John Oliver

Sexual Offences

R v IA (2025) Defence

Four defendants accused of arranging the travel of a person with a view to exploitation (modern slavery) and multiple sexual offences against a single C. C had numerous and complex psychological and medical conditions and could not be cross-examined. The Ds did not give evidence and all were acquitted. Prosecuted by King’s Counsel.

R v AT (2025) Prosecution

Allegation of rape against a female D met in a bar. Defended by King’s Counsel.

R v TP (2025) Defence

Multiple serious sexual offences committed against a child family member.

R v PS (2025) Defence

D acquitted of two counts of rape alleged to have been committed against D’s friend. A successful s.41 application meant C could be questioned about the nature of her relationship with D prior to the alleged offences. John was assisted during the trial by his then pupil, Georgina Lane.

R v DH (2025) Defence

D accused of twice raping his then partner. During the course of the trial and after cross-examination of C, the prosecution discovered and disclosed evidence of previous similar reports (concerning others). Following a successful s.100 application, C was recalled for further cross-examination. Acquitted.

R v GE (2025) Defence

D and co-D accused of rape, assault and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Both Ds met a younger male following a night out and were accused of forcing him into an outdoor basement area, where the offences were said to have happened. Following six days of evidence, the jury unanimously acquitted both Ds after a little over 30 minutes’ deliberation time.

R v MS (2024) Defence

D accused of two offences of rape. The prosecution evidence included messages in which D apologised for C for his conduct and promised it would not happen again. The trial issue was consent. Acquitted.

R v AT (2024) Defence

D accused of rape and sexual assault said to have been committed against a guest of the hotel in which he worked. D absconded and the trial took place in his absence. The issue was consent. C had engaged in similar conduct and made allegations against D’s co-worker a few weeks after the incident involving D. A section 41 application was allowed. Unanimous acquittal.

R v TS (2024) Prosecution

D convicted after trial of sexual assaults and exposure committed against his son’s partner.

R v AR (2024) Defence

Allegation of rape in which the prosecution played the C’s video recorded interview and – because of C’s refusal to give evidence – made a successful application to treat her as hostile. At the close of the prosecution case, the submission of no case to answer succeeded and the Count was dismissed.

R v AA (2023) Defence

Guilty plea to 10 Counts on an 18 Count indictment alleging serious sexual offending against a child, who was a stranger to D. D had complex learning and personality difficulties which required the involvement of a psychiatrist. Notwithstanding the duration and nature of the offending, the Court was persuaded not to find D to be dangerous.

R v ZJ (2023) Defence

D was accused of two offences of rape, which were alleged to have been committed in 2018 but were not reported until 2021. D had very little recollection of the day concerned. He maintained that any sexual activity was consensual. His lack of memory presented difficulties for the cross-examination of C and so its main focus was on inconsistencies in the accounts she gave and a detailed analysis of the circumstances leading up to the alleged offences. The jury unanimously acquitted after just one-hour-and-fifteen minutes’ deliberation. John was instructed by Graeme Hydari and Kit Gamble at Hodge Jones and Allen. John was assisted during the trial by Amabel Kerr.

R v KB (2023) Defence

D and C were both under 18 at the time of multiple offences of serious sexual offending. C’s evidence was given by live video link. Ground Rules hearings were held before C’s and D’s evidence.

R v IC (2022) Defence

D accused of rape, assault by penetration and two sexual assaults. D was a nightclub security guard and, having met her that night, drove C home. C had no recollection of any of the sexual activity but D admitted all of it during a text message exchange. The two sexual assaults were video recorded on D’s mobile telephone and D was convicted in respect of those. He was acquitted of rape and assault by penetration. Suspended sentence imposed.

R v SS (2021) Defence

D accused of the rape of a colleague following a work event. Jury could not reach verdicts and a re-trial was ordered (returned).

R v J (2021) Defence

Unanimous acquittal of a male charged with raping a close family member in the 1970s, when both were children. Instructed three days before the start of the trial.

R v H (2021) Defence

Unanimous acquittal of an elderly male charged with raping a child he had tutored. Two child witnesses were called by the prosecution and their cross-examination was recorded before the trial (s.28).

R v H (2021) Defence

Representing a man with a psychiatric condition accused of raping (multiple counts), stalking, controlling and assaulting a female he had known for only a short time.

R v D (2020) Defence

Unanimous acquittal of a man charged with four counts of rape of a sex worker, whom he was alleged to have held a knifepoint. D did not give evidence.

R v W (2019) Defence

Young man with Autistic Spectrum Disorder charged with assault with intent to commit a sexual offence. Acquitted.

Violence and Public Disorder

R v TS (2026) Defence

D shown on CCTV attacking with a knife a stranger in a supermarket. Arrested for attempted murder, he was later indicted with wounding with intent (s.18). Following the service of psychiatric reports, the prosecution accepted the lesser alternative s.20 offence.

R v KC (2026) Defence

2 x wounding with intent and PWITS class A. D accused of stabbing the occupants of a property cuckooed by a county lines drug dealing gang, of which he was accused of being a member. Prosecution offered no evidence on the PWITS counts. D’s defence to the s.18 was duress. Acquitted after trial of 2 x s.18 but convicted of 2 x s.20 alternatives, which he had offered before the trial. Sentenced to a community order.

R v JW (2024) Defence

D accused of various offences against an ex-partner, including attempting to strangle, attempting to do an act to procure a miscarriage and making threats with a blade in a private place. One count was dismissed at half-time. D did not give evidence. D acquitted on three counts by the jury. Prosecution offered no evidence in respect of the final Count, upon which the jury could not reach a verdict.

R v LA (2023) Defence

Wounding with intent (s.18) and having a bladed article in a public place. D was accused of attacking her then partner with a knife causing multiple puncture and slash wounds and then leaving their shared home with a knife. D gave evidence that she was being abused by C and was defending herself from an attack by him. Acquitted of s.18 and the s.20 alternative. Convicted of having a bladed article in a public place. Time-served sentence imposed.

R v RL (2023) Defence

Led by Kevin Dent KC. Conspiracy to commit GBH connected to an allegation of murder against the co-defendants. Six-week trial before Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb.

R v SA (2023) Prosecution

3 x cruelty to a child (D’s son) and assault of D’s wife. Defence questioning of the child witness took place before the trial (s.28). Convicted.

R v SP (2022) Defence

D accused of inflicting wounds to the face of his ex-partner and mother of his child - s.18 and s.20 in the alternative. The Defence case was that the wounds were self-inflicted. Acquitted of s.18, the jury could not reach a verdict on the s.20 and the prosecution offered no evidence.

R v PK (2022) Defence

D accused of pouring boiling water over her flatmate and contended the incident was accidental. Unanimous acquittal.

R v S (2021) Prosecution

Trial in absence which resulted in the conviction of a man of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on his housemate. Pre-recorded questioning of a child witness (s.28).

R v G (2020) Defence

D charged with wounding with intent - attacking a stranger with a knife - found not guilty by reason of insanity.

R v M (2019) Defence

Five-handed affray involving the use of weapons. John’s client was acquitted.

R v W Defence

Female D jointly accused of grievous bodily harm (s.18) during an alleged knife attack on a neighbour. Acquitted.

Fraud and Dishonesty

R v JN (2025) Defence

Five Ds accused of conspiring to rob a man. During the course of the alleged robbery, one the Ds stabbed the man and was accused of attempted murder. The trial lasted five weeks and involved cut-throat defences. JN was unanimously acquitted. John was assisted by George Smart, who was then a pupil.

R v SA (2023) Prosecution

Pre-charge advice and instructed counsel in a case involving 37 counts of theft and robbery committed by D whilst cycling round central London. The case followed a separate prosecution for similar offending. Following guilty pleas, even taking into account totality (for these offences and the earlier offences), a substantial term of imprisonment was imposed.

R v KS (2023) Defence

D jointly charged with perverting the course of justice in connection with an investigation into her co-defendant for theft. The alleged victim was D’s ex-husband. Acquitted.

R v ZK (2023) Prosecution

Obtaining leave to enter the UK by deception and perverting the course of justice. D assumed the identity of a person who had previous applied for leave to enter the UK in order to circumvent immigration rules. Convicted.

R v SM (2023) Prosecution

Transferring criminal property. D searched and found to have £100,000 cash in a bag-for-life. At trial, he denied knowing what was in the bag. Unanimous conviction after trial.

R v SR (2023) Defence

D was accused of the armed robbery of a bank. He was hospitalised under the MHA shortly after his arrest. Psychiatrists concluded that he could not avail himself of a defence of insanity but that he was so unwell as to be unable to form the necessary mens rea. D did not give evidence. The jury unanimously acquitted D after only two-and-a-half hours’ deliberation. John was instructed by William Bergstrom and Viviane Bablin at Taylor Rose Solicitors. John was assisted during the trial by his then pupil Amabel Kerr.

R v S (2021) Defence

Successful defence of one of three defendants charged with offences relating to the fraudulent acquisition and conversion of over £200k. John’s client was the only defendant acquitted.

R v S (2021) Defence

Led by silk in a conspiracy to commit the country’s biggest (in terms of value) residential burglaries. Acquitted following a six-week trial.

R v PC (2020) Defence

D was a foreign national and no longer resident in the UK. She was extradited to the UK for trial. D was accused of conspiring to commit fraud and to convert criminal property - around £400,000. After negotiations, the prosecution accepted a guilty plea to converting on a basis. The Court was persuaded to sentence outside the sentencing guidelines and to impose a financial penalty so that she could return home.

R v K Defence

Female charged (along with family members) with conspiracy to convert criminal property which involved the sale of appliances stolen from hardware stores across the country.

Drugs

R v DG (2025) Defence

PWITS class A and possession of criminal property. Acquitted.

R v SM (2024) Prosecution

PWITS class A and possessing criminal property. D’s car searched and 100g cocaine and cash found. D’s case was that he believed the cocaine was a non-controlled substance and that he had earned the cash through work. Convicted.

R v BT (2023) Defence

PWITS class B. D found in possession of a substantial quantity of cannabis. His defence was that he had bought the cannabis in bulk at a discounted price and that it was for personal use. He answered questions in interview but did not give evidence at trial. Acquitted.

R v SB (2022) Defence

D accused of conspiring to supply and PWITS class A drugs. His four co-defendants pleaded guilty. D’s defence was under s.45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Unanimously acquitted on all Counts.

R v MH (2021) Prosecution

Five Counts of being concerned and PWITS class A drugs. Mixed defence – not in possession of some drugs; denied intending to supply others. Convicted of all offences.

R v B & others (2019-20) Prosecution

Second junior (led by Harry Hewitt of 5SAH) in a conspiracy to supply large quantities of class A drugs – 5-week trial.

R v T (2019) Defence

Representing one of seven defendants charged with conspiring to supply class A drugs and money laundering – 8-week trial.

Firearms / Weapons

R v HA (2025) Defence

Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. D and co-D were indicted with offences connected to a revenge attack following the murder of their young friend.

R v HB (2023) Defence

Guilty pleas to PWITS and possessing a prohibited firearm. Reports were commissioned to address ASD and other cognitive difficulties. D was a child at the time of the offences and was an adult on conviction and sentence. The Court was persuaded to find exceptional circumstances (in relation to the firearm) and imposed a suspended sentence.

R v JB (2022) Defence

Following guilty pleas to possessing a prohibited firearm and (compatible) ammunition without a certificate. A psychological report was commissioned and presented in mitigation. The judge was persuaded to find exceptional circumstances and (exceptionally) imposed a community order, despite finding the weapon to be ‘incredibly dangerous’.

R v JB (2021) Prosecution

Threatening with a blade. D was unfit for trial so this became an ‘actus reus’ trial. Act proved.

Homicide

R v MD (2026) Defence

D and co-D accused of murder/manslaughter x 2 and administering a noxious substance. Co-D was a sex worker and D was her driver. A drug was administered to a number of men and they were rendered unconscious so that property could be stolen from them. Two of the men died because of the effects of the administered drug and other substances. Prosecution accepted guilty pleas to manslaughter and administering. Led by King’s Counsel. Case heard by Mrs Justice Brunner.

R v LG (2023) Defence

D indicted with murder and manslaughter in the alternative. There was a history of domestic violence between D and the deceased, whose death was caused by a fall from a third-floor window. The prosecution case was that she was either pushed out of the window or had attempted to flee violence which was being meted out by D inside the flat by climbing out of the window and fell. Prosecution accepted a guilty plea to manslaughter.

Other / Various Offences

R v CS (2025) Defence

Allegations of controlling prostitution, holding persons in slavery or servitude, arranging travel with a view to exploitation (modern slavery offences) and transferring criminal property.

R v DF (2024) Defence

Allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour revived following a victim’s right to review. Following ten days of evidence, the jury acquitted within two hours.

R v BB (2023) Defence

Two-handed case involving allegations of theft from and kidnapping of an elderly and vulnerable gentleman who suffered from dementia. Co-defending with Francesca Levett. Both Ds gave evidence that they were trying to help the gentleman to find his home. Both Ds acquitted.

R v A (2019) Defence

Mixed verdicts in respect of charges of stalking, making threats to kill and disclosing private sexual photographs. Very unusually, the defendant received a suspended sentence.

Court of Appeal

R v BOB [2024] EWCA Crim 1494

Prosecution appeal against a terminating ruling by the trial judge. The Court expanded and reformulated the approach in R v Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509 on the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

R v Lea [2018] EWCA Crim 1878

Appeal against sentence for two offences of wounding (s.20) following guilty pleas. Sentence reduced from 28 months’ imprisonment to 20 months.

R v Usher [2018] EWCA Crim 1613

Appeal against sentence 10 years and 10 months out of time for a group robbery of a bookmakers using an imitation firearm. The appellant was 18 years old at the time. John was not trial counsel and had to consider a very large volume of evidence and complex issues of fact and law.

R v Oryem [2016] EWCA Crim 1699

Appeal against conviction and sentence for offences of fraud, possession of articles for use in fraud and possession of a false identity document with intent.

R v El Sheikh [2015] EWCA Crim 718

Appeal against sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm. Appeal allowed.