. T (2023) – Sole counsel representing a defendant facing an allegation of attempted murder in a domestic setting. The defendant had stabbed his partner to the neck and back seemingly in an unprovoked attack. Expert psychiatrists were instructed to provide assessment of the defendant’s capacity at the time of the assault, concentrating on his mental state alongside self-induced intoxication, with a specific focus on the length of any hypnopompic state (state of consciousness leading out of sleep). Following three days of legal argument regarding admissibility of hearsay evidence and bad character evidence and the nature of the medical evidence in the case, a plea to a section 18 GBH offence was accepted by the Crown. The defendant was sentenced to a determinate sentence of 5 years 2 months imprisonment. OA (2021) – Led by Brenda Campbell QC. Junior counsel in 8-handed murder trial in the new ‘super court’ in Manchester. Allegations of gang violence between the two sides. Issues were joint enterprise and participation. Many forensic issues arising (DNA and blood spatter). Drill music and lyrics played a pivotal part in the trial. MN (2021) – Led by Nina Grahame QC. Instructed as junior counsel in 2-handed murder trial involving two extremely young defendants (aged 14). KG (2020) Junior counsel led by Nina Grahame QC of Garden Court North representing a young woman facing an allegation of murder of a young father with a knife. A plea to manslaughter on the basis of loss of control was accepted following assessment of the defendant by a total of 6 experts analysing features relating to the apprehension of violence in light of PTSD and a learning disability. Determinate sentence imposed. Intermediary granted for entire proceedings. TF (2020) Junior counsel in a case involving an allegation of murder in respect of a young male. Defendant was a young teenager whom had previously been found to be a victim of exploitation. Multi-handed County Lines case. Substantial amounts of CCTV evidence. Notice of application to dismiss resulted in matters being discontinued against the defendant. Drug Offences  AM (2022) – ‘EncroChat’ case. D faced numerous counts of conspiracy to supply large amounts of Class A drugs. CD (2022) – D (who is autistic and was a child during the indicted period) faced numerous allegations of possession with intent to supply large quantities of Class A drugs. He had pleaded guilty in the lower courts. Following concerns of counsel, the defendant was referred to the NRM procedure and he was found to be a victim of child exploitation. Successfully vacated pleas and served letter before action in respect of the CPS decision to continue with the prosecution of the defendant; soon thereafter no evidence offered in respect of all counts. MA (2019) Complicated Proceeds of Crime Act (‘POCA’) proceedings (that were extended to a period in excess of 3 years in total) following a conviction for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs for which the defendant was sentenced to a period of 9 years custody. Other Conspiracy Offences  EH (2021) Junior counsel led by Clare Ashcroft of Garden Court North in a case involving allegations of conspiracy to rob by multiple defendants. Significant disclosure and CCTV footage, raising issues to do with calibration. Crown ultimately accepted a plea to possession of Cannabis with intent to supply. PM (2021) Conspiracy to possess firearms and conspiracy to convert firearms. Cross examination of cell site and telephone (data sessions) experts, included cross examination in respect of ‘Encro phones’. CP (2021) Defendant unfit to plead. Trial of issue. Legal applications pursued regarding the interplay between mens rea and actus reus in cases of conspiracy and to sever the trial from other co-defendants. BS (2019) Multi-handed conspiracy to steal and export high end sports cars. Significant cell site evidence. Defendant initially standing trial on 12 count indictment alleging conspiracy. Defence cell site report led to a plea to 1 count of simple theft being accepted by the Crown. Defendant sentenced to suspended sentence order. MS (2018) Represented high-profile individual who was facing allegations of conspiracy to defraud. Successful legal argument advanced objecting to the proposed live link venue in Russia, which led to a terminating ruling. Sexual Offences  T (2024) – Teenage defendant, facing allegations of rape in the context of a ‘grooming gang’. MB (2024) – Allegation of rape after a party, issues were intoxication and consent. Involved significant review of telephone material leading to a section 41 application regarding the material contained therein. Defendant acquitted of all counts. JS (2023) – Teenage defendant, with significant cognitive, psychological and psychiatric issues facing multiple counts of sexual abuse and rape in relation to a number of complainants, including family members. Intermediary granted for the entire trial. Cross-examined young complainants under the section 28 provisions. TH (2023) – Defendant facing multiple allegations of sexual assault in respect of his daughter. Significant psychiatric and psychology assistance required for the defendant. Intermediary instructed for the full trial. Defendant acquitted of all counts. KS (2022) – D faced allegations of sexually assaulting three children. Cross-examined young complainants under the section 28 provisions. Acquitted of all counts. DS (2022) – D faced allegations of rapes. Issue was one of consent and reasonable belief in the same. Acquitted of all counts TT (2021) Young defendant accused of stabbing a 15 year old male facing count of section 18 wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Issue in the case identification. Application advanced to exclude cell site evidence. Crown ultimately offered no evidence and not guilty verdict returned. AH (2019) The ‘Ross Geller’ from ‘Friends’ lookalike case that garnered international media attention. Police officer identification excluded following successful legal argument. DB (2019) Young defendant serving a custodial sentence in HMP Hull identified as violent prisoner as part of the government’s ‘10 Prisons Project’. Charged with threats to kill based on words said in mandatory therapy sessions. Applications advanced to stay proceedings as an abuse of process due to entrapment and to exclude the evidence on the basis of fairness. DPP v Giles [2019] EWHC 2015 (Admin) Case stated from the Magistrates Court regarding the requirement for a Newton Hearing when a court is considering accepting a guilty plea in a matter that is being presented by the prosecution as being aggravated by sexual orientation discrimination under section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Criminal Defence and Appeals Rebecca has a breadth of experience defending clients at all levels of the Criminal Justice System. She routinely defends clients at trial accused of a broad spectrum of criminal offences, including rape, historic sexual allegations (including intra-familial and multi-complainant allegations), drug offences, fraud and offences relating to firearms and serious violence (including section 18, child abuse and manslaughter). In addition to her work as sole counsel, Rebecca has acted as junior counsel in cases involving allegations of terrorism, murder and large scale conspiracy. Rebecca is experienced in dealing with complex and voluminous evidence which often encompasses expert cell site evidence, telephone evidence (including encrypted telephone evidence), ANPR and substantial CCTV. Rebecca does not shy away from pursuing a legal argument. She has recently had success for her lay clients as a result of applications to dismiss, applications to stay as an abuse of process and applications to exclude evidence (including hearsay and bad character). Rebecca is regularly instructed to represent extremely young and / or mentally vulnerable defendants due to her personable and empathetic approach. She is experienced in advising on the instruction of relevant experts and in the use of intermediaries. She has particular expertise dealing with fitness to plead issues and disposals under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Richard Butcher
Richard Butcher
Richard was called to the bar in 1985 and is a highly experienced Crown Court barrister specialising in defending in serious and complex criminal cases. Over the past 20+ years, Richard has established himself as a proven trial lawyer in a vast range of complex cases from MTIC and VAT frauds, to gun running and serious drug cases. His most recent work encompasses cases of utmost gravity, involving a large Class A drug supply conspiracy, a human trafficking case, a police corruption conspiracy, and number of violent crime cases including kidnap and section 18 assaults. NOTABLE CASES Murder, Manslaughter & Extreme Violence R v A – Drug related murder in Birmingham. Defendant acquitted after enhancement of the CCTV proved conclusively that he was not responsible for delivering the fatal stab wound, and had sought to prevent the assault. R v E – Wolverhampton Crown Court – Defendant acquitted of attempted murder after complainant admitted in cross examination that he had sought information as to the identity of the attacker on the internet thereby compromising his ID procedure, and subsequently lying about it. R v S and Ors – Fatal stabbing on a petrol station forecourt. Defendant acquitted after careful analysis of the CCTV evidence proved he did not participate until after the fatal stab wound had been administered. R v T and Ors – Youth charged with attempted murder. All defendants were acquitted after proving that the complainants had instigated the violence. Drug Supply Conspiracies R v A and Ors – Exeter Crown Court – Large scale drug supply case involving multiple defendants supplying vast quantities (200 KG +) of cannabis to organised crime groups in the West Country. Complex telephone attribution. R v R and Ors – Birmingham Crown Court – International heroin importation of cocaine in clothing products sourced from Pakistan. R v K & Ors – Bristol Crown Court – Large scale drugs conspiracy involving Russian mafia links supplying cocaine to dealers in Gloucestershire. R v B & Ors – Salisbury Crown Court – Heroin and cocaine supply from Liverpool/Birmingham to Gloucester. R v P & Ors – Warwick Crown Court – Instructed for main defendant in “county line” drug supply from Wolverhampton to Stratford. 42 attributed drug Phones. Fraud and Money Laundering Operation Venison – R v A & Ors Southwark Crown Court – Landmark case involving a large scale MTIC fraud stopped as an abuse of process - important case on the duties of Crown disclosure. R v A – Knutsford, Southwark, and Manchester Crown Court – 3 complex trials, twice acquitted on the most serious charges. Convicted of only relatively minor offences on the third. The trials were for conspiracy to defraud via exploiting the Nat West banking scheme in which some £15 million was fraudulently obtained and transferred to Bank accounts in Latvia. The defendant was the only one acquitted. The second trial was a large MTIC fraud, again acquitted. The third trial involved insolvency offences and fraud. R v J & Ors – Mold Crown Court – Acting for the main conveyancing solicitor in what was reputed to be the largest mortgage fraud prosecuted in Wales. Operation Vaulter – R v B & Ors – Kingston Crown Court – Complex VAT fraud, involving 17 defendants with a purported loss to the revenue of £40 million. R v E – Norwich Crown Court – Complex fraud involving the theft from investors of some £20 million, laundered through a web of international accounts. R v G and H – Liverpool Crown Court – Complex MTIC fraud in which defendant was acquitted on one count and convicted of another. After 3 visits to the Court of Appeal conviction finally quashed due to prosecution lack of disclosure not revealed until much later. R v F and Ors – Central Criminal Court – Cash for crash fraud. My defendant was acquitted after being able to show that he had been the subject matter of duress and intimidation from the main defendant. OTHER EXPERIENCE Gun Running & Firearms R v A & Ors – Manchester Crown Court – Represented the only defendant to have the case stopped against him on a charge of conspiracy to supply a Skorpion sub machine gun, after his closing speech. R v Stephenson and Ors [2016] EWCA Crim 54. – Leading case on firearms sentencing. The main defendant was the “Godfather” of the notorious Burger Bar gang. He and his accomplices were sourcing and distributing firearms to criminal gangs throughout the country by converting antique and obsolete firearms and manufacturing bespoke ammunition. Sentence was referred as unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal. R v X – Birmingham Crown Court – Youth acquitted of possession of a firearm with intent. The Crowns eye witness was discredited in cross examination and careful use of CCTV footage provided an alibi Human Trafficking R v B and Ors – Newcastle Crown Court – Polish forced labour case involving multiple complainants and interpreters. R v P and Ors – Nottingham Crown Court – Forced labour case at Sports Direct. Multiple identity fraud and passport offences. Police Corruption R v H & Ors - Birmingham Crown Court - 2 serving West Midlands police officers providing sensitive police information to local drug dealers, and plotting to steal Class A drugs from staged police raids. Kidnap R v A and Ors – Wolverhampton Crown Court – Revenge kidnap and assault on man suspected of sexually abusing daughter of one of the kidnappers. R v T.H. – Birmingham Crown Court – Gang related drugs kidnap and assault. Originally charged as an attempted murder. Regulatory Offences Experienced In a wide variety of directors disqualification and related cases. Currently advising on a number of cases in which the Crown are seeking to re visit Proceeds of Crime orders in the basis of new information as to the defendant's benefit.
Richard English
Richard English
OVERVIEW "Richard prosecutes and defends in serious and often sensitive cases, and he is an intelligent and astute advocate who jurors like. His closing speeches are some of the finest on the circuit, and he has significant experience in cases with a mental health element and is frequently sought out for severely mentally disordered defendants, as well as cases involving very vulnerable witnesses and complainants."  Crime(General and Fraud) - Legal 500, 2024 "An extremely thorough and personable advocate who has an excellent rapport with juries and clients.." The Legal 500 , 2021 "His preparation is first-class and his drafting of advice on complex issues is excellent." Legal 500, 2019 Richard is a skillful and persuasive advocate who prides himself on providing the best advice, and the most effective representation. Richard is a native of Dublin.  He studied History at Trinity College, Dublin University.  He qualified as a solicitor in England in 1996, and in Ireland in 1997 where he practiced for two years.  As a solicitor he was involved in a number of high-profile and complex cases amongst them – the London City Bond fraud and the Sally Clark appeal.  He became a partner with Burton Copeland Solicitors in 2000. He was called to the Bar in 2003 and practices at the Criminal Bar, appearing in courts in the North West and throughout the country.  He has a predominately defence practice, but does prosecute in complex, document heavy, multi-handed cases. He was a Law Society trainer on the Human Rights Acts and have been trained by Amicus in death row cases.  He has advised the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas and has written for their journal on mental health issues. “With Richard controlling my case I felt reassured that everything will be dealt with professionally and without any drama”  – Client Testimonial Specialisms Mental Health – Richard has a particular interest and expertise in offences involving mentally disordered defendants. He is instructed because of his skill, patience and understanding of those who are particularly vulnerable when faced with the ordeal of appearing in court. He also appears in Mental Health Review Tribunals. He is a member of the Mental Health Lawyers Association, and in 2017 he was awarded a Post-Graduate Diploma in Mental Health Law from the University of Northumbria. Sexual Offences – Richard is regularly instructed to represent those alleged to have committed the most serious sexual offences, which very often, are said to have happened many years before. Allegations of this type are invariably devastating to all involved; they require detailed preparation, patient, and when necessary robust advice, as well as thoughtful and sensitive consideration both in and out of court. Offences Involving Children – Over the years Richard has been involved in many cases where the Police believe a child has been the victim of serious, often fatal violence. In the process he has developed an understanding of the complex medical and other evidential issues involved. Offences Involving Defendants with Mental Health Problems R v R - A very serious allegation with a life threatening injury caused by a knife. Complicated by the fact that the Defendant was the Father of the Victim. Psychiatric and Psychological reports obtained which allowed the court draw back from what otherwise would have been a substantial custodial sentence. R v B – Defending. Rape. 16-year old defendant unfit to stand trial. Jury not sure in relation to one allegation. Hospital order with restrictions made. R v J – Defending. Rape.11-year old defendant unfit to stand trial. Jury not sure in relation to one allegation. Supervision order made. R v G – Defending. Rape. Defendant diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, accused of a campaign of rape. R v A – Defending. Arson. Defendant, while trying to take her own life, set fire to herself and in the process a block of flats causing extensive damage to the flats and serious injury to herself. Hospital order with restrictions. R v P – Defending. Death by Dangerous Driving. Defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity. Absolute Discharge. R v D – Defending. Attempted Murder. Defendant diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged to have tried to kill a former partner. Plea to a lesser offence accepted. Hospital Order without restrictions made. R v E – Defending. Defendant diagnosed as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Accused of perverting the course of justice by making a false allegation of rape. R v J – Defending. Defendant diagnosed with persistent delusional disorder. Accused of arson and possession of weapons. Hospital order with restrictions. R v P – Defending. Defendant diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia was accused of attempting to murder a neighbour. R v B – Defending. Murder. Defendant diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, charged with murder, he admitted manslaughter and received a hospital order with restriction. Junior alone. Sexual Offences R v B - Allegations made that in 2017 and 2018 D sexually abused girls aged 13 and 14; the allegations included a series of violent rapes. D had autism and great care was required in taking his instructions and keeping him informed of the trial's progress. Cross examination of the complainants was a difficult exercise requiring considerable skill and preparation. Not Guilty verdicts after 4 week+ trial. R v D – Defending a man accused of raping five women over a ten-month period. Leading junior. R v H – Defending one of a number accused of a campaign of rape and abuse against young women. R v S – Defending. Historic allegations of serious sexual abuse. R v I – Defending. Adult Defendant accused of befriending online and then having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old. R v M – Defending. Defendant acquitted following trial upon an allegation he had abused his step-daughter over two years. R v R – Defending. Youth court matter. Defendant accused of rape, pleaded guilty to a lesser offence and received a referral order. R v H – Defending. Defendant acquitted of rape following trial. R v G – Defending G, accused of a campaign of rape and sexual abuse against a number of victims over thirty years. R v D – Defending D. Charged with rape. Part way through the trial the Crown amended the indictment following the complainants evidence. He was not guilty of rape but was, as he had accepted, guilty of sexual activity with a child, he received a non custodial sentence. R v X – Defending a student charged with attempting rape a fellow student. R v X – Defending a man alleged to have sexually assaulted his step-daughter, acquitted following trial. R v X – Defending a man alleged to have raped his daughter in the 1970s, acquitted of rape, convicted of indecent assault. R v X – Defending a man charged with a series of historic offences against his siblings which lasted ten years. OTHER SERIOUS CRIME Murder and Manslaughter R v S – Defending. Murder. Convicted of robbery. R v A – Defending. Murder. Guilty plea. Junior alone. R v S – Defending. Murder. Guilty plea. Led by Mukthar Hussain QC. R v B – Defending. Murder. Defendant diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, charged with murder, he admitted manslaughter and received a hospital order with restrictions. Junior alone. R v T – Defending. Murder. Led by Paul Reid Q C R v L – Defending. Manslaughter. While in drink, the Defendant pushed his best friend who struck his head and died. R v H – Defending, Manslaughter, led by James Pickup QC, D charged with others with causing the death of an 18-month old child. Robbery, drugs, firearms and assault R v S – Defending. Bournemouth Crown Court. Conspiracy to commit armed robbery. R v E – Defending. Death by dangerous driving. Guilty plea. Community order imposed. R v M – Defending. Farmer acquitted following trial of causing unnecessary suffering to a dog which he had shot while it was worrying sheep. R v S – Defending. S was charged with the assault of a transgender woman, a difficult and sensitive case, the Defendant admitted the offence and received a non-custodial sentence. R v M – Defending. M accused of being in possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, she received a non-custodial sentence, much to the annoyance of the Daily Mail. R v M – Defending. M admitted shooting at the home of the father of a rival gang member. R v F – Defending, Defendant charged with very serious s18, after negotiations the prosecution accept a plea to s20, suspended sentence imposed Offences involving children R v M – Defending. Defendant charged with cruelty of his two children by wilful neglect. R v X – Defending. Defendant charged with assaulting four-week old daughters (s.18); acquitted of one, convicted of the other, sentence was appealed by the Attorney General as unduly lenient. R v I – Defending. Defendant charged with manslaughter of son, plea to cruelty accepted, suspended sentence imposed. R v H – Defending, Manslaughter, led by James Pickup QC, D charged with others with causing the death of an 18-month-old child. Financial Crime/Fraud R v B – Defending. Defendant was acquitted after a nine month trial brought by the SFO following the collapse of the Defendant's investment business and a loss of £170m to investors. Led by Stephen Solley QC. R v S – Defending. Defendant acquitted following trial in relation to his alleged involvement in a Construction Industry Fraud Scheme. Led by Nick Johnson QC. FSA v D – Defending. Advised the Defendant in relation to proceedings taken under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. R v P – Defending. Defendant pleaded guilty to fraud, having taken in the region of £100,000 from his Mother's estate over which he had power of attorney. R v Q – Defending. Conspiracy to defraud Nat West Bank of £20m. Led by Paul Reid QC. R v A – Defending. Defendant was an accountant accused of making over £1m worth of false claims to HMRC for the repayment of tax. R v H – Defending. Defendant acquitted following a trial alleging she was in possession of over £100,000 said to be the proceeds of crime and that over a significant period of time she laundered the proceeds of crime. Prosecutions R v Fowler and others – Prosecuting five men involved in the kidnap of a Preston business man. A ransom of £100,000 was demanded, the victim was held for 18 hours. R v Watkins and 14 others – Prosecuting. Defendants were part of a gang who sold £1.5m worth of class A drugs in Preston. R v Viggars and ten others – Prosecuting drug dealing gang in Skelmersdale. Leading junior. R v Pennington and others – Prosecuting. Conspiracy to commit robbery. R v Seddon and others – Prosecuting. Series of cash in transit robberies. Appeals R v Alkazraji – [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 55; sentencing pregnant Defendants. AG Ref 94 of 2006 – [2006] EWCA Crim 3028. Arson. R v Almond – [2007] EWCA Crim 486. Confiscation, calculation of the available amount and period in default. R v Boswell – [2007] EWCA Crim 1587, appeal against imposition of indeterminate sentence. R v James Kelly -[2007] EWCA Crim 3160, despite “forceful and attractive submissions” the appeal was unsuccessful. R v Craven and Beswick – [2012] 1 WLR 1126. Successful appeals against sentences imposed following the Manchester riots. R v Brennan – [2012] EWCA Crim 2000. Successful appeal against sentence in relation to the supply of drugs. R v McNamee – [2016] EWCA Crim 2158. Successful appeal against sentence imposed for assault. R v Lynch [2015] 2 Cr App R (S) 73, appeal against sentence imposed following plea to manslaughter. R v Cassidy – [2016] EWCA Crim 1142 Attorney General’s reference. R v S.S. – [2018] Sentence imposed for, amongst other things, coercive behaviour, reduced. R v W – [2018] Attorney General’s reference, s18 assault. R v M [2018] EWCA Crim 2040, appeal against sentence in historic sexual offence. R v G [2018] EWCA Crim 2682, appeal against sentence in harassment case
Richard Simons
Richard Simons
"Leading junior who concentrates on defending clients facing allegations of serious criminal conduct. He has experience handling murder and firearms cases, including those relating to organised crime. He also handles significant fraud and confiscation matters." "Mainly undertakes defence work, with particular knowledge of all types of fraud and general crime." - Legal 500, 2015 OVERVIEW Richard Simons has a predominantly defence based practice. He is instructed in a wide variety of cases concerning serious and organised crime. As can be seen below, he has appeared in a large number of significant cases involving offences of Murder (including alleged gangland executions), Robbery, Terrorism, Blackmail, Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, Money Laundering, Firearms, Prison Mutiny and Drug Importations. He is also instructed in a large number of offences of Fraud, including offences of Theft, Mortgage Fraud, PAYE Fraud, DWP Fraud, VAT Fraud and Corruption. He also has a particular interest in Confiscation Hearings and as a result of his practice has significant experience in conducting them. He is often instructed to conduct such hearings even when not briefed in the substantive trial. Richard Simons has a predominantly defence based practice. He is instructed in a wide variety of cases concerning serious and organised crime. He has appeared in a large number of significant cases involving offences of Murder (including alleged gangland executions), Robbery, Terrorism, Blackmail, Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, Money Laundering, Firearms, Prison Mutiny and Drug Importations. He is also instructed in a large number of offences of Fraud, including offences of Theft, Mortgage Fraud, PAYE Fraud, DWP Fraud, VAT Fraud and Corruption. Richard also has a particular interest in Confiscation Hearings and as a result of his practice has significant experience in conducting them. He is often instructed to conduct such hearings even when not briefed in the substantive trial. Murder R v S – The alleged deliberate driving off the road of another motorist following an incident of road rage. The case involved significant expert scientific evidence R v G – The kidnapping, false imprisonment and torturing to death of a drug dealer over an unpaid debt. R v Charles – The murder of a flat mate where the defendant thereafter cut the body into pieces before distributing the remains around various parks in Nottingham. R v Brasher – A prison murder where the defendant allegedly garrotted his cell mate and then hung his body at the window in an attempt to make the death look like a suicide. Enquiries revealed that the defendant had allegedly tried to garrotte two previous cell mates. R v J – The alleged beating to death or a man believed to be a paedophile, before disposing of his body in the Ship Canal. R v Cassidy – An intended execution in a public house which went wrong when a ricochet killed an innocent customer. R v M – The beating to death of a landlord during the course of an armed robbery. Robbery R v W – The then largest ever cash robbery in Europe (£6 million), none of which was ever recovered. Six week abuse hearing led to the indictment being stayed. R v Pearson – A conspiracy involving nine substantive offences of robbery on Banks and Securicor vehicles. R v Kels – A conspiracy involving twenty armed robberies of Securicor vehicles when ocollecting or delivering money to Banks. The trial involved a Supergrass. R v Calderbank – A conspiracy involving seven offences of robbery including one where the manager of a Public House was falsely imprisoned in his home and a tazer gun was used on him to obtain the code to the safe at the Public House Terrorism R v S – A Security Services prosecution. The defendant was allegedly plotting to cause explosions in the Manchester and Birmingham areas. R v Dr M – A Security Services prosecution. This was a defendant who had been acquitted in the above trial. He requested that Mr Simons conduct his defence. He was a PHD Chemist. Albeit that the jury were informed that the defendant had been previously acquitted of the same offence, having run the same defence (his expertise being sought by others when he had no knowledge as to the use that they were going to make of the information), he was again acquitted. Blackmail R v B – The alleged kidnapping and false imprisonment of an individual, for whose release a significant ransom was demanded. R v O – An alleged £160 million Carousel Fraud, which led to a disagreement between the alleged conspirators. This resulted in the kidnapping and false imprisonment of the family of one conspirator whilst demands were made for the return of the monies from the fraud Theft R v Bagshaw – Breach of Trust. This case concerned the sophisticated theft of over £300,000 from the defendant’s employer. R v Entwistle – Conspiracy to Steal. The theft and realisation of £1 million worth of shares from an elderly man whom the defendant had befriended and was in ill health. Kidnapping and False Imprisonment R v Overend – The kidnapping and false imprisonment of two police officers in the middle of the night, whilst they were on duty, by a team of armed robbers who had been inadvertently stumbled upon by the Officers whilst lying in wait to kidnap a Bank Manager at his home in a rural area. R v Boyle – The successive kidnapping and false imprisonment of three individual gang members, who were then shot or tortured in order to get them to reveal the whereabouts of the gang leader, who it was intended should be executed. R v W – The kidnapping and false imprisonment of a minor Money Laundering R v O’Brien – £90 million money laundering case in which monies from a whole variety of criminal activities were dispatched to Dubai through a Travel Agent. R v Khansia – A money laundering case which centred on the activities of the Khansia family and the financing by them of a substantial property portfolio. Much of the evidence related to dealings in Malawi. R v Edwards – A case which concerned the laundering of the proceeds of drug dealing. Firearms R v Wray – The importation of 30, loaded, silenced firearms from Lithuania R v S – Drive by shooting with machine guns. This was a significant case due to the fact that it was the first reported case where the prosecution had a single identifying witness, who was allowed to remain anonymous. After cross examination the Judge was persuaded to change his ruling, and the witness was exposed as being a man who was not only known to the defendant but one who also bore a grudge against him. R v Hussain – Gang Warfare with machine guns. Prison Mutiny R v Allen – Prison Mutiny at Full Sutton Prison. (Two-month trial) R v Mack – Prison Mutiny at Castington Young Offenders Institute. R v Bogle – Prison Mutiny at Lincoln Prison. (Three-month trial) R v Sultan – Prison Mutiny at Forest Bank Prison. Drug Importations. R v Grange – Importation of Ecstasy (£6 million) – (Three-month trial) R v Marland – Importation of Class A drugs (£60 million) – (Three-month trial) R v O’Neil – Importation of Class A and B drugs (£50 million) R v Bracken – Importation of Class B drugs (£5 million) Tax Fraud R v Ahmed – Conspiracy to Cheat the Public Revenue and Conspiracy to Defraud. This concerned the Managing Director of a knitwear factory who was prosecuted in two separate fraud trials by The Revenue and the Department of Work and Pensions. The allegations concerned the understating of wages over a six year period and the facilitating (deliberately) thereby of fraudulent tax credit claims by the employees. R v McLeavey – Conspiracy to Cheat the Revenue. This was a Missing Trader Intra-Community Fraud and concerned an allegation of Cheating the Public Revenue out of £2.8 million. The prosecution case was that had arrests not been made, then the total figure would have been £10 million. The defendant was also charged with an offence under Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. The defendant was alleged to have made corrupt payments to a VAT officer in return for blank VAT Registration Certificates. These were then used to perpetrate a Carousel Fraud to the above value. R v G – A prosecution arising out of the alleged illicit activities of a Registered Charity. The case concerns three separate allegations of dishonesty, namely: i) Conspiracy to Cheat the Revenue (a PAYE Fraud) which is alleged to have been committed by the deliberate understating of employee wages; (ii) Theft, by the appropriation from the charity of a significant percentage of the donations made to it and (iii) Conspiracy to Cheat the Revenue, a Gift Aid Fraud, allegedly perpetrated by the non-declaration of the fact that the majority of the declared donations were from limited companies Excise Fraud R v L – The defendant was the owner of a haulage company who was indicted (along with eight others) as a consequence of his alleged involvement in the importation of numerous lorry loads of cigarettes through various UK ports. The trial ran for twelve weeks before the jury was discharged as a result of nondisclosure. The prosecution did not ultimately resist the subsequent Abuse of Process Argument. R v Moosa. – This case concerned the importation of cigarettes from China, via Dubai into Southampton Docks. Conspiracy to Defraud R v S – Conspiracy to Defraud. The fraud alleged was against various persons and bodies who agreed to pay for advertisements in a Crime Prevention Yearbook. The Prosecution alleged that the fraud was carried on in the course of the operation of two companies, namely: Barclay Seymour Limited and Fullerton Publications Limited. The apparent business of the companies was to produce Crime Prevention Yearbooks for distribution supported by advertisements from clients who were contacted by telesales staff employed by the two companies. It was alleged that there was no intention to produce yearbooks in the manner promised to clients. Fraudulent Trading R v B – Fraudulent Trading and Assisting a Bankrupt - The allegations arose out of Ms B’s role as Company Secretary with Omega Imported Brands Limited. This company was in her son’s name although the entire thrust of the Prosecution case was that it was actually her ex-husband’s, company. The case involved Omega Imported Brands Limited being used for significant fraudulent purposes. A number of individuals and companies were cheated out of a substantial amount of money as a result. VAT Fraud R v E – This was a repayment fraud and concerned a defendant who was alleged, over a significant period, to have been involved in ten bogus companies; all of which purported to deal in computer hardware sourced in Russia. R v C – The defendant was a Company Secretary in a textile firm who it was alleged had made bogus repayment applications for goods that he had allegedly exported, when in fact they had been sold in the UK. Drug Manufacture & Supply R v Brown – Amphetamine Factory (Two-month trial) R v Simpson – Manufacture of LSD, Amphetamine and Ecstasy (Three-month trial) R v Hilton – Manufacture of fake Ecstasy. (Three-month trial) R v Wright – Multi-million pound Class A supply (Three month trial) Confiscation Hearings R v McLeavey – £3 million Confiscation Proceedings R v Grange – £3 million Confiscation Proceedings R v Mulvey – £750,000 Confiscation Proceedings
Richard Dawson
Richard Dawson
"Richard is one of the best in the business on his feet in front of a jury. His experience really tells in the cross-examination of witnesses and he thinks outside the box when it comes to defending cases, always adding something different that others had not considered."- Legal 500, 2025 “Richard Dawson is especially skilled in transport law.”- Legal 500, 2025 “Richard is excellent at putting clients at ease and providing sound advice in a way which can be easily understood. He is strategic, intelligent, and leaves no stone unturned, and his approachable and likeable manner makes for an engaging trial advocate who juries can really get on board with” - Legal 500, 2025 "Richard is an incredibly hard working barrister. His drafting of legal arguments and written submissions is particularly impressive, and in relation to advocacy, he is a confident, persuasive, and seriously impressive court room presence." Recommended in Legal 500 2024 - Crime (General and Fraud) "Richard’s regulatory specialism focusses on transport law and it is an area where he is developing a national reputation as being a leading expert. He regularly appears before the Traffic Commissioner where he represents haulage companies, transport managers, and drivers, and his success rate is outstanding." Recommended in Legal 500 2024 - Business and Regulatory Crime (Inc H&S) "Richard is a fantastic advocate. On his feet in a trial is as strong as many counsel a great deal more senior. What really makes him stand out is the ability to get to grips with and apply technical and complex expert evidence, such as collision reconstruction, medical, tachographs data etc. This enables him to challenge prosecution experts and present defence evidence in a fluent and concise way, which translates to the jury and bench." - Legal 500, 2023 Richard "has an impressive practice and has been active in multiple injury and death by dangerous driving cases." - Legal 500, 2023 "Richard is an extremely experienced barrister who has a keen eye for the detail. He works very well under pressure and engages with the jury in a way I’ve not seen with any other barrister." - The Legal 500, 2022 "The jury sit up and listen when he is on his feet and his likeable, understandable approach means all can follow the issues he raises" - The Legal 500, 2022 “His diligence, preparation and communication help put clients at ease”  The Legal 500, 2021 “…the set houses practitioners with more niche specialisms, such as Richard Dawson who handles some of the most serious and legally complex motoring cases.”  - The Legal 500, 2020 “Clients trust his advice.”  - The Legal 500, 2019 “An intelligent and subtle cross-examiner.”  - The Legal 500, 2018 “The Legal 500: Crime - Leading Junior - Ranked: Tier 1 OVERVIEW Richard Dawson is an expert trial lawyer, specialising in road traffic law, regulatory and professional discipline matters, and serious crime. Richard has a nation-wide client base and undertakes work throughout the UK. Having developed a strong reputation for hard work, immaculate preparation and clear fact management in complex cases, Richard is highly regarded by all those who instruct him. A road traffic specialist with more than 15 years of experience representing those accused with driving offences, Richard particularly deals with offences arising from serious road accidents.  His wealth of knowledge and skill in this highly specialised area is best demonstrated by his track record of successfully defending drivers charged with causing death and/or catastrophic injury. Richard is regularly instructed in professional discipline matters and frequently appears before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. With a background in regulatory matters, Richard receives consistent instruction in cases commenced by the General Medical Council; Trading Standards; the Health and Safety Executive; the Environment Agency; and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (formerly VOSA). His work includes being routinely instructed in cases arising out of and/or in connection to an inquest before a Coroner, touching on the death.  Such instructions are typically in the context of regulatory and road traffic work. Richard continues to be instructed in licensing cases, advising on matters for which a licence is required and representing applicants, local authorities and interested parties, at all levels, though committee to Court. Additionally, Richard represents those charged with the most serious crimes, including murder; serious assaults; serious road accidents, resulting in death or catastrophic injury; rape; sexual offences; drugs matters; fraud and financial offences. Richard is frequently asked to represent private client individuals.  He has successfully represented professionals in a variety of committee, tribunal and Court forums, including solicitors, accountants, medical professionals, professional sports personalities and high-net-worth individuals, and is licensed to provide legal advice and representation directly to members of the public.  
Rick Holland
Rick Holland
OVERVIEW Rick joined Lincoln House in 1994 having been a solicitor with the Crown Prosecution Service for nine years. For the most part, his work is criminal, both prosecution and defence, on occasions as Leading Counsel, in relation to offences of murder, attempted murder, serious sexual assault, organised crime gang activity, evasion of duty, VAT fraud, serious violence, firearms, child neglect, commercial and mortgage fraud, money laundering, large scale drug importation (particularly involving the deployment of undercover officers and participating informants), large scale car ringing, conspiracy to defraud and related trading standard offences, election fraud. He has extensive experience of inquests particularly death in custody cases and recently, unlawful killing/murder committed by British nationals abroad and he appears regularly before the MPTS on behalf of the GMC. Rick undertakes other regulatory work on behalf of the Information Commissioner’s Office and has spoken at seminars to investigative and legal members of the ICO in respect of law and practice applicable to the Data Protection Act 1998. He has defended in many cases involving misconduct in public office and related data protection prosecutions on behalf of serving police officers and others. In terms of disciplinary work he represents members of the Police Federation and has conducted lectures to the Greater Manchester Police and members of outside forces in relation to:- The deployment of C.H.I.S (Covert Human Intelligence Sources) , Ex parte PII Applications, non disclosure of intelligence sources and the provision of texts for informants, Covert police investigation and the deployment of dedicated undercover police officers (including in the context of participating and non participating CHISs). He has also lectured on behalf of White Paper to a wide range of law enforcement organisations in relation to issues of disclosure, public interest immunity, RIPA and the CPIA regime and spoken on the topic of phone intercepts. He is recognised as having a particular expertise in confiscation matters and has lectured to other barristers, solicitors and the police on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. NOTABLE CASES Murder R v Synott (and Others) – Junior Counsel/Prosecution – Gangland execution, conspiracy to murder, difficult disclosure and evidential issues. R v Spencer (and Others) – One of the defendants convicted in Synott and others became “a supergrass”. New batch of defendants charged with conspiracy to murder. Numerous disclosure issues. Drug Related Cases “Operation Field”, “Operation Desert” I and “Operation Desert II” – Prosecution – Drug Trafficking cases R v Butt – Defence – Money laundering charge relating to the delivery of £100,000 in cash to another individual at Manchester Airport. Revenue and Customs investigation. R v E.W.P (“Operation Gately”) – Prosecution – Long-term covert infiltration of large-scale drug suppliers. R v T.R. (and 10 others) – Leading Counsel on behalf of the Prosecution – Defendants charged with conspiracy to defraud (£400,000) plus kidnap, false imprisonment and assault. Fallout between two criminal gangs. “Technical expert” from one gang was kidnapped and falsely imprisoned for a lengthy period pending payment of a ransom. Well-planned fraud executed at a number of garages: significant amount of money generated. R v C, N and W – Prosecution – Large-scale importation. Relevant misconduct occurring both in the UK and abroad. Use, in evidence, of phone intercepts obtained by foreign authorities. R v N – Defence – Importation of Class A drugs from Pakistan by alleged female courier. R v A.I – Accountant charged with large-scale conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. R v P.N – Leading Counsel for the Defence – Large-scale cultivation of cannabis and money laundering activities of offenders that have taken place in Norfolk and London. (and Others) – Defence – Large-scale drug importation of heroin weaved into rugs imported from Afghanistan. Sexual Offences R v C – Prosecution – Historic sex abuse - 25-30 years earlier - part of the evidence related to false memory syndrome. Experts called on either side. R v L – Prosecution – Historic sex abuse: serious sexual offences committed against two different girls with a significant gap in time. R v G – Defence – Historic rapes alleged by two different girls. R v Tanby – Prosecution – Rape of student. Difficult forensic issues. Plus a number of historic sex cases (defence). Election Fraud R v M.K (and Others) – Leading Counsel for the Defence – Election fraud. R v S.M – Defence – Election fraud. Fraud R v RB – Conspiracy to handle stolen motor vehicles: value £450,000 sophisticated method employed concerning import and export of motor vehicles. R v M.B – Large scale counterfeiting and related money laundering offences & resultant POCA. R v Y.M – Defence – Alleged ‘high end’ car theft/ fraud. High profile witness entailing bad character issues. Disclosure hearings to obtain police intelligence. R v G.W – Defence – Solicitor charged with mortgage fraud. R v J.B – Defence – Professional charged with high value mortgage fraud against background of alleged police misconduct. Complex disclosure issues/S.8 disclosure hearings. Organised Crime Group Violence R v N.K – Defence – S.18 Wounding, violent disorder arising out of Organised Crime Gang activity. Disclosure hearings to obtain intelligence as to criminal activities of complainant (leader of opposing faction). R v A.Y (and Others) – Junior Counsel for the Defence – Conspiracy to pervert course of justice relating to attempts made by individuals to persuade supergrass not to give evidence in a murder trial. “Operation Lantern” – Leading Counsel for the Prosecution – Two 3-month long cases as leading Counsel prosecuting 20 defendants from 2 contingents involved in serious street violence with Organised Crime Gang background. Intelligence & disclosure issues R v K.B – Prosecution – Attempted murder (shooting) of doorman by group recruited for that purpose. Numerous historic sex prosecutions. R v MA – Defence – Assisting an offender. Part of Dale Cregan trial. Data Protection & Misconduct in Public Office R v J.P – Defence – Professional charged with misconduct in public office & related data protection offences. S.8 disclosure applications throughout case (4-5 weeks). R v K.M – Professional charged with misconduct in public office & related data protection offences. Extensive disclosure issues/hearings (ex-parte & inter partes). R v D & K – Prosecution – Defendants charged with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, intelligence supplied by police employee to known criminals. R v R – Leading Counsel for the Prosecution – Misconduct in public office by serving police officer supplying unauthorised information to car recovery companies. Reported Cases R v McGarry (1998) – Decision on the use of prepared statements and adverse inferences under s.34 Crime and Disorder Act 1994. R v Wigan Justices ex-parte Johnson and Stone (1999) – Extent of prosecution duty to serve video and audio tapes of undercover police officers in contact with those under investigation: criteria to be followed. R v Greenwood (2004) EWCA Crim 1388, [2004] 6 Archbold News Liverpool Crown Court and CCA – Confession by defendant three-years after the murder of a young girl. Body found in the River Ribble in Preston. Expert psychological evidence called on both sides in the absence of the jury and thereafter in the presence of the jury concerning the admissibility of a confession.
Robert Elias
Robert Elias
Bob Elias is one of the most senior juniors on circuit. He has specialised in serious crime throughout his career and has been involved in several cases which have had significant national interest. Bob is well known for his no-nonsense, straight talking approach and is considered a top class advocate and brilliant cross examiner who can get right to the heart of any issue. Bob has significant experience across the full spectrum criminal offences but is in particular demand for cases involving the most serious violence, drug conspiracies, sexual offences and fraud. Bob is a Category 4 Prosecutor, with an equal split between prosecuting and defending. Historically Bob has been involved in some very significant fraud matters including acting as a leading Junior for the defence in R v Awan and other, a leading Customs Diversion Fraud case. Bob is an extremely popular member of the Northern Circuit, he is well known and very much respected by his colleagues at the bar and on the bench.
Samantha Riggs
Samantha Riggs
Samantha Riggs is an established and well regarded leading junior advising and defending corporate and individual defendants in complex fraud and regulatory investigations and prosecutions; with extensive experience in environmental crime and expertise in waste management/environmental permitting and statutory nuisance, in particular. Samantha often advises pre-interview/pre-charge, is accustomed to taking a pro-active approach at the outset of proceedings, and is skilled in taking pre-trial challenges including legality of search warrants, abuse of process arguments, and interpretation of the Environmental Permitting Regulations. She is highly methodical in the preparation of cases with an eye for detail and skilled in disclosure. Experienced in restraint, confiscation and enforcement receivership, Samantha acts on behalf of defendants and interested third parties. With civil background and experience in appeals in the VAT Tribunal and before PINs and civil enforcement by the Environment Agency in the High Court. Other regulatory work includes health and safely, food safety, trading standards. Experienced in judicial review. Samantha is listed in the Legal 500 as a leader in Business and Regulatory Crime (including global investigations) and Fraud: Crime (including money laundering and asset forfeiture. According to the Legal 500, Samantha is "very smart".
Samuel Jones
Samuel Jones
Samuel was called to the Bar in 2011. He became a tenant of Lincoln House Chambers in January 2018. He is a well-established civil and regulatory practitioner and has developed successful working relationships with several local and national solicitors and insurers. Samuel primarily practises in personal Injury (including credit hire), employment and regulatory law. However, he also accepts instructions in all other areas of civil law including commercial, chancery and property. Samuel is client-focused and approachable. He is content to accept instructions at any stage of proceedings and can provide ad hoc or informal advice at short notice. He is a meticulous and robust advocate and has been commended for his thorough case preparation and effective advocacy in court. Samuel has also received praise for the high quality of his written work and pleadings. Samuel is licensed to provide advice and representation under the “Public Access” scheme directly to members of the public. Samuel has given several lectures and seminars on various topics to local solicitors. More recently, he has provided seminars to local solicitors in relation to credit hire and procedure. The training is free of charge and is registered for CPD. Personal Injury Samuel has a strong multi-track practice and an established fast track practice. He accepts instructions across all areas of personal injury work, including road traffic accident claims, occupier’s liability claims and public liability claims. Samuel has a particular interest in representing parties in which there are allegations of dishonesty/fraud and has acted for both claimants and defendants at first instance and on appeal. He is regularly instructed to attend trials, CCMCs, applications, disposals and quantum hearings and is asked to advise on all issues including procedure, abuse of process and limitation. Samuel regularly acts in cases of significant value, often representing Claimants who have suffered significant or life changing injury. He is conscious of the need to approach such claims with sensitivity whilst ensuring that the evidence is fully analysed, clarified and, if necessary, challenged. Samuel has extensive experience acting for parties in circumstances where the accident occurred abroad or a party is located outside of the jurisdiction. He is regularly instructed to draft proceedings against insurers based within the European Union and elsewhere. He has also been instructed in claims for sickness abroad (commonly referred to as “holiday sickness”) and he is able to advise both claimants and defendants on how best to present and defend such claims, with a particular focus on the credibility of the parties and their witnesses, factual and medical causation and dishonesty/fraud. He is also able to advise on how to effectively present and discredit medical evidence. Samuel has undertaken credit hire work for over ten years. He has extensive knowledge of the law and regularly argues issues relating to impecuniosity, enforceability, period and rate in court and is able to provide pragmatic advice to professional and lay clients on these issues. He has represented claimants and defendants in claims in excess of £50,000 at a multi-track level. Samuel also has a particular interest in clinical negligence and has advised on complex issues relating to both causation and quantum. Police Claims Samuel has an in-depth knowledge of civil claims relating to the Police. He has represented claimants in claims for false imprisonment, assault, malicious prosecution and personal injury to members of the public. Employment Samuel specialises in all aspects of employment law. He represents employees and employers across a variety of sectors including local government, education, police forces and private companies. He has also been instructed by a large national trade union to represent several of its members in claims against their respective employers. Samuel has extensive experience of whistleblowing and discrimination claims as well as equal pay, TUPE and unfair dismissal. Other Civil Work Samuel has an in-depth knowledge of commercial, chancery and property law. He is regularly instructed to consider issues relating to contracts and various consumer regulations. He has extensive experience acting for parties in housing disrepair cases. He has also acted for travel companies, landlords and universities in debt recovery cases. Regulatory – Traffic Samuel has extensive experience of HGV and PSV regulation and has appeared before the majority of the Traffic Commissioners in England and Wales. He has represented both operators and drivers and is proud of his hands-on and collaborative approach to the collation and presentation of evidence at Public Inquiry, which has attracted praise from several Traffic Commissioners and secured favourable regulatory outcomes. If possible, he will ensure that full written submissions are submitted to the Traffic Commissioner in advance of the Public Inquiry. Samuel has an in-depth knowledge of the Statutory Guidance and Directions and is content to advise professional and lay clients on issues formally or on an ad-hoc basis. Inquests Samuel accepts instructions in inquest hearings covering a very wide spectrum of causes of death. He is aware of the sensitivity of such proceedings and is careful to ensure that his client’s position is advanced appropriately and with due care.
Sarah Magill
Sarah Magill
“Sarah is a joy to instruct as she is great with clients, fastidious in her preparation of all matters, and responsive. She is authoritative without a hint of arrogance, extremely well-prepared for any eventuality, and clearly enjoys advocacy” - Legal 500, 2025 Sarah appears in the most serious cases including terrorism, murder and complex fatalities. Sarah appears regularly in Courts Martial and the civilian courts. She transferred to the Bar in 2016 having been a popular solicitor with higher rights and an existing busy practice. Sarah has particular expertise in technical cases involving large-scale organised crime and criminal cases involving issues of capacity, abuse of trust, Wills and property. She also receives specialist instructions in regulatory matters and electoral cases involving attempts to compromise elections, brought by the counter terror division. Instructed in regulatory cases including health and safety, and licensing matters including firearms and license appeals brought by commercial animal breeders, Sarah acts for and against licensing and prosecutorial authorities and on behalf of insured and private parties. Sarah acts in cases in Wales and England and is conversant with devolved Welsh licensing legislation. Described as “knowledgeable, warm but assertive when needed” with clients and “articulate and fearless” in court, she impresses “with her command of detail and with her obviously high level of skill at deciding the really important points to go at. She is also clearly someone who knows what is right and is prepared to stand her ground.” Panels and Memberships Serious Crime – level 4 General Crime – level 4 Counter Terror – level 3 Regulatory Board (The Health and Safety Executive, Coal Board, Environment Agency, Office of Rail and Road, National Resources Wales, Care Quality Commission and the Office for Product Safety and Standards). Association of Military Court Advocates Criminal Bar Association Health and Safety Lawyers’ Association Northern Circuit Middle Temple   Cases of Note - Crime R v AM [2024] – Preston Crown Court; s.3 Explosive Substances Act 1883. Prosecution junior. Defendant had viable improvised explosive device (nail bomb) improvised explosive device disguised as a firearm (pipe-type bomb), imitation firearm and knife. R v Wilkinson [2024] – Preston Crown Court; Murder. Defence junior. Defendant murdered, disembowelled and decapitated his neighbour and then distributed his remains throughout a large geographical area. Operation Brick [2024] – Burnley Crown Court; conspiracy to supply cocaine. Prosecuted alone; six defendants had engaged in a professional ‘deliveroo’ type cocaine dealing throughout Lancashire for just under one year. All convicted. R v A [2024] – Preston Crown Court; arson with intent to endanger life. Defended lay-client alleged to have been involved in a fire attack on a terraced domestic premises while a person was inside the house. The crown offered no evidence following cross-examination of the complainant on identification. Defendant acquitted before half-time and released from custody immediately. R v A, P and B [2024] – Manchester Crown Court; represented defendant accused of firearms possession; question of antiquity. Advanced two limbs of legal argument denying possession and raising antiquity; crown offered no evidence. R v HR [2023] – Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court; trial for death by dangerous driving. Defended alone one of two defendants prosecuted for causing the death of a 16 year old pedestrian, a school girl walking to college. The case post-dated the amendment to the maximum sentence for this offence to life. Operations Quebec and Quebec 2 [2023] – Preston Crown Court; junior alone in the prosecution of multi-handed Operation Quebec and then led junior in the larger more expansive Operation Quebec 2. The prosecutions involved conspiracy to supply class A from Liverpool to Blackpool and elsewhere. All defendants in Operation Quebec were convicted and out of 28 defendants in Operation Quebec 2, 25 were convicted. Operation Valetta [2023] – Burnley Crown Court; prosecuted series of exposure attacks involving a predatory male targeting female care home staff at night over nine months. Convicted on all counts. R v BX [2023] – Preston Crown Court; defendant prosecuted for possession of imitation firearm used to threaten; guilty plea entered on a basis that enabled him to avoid an immediate prison sentence and keep his business. Operation Marley [2023] – Preston Crown Court; defendant prosecuted for possession of multiple firearms and relevant ammunition with intent to endanger life. Not guilty verdicts recorded and defendant convicted of lesser offence whereby liberty was retained. R v D [2023] – Preston Crown Court; defended medical professional accused of rape and violent attacks against three separate female complainants. After advancing legal argument the Crown abandoned one complainant and continued to trial in respect of the remaining two. Acquitted of every allegation made by the three women. R v J [2023] – Manchester Crown Court at Minshull Street – rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and ABH. Marital allegations against spouse. Acquitted of rape and s.47 ABH, hung jury on coercive and controlling behaviour; no retrial. Operation Adelite [2021] – Manchester Crown Court; Defence junior in ten-handed conspiracy to murder trial involving drill lyrics. Adduced voluminous defence evidence including music. Relied upon expert in drill. Jury acquitted client of conspiracy to murder, convicted instead of conspiracy to cause GBH. Manchester Arena bombing; Operation Mantaline [2019] – Manchester Crown Court - prosecuted five terror suspects including one in absence for conspiracy to supply class A, offences discovered during the investigation of the arena bombing during the Ariana Grande concert. Later reported within the Inquiry proceedings. R v GH [2017] – Carlisle Crown Court; causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Prosecuted HGV driver who did not pay attention to any overhead warning signs and drove into queue of stationary traffic, causing lifelong disabilities and life-limiting injures to several people. R v Hamilton [2016] EWCA Crim 78; Conveying articles into prison (cocaine) – this case is the authority for how to sentence conveyance of drugs into prison. Successfully reduced Ms Hamilton’s sentence by half. Courts Martial and Military R v Major A [2024] – Catterick; multi-count indictment including assault. Adduced sensitive evidence from very senior military officers to achieve satisfactory outcome for officer (loss of seniority). R v WO1 [2023] B – Catterick; multi-count indictment including assaults and public order act offences. Client received extremely favourable outcome with plea accepted to lesser alternative offence. Reduced by one rank. Sarah accepts instructions in respect of Service Complaints, AGAI 67 proceedings, inquests and inquiries, including sensitive matters. Co-author of Forces Legal Resources, Sarah has written a body of articles kept online to assist members of HM Forces navigating the Service Justice System with colleague Matthew Bolt. Forces Legal Resources can be found at www.boltandmagill.com Regulatory, Inquests, Inquiries and Licensing Part of the junior team instructed on the Covid Inquiry for the Health and Safety Executive. Instructed off-panel by HMG in a particularly sensitive inquiry involving international reciprocal agreements. Inquest touching on the death of a prisoner; Stafford, represented the family in a death in custody case where the cause of death was the consumption of novel psychoactive substances (‘spice’). Animal Protection Society v M. et al [2022] – Preston Crown Court; Advanced detailed legal argument that had the effect of terminating the prosecution. The case was the beginning of the demise of both the charity and the solicitors’ firm, the prosecution were robustly criticised and the case received widespread media attention together with the cases that followed it. Cumberland County Council v BN [2024] – Carlisle Crown Court – represented director prosecuted for offences parasitic to an insolvent company. Put forward legal argument. Dishonesty offences withdrawn, director pleaded guilty to remainder, received a fine. Sarah is selected to act in cases involving commercial animal breeders challenging local authority decisions in respect of licensing. Firearms Licensing; Sarah appears both for police forces and private clients in licensing appeals.
Sarah Hussell
Sarah Hussell
Sarah Hussell joined Lincoln House Chambers as a tenant in 2024 following successful completion of her pupillage under Joe Allman & Hugh Barton. Sarah has gained extensive case management and advocacy experience in a very wide range of criminal proceedings, in both the Magistrates’ and Crown Court. Sarah has already secured several fantastic results for her clients, she is conscientious, meticulous in her case preparation, and is developing an excellent reputation for her client care skills, effective advocacy and her ability in “drilling down” into cases of complexity and sensitivity.
Shirlie Duckworth
Shirlie Duckworth
OVERVIEW Shirlie was called to the Bar in 1997 but in 2002 transferred to become a solicitor specialising in criminal law. Her experience allowed her to attain Higher Rights of Audience in 2007 and since then she has mainly practiced in the Crown Court. She has represented clients at every stage of criminal proceedings from the police station in the early hours of the morning right up to the Court of Appeal. Shirlie quickly developed as reputation as an outstanding HCA, earning the respect of the Judiciary and her peers; she founded the Manchester HCA group to help improve quality and standards of solicitor-advocates. Shirlie has a good understanding of the pressures facing solicitors and is keen to assist them by providing prompt and informative feedback from court and in conferences. Chambers welcomed Shirlie in October 2012 when she transferred back to the Bar. After 14 years of defending criminal cases she is now on the CPS Advocates Panel as a level 3 prosecutor. She has provided evidential analysis & charging advice to the CPS Welfare, Rural and Health division. Shirlie earned a reputation as a formidable advocate with enviable success rates in criminal trials. She is instructed on a range of cases: serious sexual and violent offences, conspiracy to supply drugs, money laundering, conspiracy to commit armed robbery and burglaries. She has been led in three murder trials and a money laundering/fraud case. Professional Disciplinary work is a large part of Shirlie’s practice. She is instructed by the General Medical Council to represent the Council before Interim Order Panels, Fitness to Practice Panels and the High Court. She also instructed by the Local Authority to prosecute Regulatory offences. NOTABLE CASES Murder & Manslaughter R v Nolan & Nash - Preston Crown Court - Instructed with David McLachlan QC to prosecute the parents of an 9 day old baby who had been unlawfully killed. The prosecution could not prove which parent was responsible for causing the numerous injuries inflicted on the baby over the course of her short life. Both parents were convicted of causing or allowing the serious injury and death of the baby after a trial. R v Green – Manchester Crown Court – Led by Andrew Thomas QC in a 2-week murder trial in which the defendant was acquitted of setting her partner alight and remaining at the scene whilst he burned to death. Issues of bad character, circumstantial and scientific evidence. R v Hurrell – Preston Crown Court – Led by Paul Reid QC in a 4 week murder trial involving issues of participation in a joint enterprise when the deceased was tortured and ill-treated prior to murder, concealing his body in suitcase. Cut throat defence. R v Fitzgerald – Manchester Crown Court – Led by Paul Reid QC. Defendant indicted for a joint enterprise murder. Trial cracked after 10 day voir dire. Issue of admissibility of evidence from reluctant witnesses. Conspiracy R v Hanson – Caernarfon Crown Court – Successfully defended a woman of good character charged with conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs as part of Operation Yonside, a large scale drug trafficking operation linking Manchester/Liverpool criminals to the supply of drugs in North Wales. http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/accused-north-wales-drug-trial-8812973) R v Riley – Manchester Crown Court – Defended the only defendant to run a trial in a multi-handed conspiracy to commit armed robberies and burglary. Resulted in acquittal. Issue of inferences at trial from silence in both interview and at trial where prosecution were put to proof. R v Raja – Bradford Crown Court – Instructed to defend in a multi-handed conspiracy to rape. The offence was described by the judge in his sentencing remarks as "This was totally despicable, it was utterly callous, it was a degree of inhuman behaviour hard, even for one such as myself inured to evil, to understand.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2844528/Taxi-driverthree-friends-sentenced-total-68-years-gang-rape-drunkwoman-passenger.html) Sexual Offences R v H – A sensitive and challenging case of historic sexual abuse of defendant’s natural daughter. Particular care required to cross-examine the complainant who had threatened to commit suicide in the days before the trial and attempted to take her own life at the conclusion of her evidence. R v Wardle – Prosecution of alleged historical and recent complaints of rape and sexual abuse of multiple complainants aged between 10 and 25
Simon Csoka KC
Simon Csoka KC
Recognised in Chambers & Partners Guide to the Bar 2019 as "at the top of his game and a silk that no other barrister wants to face in court." Simon specialises in all aspects of criminal law, in particular homicide, serious fraud and organised crime. He has defended many high profile cases such as Dale Cregan, Arran Coghlan, and Operation Elveden (the News International cases. He has been widely praised for his devastating cross-examinations. He exclusively defends in serious and complex crime. His practice encompasses murder, gross negligence manslaughter, evasion of duty, MTIC and serious fraud, terrorism, complex multi-handed drugs cases and corruption. He has appeared in many high profile cases. He defended John Hardy, a former sergeant major, in Operation Elveden who was accused of selling stories about Prince William and Prince Harry to The Sun. He was the only source to be acquitted by a jury in those News International trials. As well as his skills as a jury advocate, he is well known for his ability to develop complex legal arguments. He is known for his mastery of detail even in cases with voluminous quantities of evidence. He has an advanced knowledge of computing which can assist with the management of large amounts of evidence. He led for the defence in the first case in which an application for independent special counsel for disclosure was granted [R v Greaves]. Since then he has made several successful applications for special counsel which led to the cases collapsing. He has defended a number of solicitors and professionals in recent years who have found themselves charged with criminal offences. He has advised CEOs, such as Julian Wheatland, former Chief Executive of Cambridge Analytica. He will provide an extremely comprehensive and involved service together with a robust defence to those charged with more minor offences who wish to pay privately. He also appears in Sport Regulatory work and has appeared before the FA Appeal Committee and the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. In 2012 he succeeded in restoring Bradford City FC to the FA cup after they were disqualified. “Simon has a brain the size of a planet. His ability to be able to retain huge amounts of information, then present the most complex and cogent legal submissions in regards to this information, is such that you have never seen before; he is a once in a generation barrister” - Legal 500, 2025 "The defence of the client is his only concern. He is not concerned about upsetting judges with difficult and sensitive applications or cross-examination. He quite literally is the man for all seasons" Ranked: tier 1 - Legal 500, 2022 "Hyper-intelligent with a huge knowledge of the law and an expert on issues of disclosure and legal privilege." - Legal 500, 2021 “He uses his encyclopedic knowledge of the law with devastating effectiveness in defence of his clients.” – Legal 500, 2019 “A silk who oozes class.” – Legal 500, 2018 “A leader in his field with a national reputation; he is a formidable opponent.” – Legal 500, 2016 Legal 500 2015 Band 1: “Devastating in cross-examination.” Legal 500 2016, Band 1: “An exceptional advocate in the most complex of cases.”
Simon Gurney
Simon Gurney
“Simon Gurney boasts expertise in defending clients facing significant fraud prosecutions”- Legal 500, 2025 “Simon is exceptionally bright and a joy to work with, as his preparation is second-to-none and he is a go-to counsel for serious complex financial and business fraud cases. His written work is excellent and his advocacy exceptional; a true star and future silk”- Legal 500, 2025 “Simon Gurney has substantial expertise in handling cases regarding historic sexual abuse, as well as large drugs conspiracies”- Legal 500, 2025 “Simon's technical abilities are unmatched, as he is able to quickly identify the prevalent issues in a case and provide sound and considered advice on how to approach them. Simon is particularly skilled when it comes to matters involving procedural irregularities and potential public law issues, and he approaches these matters with tenacity, but has an excellent ability to be able to set these out clearly and succinctly to his lay clients”- Legal 500, 2025 "Simon is one of the best barristers around and a joy to work with. He is highly sought-after due to his immense intellect and amazing client care skills, he is a real stand-out performer, and he is extremely hard working with excellent written work." Tier 1 Business and Regulatory Crime (Inc H&S) – Legal 500 (2024) "Simon is an extremely impressive barrister who has a rapidly expanding reputation in regulatory work. He is the busiest junior on the circuit, he is a first-class barrister, a quick thinker, and a persuasive advocate."  Crime (General and Fraud) – Legal 500 (2024) Ranked in Band 1 - Professional Disciplinary Law – Legal 500 (2024) "Simon is without doubt the most able Criminal junior on the Northern Circuit. A first-class choice for heavyweight fraud cases. A peerless lawyer who finds the defences everyone else has missed. Tenacious in fighting for his clients, he puts a huge amount of work into case preparation." Legal 500 (2023) "Simon is an outstanding barrister, exceptionally bright and fantastic, both on paper and in front of a jury. He is a master tactician, a very calm and persuasive advocate and puts clients at ease without difficulty, and an extremely professional barrister." Legal 500 (2023) "Simon instantly builds brilliant rapport with lay clients… His advice is absolutely instrumental in directing the strategy of the client’s approach. He advises confidently and makes himself available to answer follow-up queries. It is a pleasure to work with him."   Legal 500 (2023)" "Intellectually formidable and well-organised… a hugely impressive advocate, whether he is arguing a complex issue of law before the Court of Appeal or arguing a case before a jury." Legal 500 (2021/22) Overview Simon has built a formidable reputation for his intellectual ability, diligence,  tactical acumen and meticulous preparation. He brings sound judgment and tenacity to every case and is focused on ensuring the best possible result for his clients. Simon prides himself on offering a first-rate service, being accessible and maintaining a close working relationship with those who instruct him. His client care skills are widely praised. He provides clear and straight-forward advice on even the most complex matters. Simon is consistently recognised as a leading Junior in both the leading legal directories, the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners. He is acknowledged for his expertise in three categories: crime; professional discipline; and financial and regulatory crime (including health and safety law). He specialises in serious criminal litigation, in particular homicide, organised crime, financial and regulatory crime and sexual offending. He is instructed in cases of the utmost gravity, sensitivity and complexity. He is renowned as a talented jury advocate. Simon is often instructed pre-charge in substantial cases to advise upon challenges to search warrants by way of application for judicial review; applications to discharge restraint orders and resisting applications for forfeiture of assets. He has substantial expertise in defending professionals accused of misconduct in professional disciplinary proceedings brought by their regulator, both at first instance and on appeal. Those areas of expertise complement one another, enabling him to offer a comprehensive service to professional clients seeking advice and representation. Simon’s expertise in defending allegations of fraud and other financial crime is sought by individuals and companies the subject of commercial fraud litigation pursued by HMRC / NCA in the tax tribunal or the civil courts. Simon also has experience of conducting judicial review proceedings arising from across his practice areas. Notable cases in which Simon is currently instructed include: PM & Sintra Global Inc v HMRC – instructed with Alistair Webster KC (by Freeths Solicitors) to represent individual and corporate appellants for whom they successfully challenged HMRC’s claim to over £30m of VAT and excise duty, alleged to be owed because of a vast alcohol inward diversion fraud. Appeal proceedings ongoing. Operation Barbados – instructed by Forbes Solicitors to represent one of 25 defendants accused of conspiring to cheat the public revenue of VAT in the sum of £20million. Listed for trial at Southwark in January 2025, the case focuses on the creation of fictitious input tax reclaims used fraudulently to off-set the output tax received on genuine transactions. Operation Venetic cases – instructed in a series of cases in courts across the country arising from the recent high profile hacking of the Encrochat server by the French authorities, most notably instructed by Middleweeks in Operation Embossed – the lead case to determine the admissibility of the evidence, likely to be listed for trial in Autumn 2023. Local Government corruption allegations – instructed to advise and represent two senior local government politicians, either under investigation or awaiting trial in relation to allegations of corruption and misconduct in a public office, with Peter Wright KC and Simon Csoka KC. Op Somnus – instructed with John Harrison KC by the CPS Special Crime Division to prosecute two paramedics accused of gross negligence manslaughter arising from the death of a patient whilst under their care. Listed for trial at Worcester Crown Court in June 2023. Operation Bryson – instructed by Stephensons Solicitors to represent a solicitor accused by Trading Standards of fraudulent trading in relation to the sale of estate planning instruments (generating in excess of £5m) which were falsely claimed to evade liability for care home fees. Listed for trial in Leeds in September 2023. Operation Auckland – instructed with Tim Storrie KC by CPS Manchester to prosecute the alleged murder of a three week old baby, involving complex expert evidence concerning non-accidental head injuries. In the Legal Directories, Simon is described as follows: Previous editions have included the following descriptions: “Simon is a quality barrister with a huge intellect. Very good on his feet, great knowledge of the law.” (Legal 500, 2021) “An outstanding lawyer and formidable advocate.” (Legal 500, 2020) “extremely bright and a master of strategy… a sagacious tactician” (Legal 500, 2019) “intelligent, persuasive and diligent” (Legal 500, 2018) “he shows excellent analysis of the evidence, and delivers relevant, well-presented closing speeches” (Legal 500, 2017) "he is confident on his feet and a strong cross-examiner” (Legal 500, 2016) “his grasp of the detail is outstanding” (Legal 500, 2015).
Thomas Worsfold
Thomas Worsfold
Tom is an established junior practitioner with a strong criminal practice, prosecuting and defending in equal measure in the Crown Court across the full spectrum of offences. As a Level 3 CPS prosecutor, Tom is frequently instructed to prosecute cases concerning serious violence, drugs and dishonesty. Recent defence trials include wounding with intent, public disorder and sexual offences. Tom also frequently appears as led junior for prosecution and defence in serious and complex matters. In court, Tom adopts a measured and pragmatic approach, which he combines with rigorous preparation. He is equally adept examining witnesses in a focused and incisive manner as he is arguing points of law, such as bad character, hearsay and disclosure. Tom has earned the praise of judges for his considered and well-judged approach at trial and sentence, as well as for the quality of his written advocacy. Tom prides himself on his close attention to detail and thorough preparation of all cases. His strong work ethic means that no stone is left unturned, key advice is given promptly and important strategic decisions are fully informed. Whether prosecuting or defending, he is keen to build working relationships with clients as well as to construct a coherent and considered strategy from the start. Tom has experience of representing clients with mental health difficulties, both at trial and sentence. Tom has prosecuted and defended several youths charged with serious offences, and has a strong grasp of procedure and sentencing in such cases. Tom continues to receive instructions on a private basis in the Magistrates’ Court, particularly in relation to road traffic offences. He has a particularly good record with exceptional hardship arguments, both in the Magistrates and on appeal to the Crown Court, and is frequently instructed for trials involving expert evidence, for example back calculations and collision reconstruction. Tom provides a professional and proactive approach in such cases, seeking to ensure that clients have the best advice at the earliest opportunity. Tom has good experience of matters which require handling large quantities of evidence and excellent organisational skills. He has prosecuted and defended in VHCC cases, for fraud and conspiracy. Tom has also previously been instructed for the Department of Health on the Infected Blood Inquiry, where his work included disclosure, conducting conferences and drafting witness statements. Tom is secretary of the Pupillage Committee in Chambers and assists in organising chambers’ advocacy sessions for its pupils. Away from the law, Tom enjoys playing for his local football team, walking holidays and cooking. Criminal Law Tom deals with all aspects of Criminal Law. He is a Level 3 CPS prosecutor. He has experience of: Violent offences, including domestic violence and child cruelty Drug-related offences, including conspiracies to supply and importation Sexual offences, including non-recent allegations Fraud and theft offences Youth offending, in both the Youth Court and Crown Court Road traffic offences. In relation to road traffic offences, Tom has a particularly good record with exceptional hardship arguments, both in the Magistrates and on appeal to the Crown Court, and is frequently instructed for trials involving expert evidence, for example back calculations and collision reconstruction. Tom has been instructed privately on a number of matters and prides himself on his proactive approach, seeking to ensure that clients have the best advice at the earliest opportunity. In a recent case, Tom was instructed to defend an allegation of driving without due care and attention which was successfully discontinued following matters raised by Tom at the first appearance. Notable cases include: Prosecuting Preston Crown Court: led junior for Crown in prosecution of 8 defendants for wounding with intent, violent disorder and witness intimidation. Case involved reluctant and hostile witnesses, bad character arguments and joint enterprise. Minshull Street Crown Court: led junior for Crown in VHCC conspiracy to steal and handle motor vehicles, listed for 6 weeks. Manchester Crown Court: led by Neil Fryman prosecuting a 6-defendant drugs conspiracy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59983661 Manchester Crown Court: prosecuted a fraud by a finance manager of a regional company. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/deviousfraudster-mum-swindled-55000-23871853 Manchester Magistrates’ and Crown Court: successfully prosecuted a taxi driver for sexual assault on a vulnerable woman. The conviction was upheld on appeal, with the Crown Court concluding the Defendant had deliberately targeted the victim due to her vulnerability. https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/19083437.taxi-driver-sexually-assaulted-woman-picked-bury-town-centre/ Defending Preston Crown Court: led junior in 6-week trial for allegations of grooming and familial sexual abuse. Birmingham Crown Court: led junior in 6-week VHCC trial of financial advisor charged with £7 million investment fraud. Liverpool Crown Court: conspiracy to cheat the public revenue through tobacco importation, valued at over £4 million. Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court: defended a man charged with non-recent allegations of sexual abuse, involving applications under s.41 YJCEA and s.100 CJA and careful cross-examination of the complainant. Defendant acquitted on all counts. Manchester Crown Court: defended a youth charged with 56 offences relating to the theft of vehicles, who ultimately received a youth rehabilitation order. Minshull Street Crown Court: secured a suspended sentence for a defendant charged with blackmail due to the exceptional nature of the case. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tenant-sentlandlords-series-angry-23815691 Manchester Crown Court: defended a woman charged with theft of a bank card from a deceased friend. The Defendant received a suspended sentence. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/woman-took-friends-bank-card-20589210
Tim Storrie KC
Tim Storrie KC
An exceptional advocate, Tim is admired for his work in serious, sensitive and complex pieces of litigation. He has the distinction of being ranked for his work in  Financial Crime and  in General Crime. Tim maintains a balance in his work of instructions from the Prosecution and Defence, across a spectrum of litigation. His principal specialisms are homicide, organised crime, financial & business crime. He also has considerable experience in work with a medico-legal setting or a regulatory context.  In silk, Tim has progressed into the area of appellate work, where his capacity for analysis of complex, systematic problems has attracted praise. As a prosecutor Tim is sought for his experience in dealing with organised crime groups, conspiracies that arise from covert means of communication, and plots to murder. His particular strength is in the presentation of cases that are made complex by reason of their factual backgrounds. Tim’s experience for the defence is no less strong. He has a reputation for excellence in gang-related homicide cases, and for his expertise in the cases in which partial human remains have been recovered. He has also attracted private instructions, for distinguished professional men, to defend allegations of sexual misconduct. In the sphere of financial crime, Tim has acted in cases of organised fraud and in circumstances where corruption was alleged against a background of corporate activity. He has particular expertise in cases of international controller-led money laundering. Tim’s experience in a variety of cases of manslaughter have revealed his adeptness in the conduct of cases with medical explanations. These pieces of work have frequently, in their analysis of the detail of medical histories, constituted pain-staking inquiries into the issues before the court.   HOMICIDE R v Jabriel Ferguson & Ors. (Manchester)  For the Defence. acquittal in multi-handed trial in which the  allegation was of a revenge killing. R v Martin Thomas & Ors. (Manchester) For the Defence. The defendant , a drill artist, was accused of conspiracy to murder in revenge for the loss of a friend. Convicted of lesser offences. R v Ernest Weber & Ors  (Leeds) For the Defence. Human remains discovered by a reservoir, nearly a decade after the killing. R v Andrew Burfield (Preston) for the Defence. Deceased found in a makeshift grave in a beauty spot after a national missing persons inquiry had been launched. R v William Wilkinson (Preston) For the Defence. Defendant dismembered his neighbour and distributed the body parts across various locations. R v Lee Knox (Liverpool) For the Prosecution. The Joseph McKeever murder: the events occurred against a background of serious, organised criminal activity. ORGANISED CRIME & FINANCIAL CRIME Operation Girdwood & Measle: (Manchester) For the Prosecution, for NCA and GMP. Encrochat related conspiracies to murder, trade in automatic weapons and drugs Operation Guatemala (Manchester) For the Prosecution for NWROCU Encrochat related conspiracy to trade in firearms, international money laundering, and drugs by OCG members Operation Beehive (Manchester) For the Prosecution, For GMP, filmed in the BAFTA-winning documentary, as “Taking Down an OCG’ this was known as the ‘Skinny Awais’ case. Operation Tarlac (Leicester) for the Defence. D acquitted of participation in conspiracies to defraud, and associated money-laundering, in multi-million pound deception practised on public authorities R v Fairbairn (Newcastle) for the Defence. D, a company director, convicted of offences arising out of misconduct and fraudulent dealing with company assets. R v Mohammed Awais Sajid (Court of Appeal Criminal Division) For the Prosecution, resisting an appeal against conviction on grounds of fresh evidence. Cases of Medical Complexity R v Elaine Clarke (Preston) for the Defence. Defendant guilty of manslaughter by neglect of her disabled child, where there was a long history of medical intervention. R v Elaine Clarke (AG’s Ref) for the Respondent: resistance of application to refer the case to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on grounds of undue leniency R v XX.(Bolton) for the Prosecution Newborn child died from injuries consistent with episode of baby-shaking. R v Simmonds (Preston) for the Defence. Unlawful act manslaughter complicated by apparent incidences of less-than-optimal medical treatment. R v Joe Walker (CACD) for the Appellant. Findings of High Retained Culpability, and Hybrid Order for s.45A, with discretionary life imprisonment overturned after serial deficiencies in approach of the sentencing court, in relation to psychiatric evidence. Findings of Wednesbury Unreasonableness by the Court.  Guidance given as to the approach for sentencing offenders who had admitted manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.

© 2024 Legalease Ltd. All rights reserved

Registered company in England & Wales No. 2423756 VAT 324572722

Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG