R v G (2020): Defending allegation of rape and domestic violence. Complainant called the police after escaping the crime and reported extensive bruising. Successful section 41 application at trial and challenge of forensic examiner. Acquitted of rape and one assault in the face of what had at first appeared to be compelling evidence. The defendant was released (time served) on the day of the verdicts.

R v M et al (2020): Prosecuting allegation of murder, led by Nicholas Johnson QC, in a case where two offenders carried out a revenge attack after being involved in a dispute with the deceased moments earlier regarding the treatment of a young boy. Both defendants convicted after trial of murder.

R v C (2020): Successful defence of inter-familial allegations dating back some 40 years where the complainants accused the defendant of gross indecency. The case involved extensive third party material including mental health records and counselling notes as well as the complexities of advising upon potential sentence combining sentencing powers from historic legislation with current sentencing practice.

R v F (2020): Secured full acquittals in case concerning child cruelty and domestic violence. The defendant faced counts of section 47 assault upon his ex-partner and their child, as well as coercive and controlling behaviour upon his partner and child cruelty charges in respect of three of his four children. The case involved extensive third-party material from school and social services with allegations of a catalogue of domestic abuse over many years. At trial the defendant was acquitted of all charges.

R v T (2020): Successful defence in case involving allegations of sexual assault upon a 17-year-old with the issue of consent. This case conducted using ground rules and section 28 cross examination and through careful and sensitive cross examination the credibility of the complainant was undermined and a full acquittal resulted.

R v H (2019): Child Sexual Abuse Panel referral of a case from the 1970s that was refused charge in 2008 and referred for reconsideration. After careful consideration and various additional inquiries there was sufficient evidence to charge the case (decision approved by the CCP).

R v M (2018): Pre-charge appeal case with charges of sexual abuse authorised against grandmother of 3-year-old complainant. Subject to challenge as to prospects of conviction – case resulted in conviction after trial and 6-year custodial sentence.

R v J et al (2016): Worked closely with reviewing lawyer in conspiracy to defraud prosecution of two senior academics who were alleged to have made false claims for consultancy work. VHCC involving voluminous material from the records at the institution.

R v S (2016): Oversight of referral to the DPP of this transmission of HIV case, which are notoriously complex to prosecute given the various elements that must be established including knowledge of risk and causation. The defendant was convicted and received 4 years in custody.

R v R (2015): Oversight of modern slavery prosecution under pressure from resident judge to drop proceedings. Consultation with CPS HQ and review of legislation and Convention on Forced Labour led to appropriate challenge of the Judge and pursuit of the case through to hung jury.

R v I (2014): Referral of advice to DCCP for fatal road traffic collision (responsible for referral of all fatal road traffic cases as Head of Crown Unit). This case involved a collision with a pedestrian at a set of traffic lights and as part of the review the collision reconstruction report was challenged and an expert instructed to establish average speeds far in excess of those initially identified which led to a conviction.

R v G (2014): Advice given on appeal by the police in respect of a gross negligence manslaughter allegation. The suspect was alleged to have supplied the victim with opiates which pathology confirmed had caused an overdose.

R v B et al (2014): Prosecution of 9-handed child sexual exploitation case involving a very vulnerable teenage victim in care, including allegations that both parents had facilitated the abuse (charged under s46 SCA 2007). The case involved careful rapport building with the complainant, including several meetings with her and the OIC at her care home. This VHCC case also concerned voluminous undermining third party material, cell site and complex digital communications evidence.