Danielle Barden is a specialist barrister instructed in business crime, general crime and extradition.
Danielle has broad experience of acting in business crime cases. She also has significant experience in proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. She acts in cases concerning cash forfeiture, detention, confiscation and enforcement proceedings and has appeared at the Court of Appeal in relation to such matters.
Danielle is an experienced advocate in extradition. She exclusively appears on behalf of individuals who are requested for extradition before both the High Court on appeal and the Magistrates’ Court at first instance. Danielle has broad experience of arguing complex legal issues before the High Court and has successfully argued against the extradition of requested persons both at the Magistrates’ Court and on appeal to a range of states.
Danielle appears regularly in complex criminal matters including fraud, money laundering, robbery, sexual offences and drugs offences, both as a led junior and a junior alone. She appears for both the defence and prosecution in the Crown, Magistrates’ and Youth Courts and has achieved success in all of these forums, as well as before the Court of Appeal.
She is a skilled prosecutor and has acted in a number of private prosecution cases. She has successfully acted on behalf of private bodies, such as the Royal Mail and local authorities.
Danielle has significant experience in representing vulnerable defendants, such as youths, victims of exploitation and individuals with mental health difficulties. Her skill at putting clients at ease, building a rapport and ensuring their comfort and understanding of the process throughout is second to none. As a result, Danielle has significant expertise in representing defendants running defences under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Danielle is a dedicated advocate, who argues passionately on behalf of her clients and is able to clearly and persuasively put across complex legal arguments, both in her written and oral advocacy.
Professional panel appointments
- Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) advocates panel at Level 2: South Eastern and Midlands Circuit.
Before coming to the bar, Danielle worked at a specialist criminal defence firm in North West London. She specialised in confiscation law.
During her time at the firm she also assisted in the preparation of the defence of a multi-million-pound fraud trial, an action against the police and a judicial review concerning the improper seizure and detention of cash.
- City Law School, BPTC.
- Cardiff University, LLB Law.
- Young Fraud Lawyers Association.
- Women in Criminal Law.
- Defence Extradition Lawyers’ Forum.
- Middle Temple Young Barristers’ Association.
- Middle Temple.
- South Eastern Circuit.
Danielle specialises in representing both the defence and prosecution in confiscation proceedings at the Crown Court.
She represents defendants in high value confiscation proceedings, both as a led junior and a junior alone and has successfully argued for the significant reduction of confiscation orders.
Danielle appears at enforcement proceedings at the Magistrates’ Court concerning the activation of default sentences for the non-payment of confiscation orders.
She has successfully opposed the activation of default sentences for clients whose outstanding confiscation orders have ranged in value from thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Cases of Note
R v R (2018)
Danielle appealed against a sentence imposed by the Crown Court for two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The sentence imposed was one of 5 years, made up of a 4 year sentence of imprisonment with a 1 year extended licence period. She successfully argued that the sentence was 'manifestly excessive' and thus the custodial element of the defendant's sentence was reduced.
R v O and others (2019)
Represented a young defendant in a five handed knife-point robbery. Successful arguments were run to oppose the Crown adducing bad character, hearsay evidence and a significant proportion of the forensic evidence against the defendants.
R v C (2019)
Following successful legal arguments leading to the Crown Prosecution Service dropping numerous allegations of burglary against the defendant, Danielle represented the defendant for a single offence of burglary where DNA matching the defendant’s was found on items of clothing that were located alongside items stolen from a nearby burglary. Danielle was able to draw out the significant difficulties with the Crown’s case and secure the client’s acquittal.
R v F and A (2019)
Danielle successfully prosecuted a case of robbery committed against an individual from abroad, who was targeted when alone and drunk in North London. The defendant was found guilty of robbing the victim of his mobile telephone.
R v A (2019)
The defendant had been found unfit to plead and thus a trial of fact was held to establish whether he chased gas workers who had attended his property with a machete. Danielle presented the case clearly and fairly on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and it was found that the defendant did the acts of affray and possession of a bladed article.
R v S (2018)
Successfully represented a defendant in a multi-handed drugs, sexual offences and human trafficking trial, as a led junior. The case was large and complex and required a keen eye for detail and careful analysis of the evidence that related to Danielle’s client, given the significant volume of both used and unused material that was served by the Crown. The defendant was acquitted of the human trafficking offence of which she was accused.
R v T (2018)
A Youth Court case in which Danielle successfully argued that the police were not acting in the course of their duty when arresting the defendant and thus he was found not guilty of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm with intent to resist arrest.
R v B (2018)
The defendant was a youth, who was the victim of modern slavery, having been pressured to move illicit drugs. Danielle relied upon the expert report of a clinical psychologist and the account of the defendant to argue successfully that the defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 had been raised and the defendant was acquitted.
R v O (2018)
The defendant was accused alongside two others of affray and GBH, committed in the context of a tussle breaking out at a shopping centre. Danielle was able to successfully argue that the GBH offence of which the defendant was accused should not be left to the jury and the defendant was acquitted of affray following trial.
R v S (2018)
Danielle represented the Crown in a trial where the defendant was accused of smuggling a young boy into the United Kingdom under the back seats of his motor vehicle. The defendant was unanimously convicted of people trafficking.
R v A (2017)
Danielle secured the acquittal of a defendant who was accused of possession of an offensive weapon, namely a piece of wood.
R v F (2017)
Represented a defendant accused of the commission of burglary and theft against his own sibling. The case required a delicate hand in cross-examination, given the nature of the relationship between the parties involved. The defendant was acquitted on all counts.
R v W (2017)
Danielle defended a case of stalking where an allegation had been made by a drugs key worker against one of her clients. The case turned on what the defendant ‘ought to have known’ and thus required gentle, precise cross-examination of the key worker to establish exactly what her reaction to his behaviour was and whether he was present to witness this. The defendant was acquitted.
R v P (2016)
Successfully represented a defendant accused of the commission of a burglary. The issue in the case was identification. A facial mapping expert was relied on to secure the acquittal of the defendant based on a successful dispute over the quality of the identification evidence.
BUSINESS CRIME/ASSET RECOVERY AND CONFISCATION:
R v P and others (2018)
Danielle acted as a led junior in a complex, multi-handed fraud and money laundering trial, involving the employees of a company based in the United Kingdom. The defendants were accused of illicit activity, such as the fraudulent increase of their salaries, the making of unauthorised bonus payments and the misuse of company money to purchase expensive items including jewellery and watches.
London Borough of Harrow v N (2018)
Following the successful private prosecution of a company that had illegally altered and let out a large property as a House of Multiple Occupation, Danielle also acted in the confiscation proceedings, securing a substantial confiscation order against the company.
R v A (2017)
Danielle successfully negotiated a favourable confiscation order on behalf of the defendant. The Crown had asserted high values for both the benefit from the defendant’s criminal and available figure from which this benefit could be recouped. Danielle was able to negotiate a figure that was significantly lesser than that originally applied for.
R v J (2017)
Acted for the Crown in the sentencing of a high value fraud involving the defendant abusing the trust of his employer, a large multi-national corporation, by using his position to purchase and sell on goods for his own benefit.
EXTRADITION AND INTERNATIONAL
B v Poland (2019)
Danielle represented an Appellant before the High Court who had developed significant ties in the United Kingdom. He had obtained prosperous employment, established a settled home for his wife and two young children and provided additional support to his physically and mentally unwell brother. Danielle argued that, taking into account the prolonged period that the Appellant had served in custody in the UK awaiting his appeal, the very short sentence that remained to be served, that the offences were committed a long time before and amounted to behaviour that was now entirely out of character, it was not proportionate to return him to Poland. The appeal was allowed, the extradition order quashed and the Applicant allowed to return to his family life in the UK.
Belgium v T (2019)
The requested person was accused of a very serious, multi-handed offence of involvement in a human trafficking ring, where asylum seekers were transported from Belgium to the United Kingdom in refrigerated vans. Numerous arguments were raised to oppose the requested person’s extradition, including prison conditions that were inhuman and degrading (Article 3), lack of decisions to charge and try the requested persons (section 12A), procedural failings in the body of the European Arrest Warrant (section 2) and lack of information to support that alleged offences were extradition offences (section 10). The Judicial Authority were forced to concede the case in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the decisions to charge and try all of the requested persons had not been made and thus they were discharged.
S v Poland (2019)
Danielle raised a complex legal point concerning the lack of independence of the Polish judiciary as a result of the numerous statutory changes that had been made by the newly appointed political party in Poland. This case involved in-depth legal research and the drafting of complex grounds of appeal in order to properly explore the issue before the High Court.
Romania v S (2019)
Serious concerns had been raised over the prison conditions in Romania and thus the client’s extradition was opposed, relying on detailed, comprehensive written and oral submissions, on the basis of the inhuman and degrading treatment that he would face if he was returned. Danielle also raised issues over the client’s right to a re-trial if he were returned and the potential breach of the right to private life for him and his family under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
G v Czech Republic (2019)
The Applicant was requested for extradition to the Czech Republic for offences of theft and breach of a deportation order. He was an Algerian citizen and was the sole breadwinner for his wife and four young children. It was argued before the High Court that, given the significant financial and emotional hardship that his family had experienced as a result of his remand in custody in the UK, his extradition was in breach of their rights to private and family life and his extradition order should be quashed and he should be allowed to return to his family.
C v Poland (2017)
Danielle represented a client at the magistrates’ court who had been convicted in Poland of four offences of burglary. She made representations on the lack of proportionality of returning him to Poland when his life had changed so significantly in the time that he had been living in the UK, namely gaining impressive employment and having started a family, and his extradition was discharged.
Poland v Z (2017)
Successfully represented a requested person in an appeal to the High Court. The issue was whether the extradition of the Appellant was proportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights given the short time that remained to be served. Danielle was able to persuade the High Court that to extradite the Appellant would be a disproportionate interference with his right to a private and family life in the UK and his appeal was allowed.
Germany v R (2017)
Represented a requested person in an appeal to the High Court made on the basis of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. A complex legal argument was raised on the basis of expert evidence that had been obtained concerning the stage that the proceedings in Germany had reached.
Poland v K (2017)
Danielle successfully represented a requested person at the Magistrates’ Court in opposing extradition to Poland on the grounds of proportionality under Article 8. In the prolonged period that he had lived in the UK he had set up his own building company and had a number of employees who relied on his company for their livelihoods. He had a young family who were reliant on him and had changed his life significantly since the old offences that had been committed in Poland.
E v Latvia (2016)
Danielle represented the Appellant, who had serious medical concerns, and raised issues under section 21A, section 25 and Article 8, all of which focused upon the treatment that he was able to receive in the UK and the serious that there would not be immediate continuation of treatment if he was extradited. Danielle persuaded the High Court that the Appellant could be removed only if sufficient supporting documents were provided, both in advance of his removal and to be carried with him, to ensure that his treatment was continued immediately upon arrival in the requesting state.