CRIMINAL LAW
Operation Galaxy: Defending in a major multi-handed drugs conspiracy arising from a regional police operation targeting organised crime and the supply of Class A and Class B drugs across Humberside. Although alleged to have played a significant role in the conspiracy, the defendant avoided immediate custody and was the only defendant to receive a suspended sentence following mitigation.
R v M & Ors: Prosecuting a multi-handed robbery trial involving weapons and a vulnerable complainant. The case involved issues under SOCPA, section 74 PACE, challenged CCTV continuity and a Galbraith submission. Successfully resisted the evidential challenges and both defendants were convicted.
R v H: Defending a woman with lengthy previous convictions of similar drug offences, charged with 10 counts of possession with intent to supply Class B and Class C drugs. The case involved high-THC cannabis, edibles, disputed forensic evidence and drugs valued at over £100,000. Despite the Crown seeking a lengthy custodial sentence, secured a 12-month community order.
R v A: Prosecuting a defendant charged with rioting and incitement to racial hatred following disorder. Case focused on the religious context of the incident, the location outside a place of worship and the risk of inflaming community tensions. Defendant convicted and given immediate custody.
R v G: Appearing for the appellant in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) following sentence for dangerous driving. Disqualification had been imposed after a police pursuit involving excessive speed and high-risk manoeuvres. Following submissions the original disqualification was reduced by half. The case was reported and can be found here.
R v Q: Acting in confiscation proceedings arising from a drugs conspiracy involving substantial cryptoasset holdings. Submissions made on the treatment of cryptoassets under POCA, restraint and the risk of dissipation through volatility or obfuscation. The court accepted submissions permitting enforcement officers to realise the assets securely.
R v H: Prosecuting extradition proceedings under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. The requested person resisted extradition on Articles 3, 6 and 8 ECHR grounds, including detention conditions, family life and conviction in absence. Further information obtained and assurances from the issuing state such that extradition was ultimately ordered.
FAMILY LAW
KUHCC v E & Ors: Junior alone for a Local Authority in complex public law proceedings involving grave and interlocking allegations within an extended family. The case concerned alleged intra-familial sexual abuse, marital rape, coercive control, parental mental ill-health, parallel criminal investigations and extensive disclosure from police, medical, psychiatric and social work sources.
ERYC v L & Ors: Acting for the mother in contested fact-finding proceedings following injuries to two very young children, including an unexplained skull fracture. The case required cross-examination of medical experts and submissions on substance misuse and cell-site evidence used to analyse the parties’ locations at relevant times.
KUHCC v B & Ors: Acting in public law proceedings involving unexplained fractures to a child, with medical experts concluding the injuries were likely to be non-accidental. The case required careful handling of expert medical evidence, cross-examination of a vulnerable parent with intermediary assistance, and submissions on the appropriate welfare outcome.
KUHCC v G: Acting for the father in public law proceedings involving serious safeguarding concerns connected to organised crime, Class A drugs and weapons found within reach of children. Successfully argued that threshold was not established against the father, substantially narrowing his role in the proceedings and securing structured long-term contact arrangements.
H v H: Acting for the father in contested private law children proceedings where he sought to re-establish contact after earlier proceedings had found contact not to be in the children’s best interests. The case involved serious allegations between extended family members and a hybrid fact-finding hearing. Ongoing contact was secured by way of a Child Arrangements Order.
Z v A: Acting for the father in High Court private law proceedings involving applications to vary child arrangements, restrict contact and prevent relocation. The case involved allegations of domestic abuse, harassment and child abuse, as well as concerns raised by the Children’s Guardian relating to recorded calls and alleged radicalisation risks within the paternal family.