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, money laundering, violence and sexual offences.
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.
“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 one of John's instructing solicitors
John was instructed as disclosure counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry for 8 months. He was also instructed as disclosure counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).
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 appointed prosecutor - Level 2 (2018)
- Attorney General's Junior Juniors Panel (2017)
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.
- 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 (Elected Executive Committee Member 2018 onwards)
- Young Fraud Lawyers Association
- London Irish Lawyers Association
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.
“John's cross examination of the main prosecution witness was impressive.”
Feedback from John's instructing solicitors on a case of section 18 GBH with a Certificate for Counsel in the Youth Court
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 in serious and complex prosecutions for the CPS. John also prosecutes for local authorities where he draws on his knowledge from a 4 month secondment to a local authority legal team.
John is frequently instructed in the private prosecution of trademark and copyright offences. In his role on the CBA executive he provided a response to the consultation on the Code for Private Prosecutors. He has expertise in issues concerning POCA and Legal Professional Privilege.
Cases of Note
R v AX 
Junior alone. John secured an acquittal for his client charged with sexual assault. AX was of good character. The trial lasted 3 days and the jury acquitted John’s client after 45 minutes. Defence costs order granted.
R v X 
Junior alone (certificate for counsel). John represented an 18 year old of good character in the youth court. X was accused of attempted s18 GBH and s20 GBH. The trial lasted for 4 days. Following John's written and oral submissions of no case to answer the attempted s18 GBH was dismissed at the close of the prosecution case. John's client was acquitted of s20 GBH.
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.