Nathan specialises in general crime utilising his experience in criminal litigation, gained in his third and second-six. Having previously worked in psychiatric care, Nathan is particularly suited to working with vulnerable clients in challenging circumstances.
Nathan has experience prosecuting and defending in a wide range of cases involving POCA, protest law, human rights, drugs, and domestic violence. He is instructed in complex and challenging cases.
Nathan joined chambers after completing his third-six pupillage at 5SAH having successfully undertaken a specialist crime pupillage at a leading set on the Western Circuit.
"The case could have been seen as overwhelming against the defendant, which makes Nathan's conduct and the ultimate result even more impressive"
Nathan "had the case at his fingertips" and that the client owed his counsel a "great debt".
"The barrister was fantastic"
Feedback from lay client
Professional Panel Appointments
- CPS Advocate Panel Member: Grade 1.
- Philosophy, BA, Lancaster University.
- Graduate Diploma in Law, The University of Law.
- Bar Practitioners Training Couse/ LLM, BPP University.
Awards and Scholarships
- Advocacy Scholarship: BPP.
- J. B. Montagu Scholarship: Middle Temple.
- University of Law Moot: 2017.
- Kalisher Trust Advocacy Training Scholarship.
Before pupillage, Nathan was a legal officer at the Free Representation Unit (FRU), specialising in social security law. He oversaw the work of volunteers acting in the First-tier Tribunal as well as balancing his own cases in the First-tier and Upper Tribunal, including work which involved judicial review and human rights.
Nathan’s previous career was in psychiatric care, where he worked predominantly in secure psychiatric hospitals. Nathan was also a manager of a supported living facility for people with schizophrenia and oversaw the care team.
In his spare time, Nathan volunteers at local youth clubs and has coached school debating teams with the Kalisher Trust.
Nathan has a busy practice in both the magistrates' and Crown Court. He has experience defending in a wide range of matters involving both youths and adults. Based on his previous career experience, Nathan is attuned to the needs of vulnerable clients, the defences in law, and points on disposal that may arise. He is currently instructed on contested Crown Court cases involving GBH and high-value street robbery.
Nathan welcomes a chance to expand his youth practice and is trial counsel in ongoing and notably complicated cases. Nathan is particularly able to advise on the regrettably common issue of modern slavery and young defendants.
Nathan is quickly developing his skills in relation to quasi-criminal orders such as SHPOs (Sexual Harm Prevention Orders); CBOs (Criminal Behaviour Orders); and SPOs (Stalking Protection Orders). Nathan is able to represent and advise clients subjected to such orders after conviction or on application.
Criminal Prosecutions - Private & Public
Nathan is a grade 1 prosecutor and has acted in both the magistrates' and Crown Courts, including prosecuting multi-handed jury trials. Nathan has experience prosecuting cases involving domestic violence from his time acting in the specialist courts but has also received instructions involving protest law, armed robbery, stalking, sexual offences, POCA, drugs, and offences against the person.
Nathan also has experience prosecuting on behalf of outside authorities and can advise on issues such as charges, procedures, and ancillary orders.
Nathan is quickly developing his skills in relation to quasi-criminal orders such as SHPOs (Sexual Harm Prevention Orders); CBOs (Criminal Behaviour Orders); and SPOs (Stalking Protection Orders). Nathan is able to advise and represent applicants for such orders.
Asset Recovery, Civil Fraud & Confiscation
Nathan has experience prosecuting and defending in cases involving POCA, final hearings and enforcement, and welcomes further instructions in this area.
Cases of Note
R v DM (Aldersgate House Crown Court)
Successful prosecution for possession of a bladed article following a three-day trial.
R v SA (Inner London Crown Court)
successful defence of a client accused of obstructing a drug search and assault on an emergency worker via choking. Conflicting accounts elicited in cross-examination and legal submissions on a point of law and the Misuse of Drugs Act led to the court finding no case to answer.
R v AW (Basildon Crown Court)
Despite being subject to a mandatory minimum for domestic burglary and a plea on the day of trial, the court decided not to pass the mandatory minimum and instead passed a suspended sentence with MHTR. The sentencing judge remarked upon the persuasive and impactful mitigation advanced.
R v KC (Bristol Crown Court)
Client entered guilty pleas for two separate cases of dangerous driving and PWITS B. KC was also accused of two separate PWITS A cases. Following pleas from co-defendants and submissions on KC’s behalf, the crown offered no evidence on the PWITS A despite the case initially seeming strongest against KC. A suspended sentence was passed on the remaining two matters. The sentencing judge remarked that Nathan ‘had the case at his fingertips’ and that the client owed his counsel a ‘great debt’.
R v WD
Client was sentenced for armed robbery of a vulnerable person and police chase with a car crash, having entered pleas at the first opportunity. Successful mitigation led to a sentence of 32 months.
R v PP (Southend Magistrates’ Court)
Successful submission of abuse of process in allegation of domestic violence.
R v DM (Westminster Magistrates’ Court)
Successful defence of a two-day stalking trial for a very vulnerable client.
R v SH (Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court)
Successful defence of client accused of ABH in which CCTV showed the alleged attack from meters away.
R v XX (Uxbridge Youth Court)
Successful defence of possession of a bladed article under section 45 Modern Slavery Act 2015.
R v UB (Woodgreen Crown Court)
A young client did not attend court due to fears of gang reprisals. Subsequently, UB was brought before the court for contempt. Submissions on the client’s behalf led to the matter not being put and withdrawn by the court.
R v SS (Bristol Crown Court)
Successful prosecution in a two-day appeal against conviction for failing to abide by dispersal order in a ‘Kill The Bill’ protest.