Crown Court:

Led junior

R v AE – led junior for the prosecution in a case involving allegations of rape and violence spanning almost 30 years against five victims. After a month long trial involving over 60 witnesses, extensive documentary evidence and audio recordings, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 28 years.

R v KL and others – led junior for the first defendant on the indictment in a tobacco importation prosecution brought by HMRC. The allegation involved the fraudulent evasion of £4 million in duty payable to HMRC.

R v MB – led junior for the prosecution in a case involving convictions for the attempted murder of three different victims, against a backdrop of sexual and physical violence to one of the intended victims.

Junior alone

R v CA and others – prosecuted multiple defendants involved in perverting the course of justice through the operation of a scheme to avoid speeding tickets.

R v MW – prosecuted a defendant charged with the theft of over £100,000 from a victim who had gone onto commit suicide as a result of the offence.

R v MB and RB – prosecuted brothers charged with drugs trafficking offences over a two year period. The case involved the seizure of 3kg of high quality cocaine, leading to further confiscation proceedings.

R v OS – instructed at short notice to defend a client facing allegations of armed robbery and threats to kill in a dwelling.

R v MS – defended a man accused of supplying cannabis and dangerous driving. The case involved cross examination of multiple police officers including an expert witness on drugs supply.

R v KA – defended a woman charged with money laundering part of the proceeds of a fraud worth £471,000.

R v AG – defended at sentence for a man who had admitted filming over 100 people in the public toilets in Manchester Airport. The defendant had multiple previous convictions for identical offending. After presenting mitigation to establish the efforts made by the defendant to rehabilitate himself, a six month suspended sentence was imposed.

Appeals

R v SM (Operation Harington) – prosecuted an appeal against conviction for a defendant/appellant charged with taking part in protests at Elbit Technology’s factory in Oldham. This case involved evidence from Gold and Silver commanders on scene, successfully resisting a submission of no case to answer and advancing legal argument based on the findings of the Supreme Court in DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23. After a five day appeal hearing, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld.

R v YM – prosecuted an appeal against conviction of a defendant/appellant who was accused of persistently stalking a vulnerable woman living in the Wigan area. The appeal was dismissed and a restraining order was made excluding the defendant from the entirety of Wigan for life.

R v SH – defended in an appeal against conviction for a woman of good character accused of handling stolen goods. Through careful consideration and presentation of the defendant/appellant’s circumstances and previous experiences, the appeal tribunal accepted that her perception of the situation was not dishonest and the appeal was allowed.

R v AM – defended in an appeal against sentence for a father of two who had pleaded guilty to public order offences and drunken conduct on an aeroplane. Despite authorities indicating that these offences would typically result in immediate custodial sentences, in this case the court allowed the appeal and replaced the sentence of immediate custody with a suspended sentence.

Youth Defendants

R v DC – defended in an appeal against sentence from the Youth Court. The client had been made subject to the maximum sentence that the DJ in the Youth Court was able to pass. Through detailed submissions on the particular vulnerabilities of the client and the proper application of the recent case of R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596 on the correct approach to sentencing Youths, the Court agreed to replace the original sentence with a Youth Rehabilitative Order.

R v JH – defended in an appeal against sentence from the Youth Court for a young client with an extensive criminal record. Persuaded the Court to reduce the sentence by half due to the client’s position as a victim of modern slavery and the progress he had demonstrated since his remand.