Court of Appeal
R v C (2020)
Instructed on behalf of the Appellant. Successfully argued that a sentence of 21 months imprisonment for offences of conveying class B drugs and mobile phones into prison was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 21 months imprisonment and imposed a total sentence of 15 months imprisonment.
Junior Led
Rex v R (2024)
Instructed as Junior Counsel on behalf of the Second Defendant charged with murder, attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life x 2, conspiracy to rob and PWITS class A. The Defendant was alleged to be the one giving orders to the First Defendant to shoot and kill the victim and his brother. The case involved extensive investigation into cell site data, CCTV and audio analysis, and communication data from various other defendants. The Defendant was acquitted of murder, attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life x 2 and PWITS class A.
R v S (2023)
Instructed as Junior Counsel on behalf of the Fourth Defendant. All Defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. The Fourth Defendant was alleged to have been the person who discharged the firearm in the direction of the Complainant. The case involved complex analysis and arguments in relation to cell site data, phone downloads and preparation of a defence sequence of events to demonstrate the Defendant’s defence that he was not engaged in a conspiracy to possess a firearm, but rather an entirely separate conspiracy to supply cannabis.
R v K (2021)
Represented Defendant as junior Counsel in a multi-Defendant drug conspiracy trial (6 weeks). The trial involved large amounts of unused surveillance and phone material. I was required to schedule the phone messages with the surveillance evidence and location data.
Junior Alone
Rex v D (2024)
Instructed to represent the Defendant charged with various counts of rape and sexual assaults on 2 Complainants are not known to each other. The case has involved an aborted trial which involved cross examination of 2 18 year old Complainants and a 9 year old child witness. There is significant amount of work done in relation to disclosure from the Home Office and the cross examination of another witness who may be the “stepfather” or the “grandfather” of one of the Complainants.
Rex v D (2023)
Instructed to represent the Defendant charged with False Imprisonment, Rape x 4, Attempted Rape and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. The issue was whether the intercourse the Complainant had with the Defendant was consensual / whether she had been falsely imprisoned. The Defendant’s case is that the Complainant is a sex worker and he spent 3 days in the company of the Complainant. The Defence have requested that CCTV from the Hostel where the incident is said to have occurred be retained and the Police have failed to obtain all CCTV only providing CCTV for the first 2 days of the 3 day incident. Following representations on CCTV that had been obtained, the Prosecution offered no evidence in respect of the False Imprisonment Count. A number of legal issues have arisen in the preparation of this case including lack of disclosure, cell site evidence which assists the Defence and failure to obtain evidence. After trial the Defendant was acquitted on all counts.
Rex v S (2023)
Represented the Defendant charged with s.20 GBH. The case involved an application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process as it transpired during the trial that the Complainant had been attempting to communicate with the Officer in the Case during his evidence. It also involved an argument on causation and the Defendant was acquitted after a 14 day trial.
Rex v O (2023)
Represented a bus driver charged with s.20 of a 16 year old attempting to board the bus. The incident was captured on CCTV footage and showed the Defendant approach the Complainant, pick up the Complainant by the neck and body slam him on the floor. The Complainant sustained a fractured skull and a bleed on the brain. After a 5 day trial, the Defendant was acquitted.
Rex v G (2023)
Instructed to represent the Defendant charged with Blackmail and Robbery. The Defendant failed to attend trial and the issue at trial was whether the Complainant was telling the truth. The Defendant’s case was that the Complainant had been involved in illegal business whereby he trafficked people into the UK illegally force these victims of Modern Day Slavery to provide free labour to him. The case involved very careful cross examination of the Complainant and several disclosure applications.
Rex v C (2022)
Instructed to represent the Defendant charged with s.18 grievous bodily harm. The issue at trial was whether the Defendant and his Co-Defendant acted jointly with the First Defendant who had already pleaded guilty to s.18 grievous bodily harm. The Defendant was of good character and the stabbing occurred in broad daylight. The Defendant’s case was that he acted in the defence of another, namely the First Defendant. All Defendants were under 18, the case was tried in the Crown Court due to the extremely serious and life threatening injury sustained by the Complainant. During the trial an abuse of process argument was made and an application of no case to answer, however the Defendant was convicted after a 13 day trial of s.20 grievous bodily harm and sentenced to a Youth Rehabilitation Order.
Independent Counsel
HMRC (2018-2019)
Instructed as Independent Counsel in a large HMRC VAT and tax fraud investigation to collate and assess whether content downloaded from various mobile phones and laptops contained legally privileged material.
