John is a barrister practising in criminal law and all related areas. He is building a strong Crown Court practice representing defendants charged with a variety of serious criminal matters including fraud, firearms, grievous bodily harm and perverting the course of justice.
Instructing solicitors have observed that John goes the extra mile in cases involving young and vulnerable people. He places great importance on caring for the lay client throughout their case whether they are a business professional or a vulnerable person.
John is regularly instructed in the Magistrates’ Court on a privately funded basis to represent individuals in a range of general crime cases. He accepts instructions in driving matters and has successfully defended a number of individuals facing drink driving and related charges.
John was instructed as one of a team of disclosure counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry for 8 months.
Direct Public Access
John accepts instructions under the direct access scheme. This allows members of the public to instruct John directly to advise them on or represent them in suitable cases.
Professional panel appointments
- Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) appointed prosecutor (Grade 1).
- Attorney General's Junior Juniors Panel.
Prior to joining chambers, John worked as a paralegal for two years at Hickman & Rose Solicitors. During that time John assisted Jenny Wiltshire in various cases concerning manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter and historical sexual allegations.
While working in Hickman & Rose’s Corporate Crime department John was part of the team who represented the first LIBOR trader to be exonerated by the FCA's Regulatory Decisions Committee.
- BBP Law School, BPTC; Very Competent
- BBP Law School, GDL; Commendation
- University of Warwick, BA (Hons.) History; 2.1
- Ann Felicity Goddard Scholarship, Gray’s Inn (2017)
- Criminal Bar Association.
- Young Fraud Lawyer’s Association.
John accepts instructions in confiscation matters. He has defended in confiscation hearings in the Crown Court and enforcement proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court.
Both the National Crime Agency (NCA) and the Metropolitan Police instruct John to prosecute cash forfeiture cases.
John has been instructed by defence solicitors to review and analyse documents in the course of an FCA investigation of an investment banker in a case with multi-jurisdictional issues.
During his time as a paralegal, John worked on document-heavy cases (such as LIBOR) and has developed an understanding of the unique demands of financial criminal cases. He accepts instructions in financial and business crime cases.
John’s principle area of practice is defending individuals facing criminal allegations. He has worked on cases with clients ranging from high net worth individuals and premiership footballers to very vulnerable young people.
“We have been impressed by John’s preparation, client care and advocacy. It is clear he has a keen eye for detail. We have full confidence in his ability to do a fantastic job for our clients.”
Feedback from John's instructing solicitors
Before joining the Bar John developed significant experience in litigating criminal cases; he enjoys engaging with instructing solicitors throughout a case to achieve the best result for the lay client.
John is instructed to prosecute on behalf of Local Authorities (LAs) and has experience of a wide range of criminal offences brought by LAs following a secondment to a LA criminal team.
John has been instructed by the Metropolitan Police to undertake a disclosure review of highly sensitive material, some pertaining to national security issues, for a police misconduct hearing. The case concerned the undercover operations of the Special Demonstration Squad SO12 and the alleged inappropriate sexual relationships between undercover officers and activists. The case has received significant press attention.
He accepts instructions in professional discipline and regulatory cases.
Cases of Note
R v AA 
Junior alone. AA was first on the indictment charged with s18 GBH in a two handed cut throat. The second defendant blamed AA entirely. Prosecution witnesses recalled AA delivering numerous kicks and punches to the complaint. AA was also alleged to have held a weapon to the complainant’s face. The complainant suffered a brain haemorrhage, a skull fracture necessitating the removal of part of the skull and ongoing memory issues. Following careful cross-examination and jury speech AA was acquitted of s18 GBH with intent. Convicted of s20 GBH, as was the co-Defendant. Sentenced to 33 months, which is below the guideline starting point.
R v DF 
Junior alone. DF was arrested on the street with a taser which was allegedly disguised as a torch, a machete and a stab proof vest. DF was charged with s5(1A) Firearms Act offence subject to the statutory minimum 5 year sentence. Following representations drafted by John the CPS amended the indictment, charging a s5(1)(b) Firearms Act offence instead. DF was also charged with possession of an offensive weapon. Following extensive mitigation DF received a suspended sentence.
R v GP 
Led junior (led by Queen’s Counsel) in case concerning allegations of sexual assault and false imprisonment before the case was discontinued by the prosecution. Defence Costs Order granted. Continued to be instructed in claim for wasted costs against the CPS.
R v MR 
Junior alone representing a young vulnerable woman charged with robbery at the Crown Court. After extensive mitigation and issues relating to the crossing a significant age threshold, the sentence was deferred. At the same time acted in ongoing Magistrates’ Court proceedings for MR and drafted a letter of representations resulting in those charges being discontinued.
R v K 
Acted for a defendant charged who had fraudulently claimed a £20,000 lottery ticket. Following mitigation the court imposed a sentence significantly below the sentencing guidelines range. The case attracted national press attention. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/08/village-shopkeepertold-customer-20k-winninglotteryticket-worth/)
R v F 
John's client entered a guilty plea to being drunk while in charge of a motor vehicle. John persuaded the court not to impose penalty points; the lay client was concerned on the effect of penalty points on his work and work insurance. The court imposed a short disqualification and a small fine.
R v TL 
John successfully defended a former soldier accused of failing to provide a specimen of breath when required to do so. TL suffered from PTSD as a result of his tour of Afghanistan. The prosecution disputed the defence medical evidence. Defence costs order granted.
R v N 
John's client was acquitted of failing to provide a specimen of breath when required to do so. John cross-examined police officers at length and adduced expert evidence to show that N suffered with anxiety. Defence costs order granted.