Year Of CallYear of call: 2014
Daniel is regularly instructed by police forces across the North of England in both applications on complaint in the Magistrates Court and in civil actions against the police by individuals, including representing forces at trials on the Fast Track. His knowledge of both criminal and civil law and procedure enables him to give focussed, practical advice about both jurisdictions and the overlap between them.
Daniel has particular experience of civil forfeiture proceedings pursuant to Part V of POCA 2002 and applications and appeals relating to Dog Destruction Orders, as well as Domestic Violence Prevention Orders, Criminal Behaviour Orders, Football Banning Orders and other similar prohibitory orders.
Daniel also regularly receives instructions to act as independent counsel, reviewing potentially privileged/special procedure material, and has experience of using e-disclosure portals for this purpose. His more general civil experience has also led to his being instructed in relation to Third Party Disclosure Orders sought by Claimants in civil proceedings, which can raise sensitive issues when there are ongoing investigations, including PII applications.
Daniel was led by Olivia Checa-Dover in the recent case of Rashid v CCWYP, a successful defence against allegations of false imrpisonment and unlawful arrest made by a Bradford GP who was arrested in 2012 as part of an investigation into cash-for-crash fraud. The case lasted 10 days, with a bundle stretching to 12 lever arch files, and involved consideration of complex causation arguments as well as whether the doctrine of ex turpi causa can apply to breaches of an expert witness’ duty to the court. For more information about the case, click here.
Daniel recently acted for a police force in relation to a Third Party Disclosure Order relating to a case of historic sexual abuse in football clubs. There were substantial ongoing investigations involving a large number of complainants and potential defendants. Daniel was able to keep the Order limited in its scope at hearing and by working closely with the police force’s legal department disclosure was able to be made in a way which respected the rights of other complainants and witnesses.
Daniel also acted for a police force alleged to have unlawfully seized and crushed the car of an individual, who had sued the force for £100,000. The court was persuaded that the police had acted lawfully within the relevant regulations and therefore no liability attached to their actions.
Daniel acted for a police force defending a claim for damages for distress arising from admitted breaches of the Data Protection Act. The Claimant was clearly distressed, but there were a number of other factors relating to the police’s investigation of crimes reported by the Claimant which had caused that distress. By focussing on the issue of causation the court was persuaded that the Claimant had suffered no distress as a result of the breaches of the Data Protection Act, and the Claim was dismissed.
Daniel has also, with Stephen Littlewood, delivered training on disclosure between the family and criminal jurisdictions, and the practical application of the 2013 Protocol and Good Practice Model from a police perspective.
Daniel has experience of both prosecution and defence work in a variety of different areas and regularly appears in the Crown, Youth and Magistrates’ Courts across the North Eastern Circuit.
Daniel regularly prosecutes and defends cases of fraud, GBH and burglary. He understands the importance of criminal cases of all levels to defendants and the need to give sensitive but robust advice.
He was recently instructed as disclosure junior, led by David Brooke QC, in the murder case of R v Sambrook, and has given training to police forces on dealing properly with third party disclosure.
Daniel is a Grade 2 Prosecutor and a List C member of the List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Health and Safety and Environmental Law. He has significant experience of the sensitive handling of young and vulnerable witnesses.
R v Stephenson – prosecuting. Mr Stephenson was convicted of dangerous driving causing serious injury and perverting the course of justice. The evidence against him was largely circumstantial, he called an alibi witness and significantly none of the witnesses to the collision which caused the injury could recall the number plate of the vehicle or directly identify Mr Stephenson as the driver.
R v Wadey – defending. Ms Wadey was accused of five counts of child cruelty to her daughter including spitting at her and rubbing a nappy in her face. She pleaded guilty to a twos counts of pulling her hair and received a 21 week suspended sentence with 27 RAR days.
R v Pigeon – defending. Mr Pigeon had pleaded guilty to production of cannabis on the basis that no supply was intended. He had 23 cannabis plants, automatic lights and an extractor fan installed in what had been his son’s bedroom, with an estimated yield of 1.27kg. By deploying expert evidence of Mr Pigeon’s medical condition and the length of time for which cannabis could be stored, the judge was convinced that no supply was intended by Mr Pigeon.
Daniel has a wide range of experience of personal injury work, with a particular specialism in industrial disease cases. He is an experienced trial advocate, regularly instructed to deal with complex cases on the multi track requiring in-depth analysis of experts’ reports as well as more straightforward cases on the fast track. He has an in-depth understanding of procedural issues as well as the more wide-ranging medical issues of fact which allows him to give focussed and practical advice, ensuring that clients have the best possible prospects of success should their case comes to trial.
In road traffic matters, Daniel has particular expertise in relation to applications to strike out proceedings for vehicle related damages where a personal injury claim has been settled through the portal, and has recently successfully represented two claimants resisting such applications.
Daniel accepts instructions on a CFA basis in appropriate cases.
Daniel also has experience of other civil matters, including general civil trial work, applications for summary judgment/strike out and PAD applications.
Grix v Secretary of State for BEIS – acted for the Claimant in a complex causation trial where NIL was agreed and accordingly no engineering evidence was obtained, but the Claimant had a third pathology with significant asymmetry and bilateral tinnitus. Despite both Mr Lancer and Mr Green agreeing that the LCB 2016 Guidelines showed a de minimis loss, the judge was persuaded that the correct approach was to look at quantification in the round, particularly where there was a significant 4kHz loss, and the Claimant was awarded £4,360 in general damages.
Breach of Duty in Noise Induced Hearing Loss Claims, 16 June 2016
Part 18 and Part 35 CPR, 16 February 2017
Daniel is a List C member of the List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Health and Safety and Environmental Law. His experience of general criminal work means that he has a strong grasp of the rules of evidence and issues of disclosure, while he can also draw on his knowledge of health and safety law through his personal injury work.
Daniel is an experienced trial advocate well used to handling a range of civilian and professional witnesses and marshalling complex evidence in support of a case. In particular his industrial disease practice means that he is comfortable presenting and challenging complex and overlapping expert evidence in multiple disciplines.
Daniel accepts instructions in all types of employment case, and has experience of a variety of proceedings in both the employment tribunals and the civil courts. He has been instructed in cases involving constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination and is equally experienced in advocacy and advisory work. His experience of other areas of law means that he is well equipped to deal with a range of clients and witnesses from commercial clients to individual employees. His focus is always on giving practical advice to achieve the best outcome for clients.
As a consequence of his wider civil experience, Daniel is well versed in the costs provisions that apply in the different jurisdictions.
Prior to starting pupillage, Daniel spent two years working as an Employment Paralegal for Bates Wells Braithwaite. In that time, he had conduct of his own cases, appeared in the employment tribunal in interim hearings, and assisted in the conduct of several high value discrimination and contractual claims. He has a particular understanding of the charitable and non-profit sector, and is a member of the supervisory board of a local charity.
Daniel accepts instructions in private law children matters including, but not limited to, applications for child arrangements orders, non-molestation orders, prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders.
Daniel also practices in care, acting both for parents and for local authorities in proceedings involving serious allegations of a sexual and violent nature.
Daniel is an experienced trial advocate, able to sensitively handle young and vulnerable witnesses, and to put clients at their ease in the inevitably stressful court environment. Daniel has a diverse practice which enables him to draw on experiences from different areas of law in representing clients in family proceedings. He has particular experience of dealing with the issues arising out of allegations of domestic violence.
North Eastern Circuit
Criminal Bar Association
Industrial Law Society
Education and Awards
University of Cambridge – BA (Hons) History – 2:1
Diamond-Larkum Prize for History
Elected a Charles Whittaker Scholar
BPP Law School – GDL – Commendation
BPP Law School – BPTC – Outstanding