Ian Mullarkey

Ian Mullarkey

IAN MULLARKEY

Year of call: 2003

Call clerks: 0113 297 1200

Email clerks: clerks@kbwchambers.com

  • Practice Summary

    Recorder of the Crown Court

    Recommended as a ‘Leading Junior’ in Crime [Legal 500: 2017, 2018]

    Prosecutes and defends in the Crown Court in legally aided and privately funded cases.

    Grade 4 prosecutor on the specialist rape and child sexual abuse panel and one of a small number of criminal barristers with Developed Vetting (DV) security clearance.

    Recent cases have included prosecuting offences of rape, arson with intent to endanger life, armed robbery, wounding with intent, sexual activity with a child and drugs supply and defending cases of rape, wounding with intent, sexual assault, sexual activity with a child, possession of prohibited firearms, drugs importation and fraud.

    Has undertaken extensive training in prosecuting serious sexual offences and cross-examining vulnerable witnesses.

    Recent cases

    R v Robinson (July 2019) – prosecution junior (led by Peter Makepeace Q.C.) – prosecuted the defendant for the murder of his partner, whom he killed during a prolonged incident of sporadic domestic violence which caused a diffuse traumatic axonal brain injury which, along with alcohol intoxication, was the cause of death. The case involved issues of hearsay and bad character evidence, along with factual issues relating to causation. The defendant was unanimously convicted in a little over an hour, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years.

    R v N (May 2019) – successfully defended man charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent after he struck a man from behind in pre-emptive self-defence during an incident which was captured on CCTV.

    R v Disney (May 2019) – prosecuted the defendant for offences in three jurisdictions; indecent assaults on children in England, and whilst on holiday in Spain, and taking first generation indecent images of children in Vietnam. The case involved and liaising with embassy staff in Spain and Vietnam and providing advice on the indictment and how the defendant could properly be identified from the ‘first generation’ images. The defendant ultimate pleaded guilty to all matters and was sentenced to an extended sentence of 8 years imprisonment with an extended licence of 2 years.

    R v D (April 2019) – successfully defended man charged with two offences of rape of a child under 13 years following a four day trial which involved the cross examination of a young complainant.

    R v Cahill and Harper (March 2019) – prosecution junior, led by Adrian Waterman QC, in the appeal against conviction and sentence hearing before the Court of Appeal. The Appellant contended, principally, that an admission she had made to a prison officer ought not to have been admitted in evidence and that the directions of law in relation to joint enterprise were defective. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds and upheld the conviction and sentence. The law report can be found at: [2019] EWCA Crim 343

    R v Dial (January 2019) – successfully prosecuted the defendant for two offences of rape committed in the context of controlling and coercive behaviour. The defendant was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment.

    R v Carey (October 2018) – successfully prosecuted the defendant for rape following a seven day trial. Sentenced to 9 years imprisonment after trial.

    Thackray & Others (October 2018) – prosecuted the defendant for possession of prohibited firearm and using it with intent to resist arrest when, during a foot chase with unarmed officers, the defendant fell and accidentally discharged the firearm he was carrying and then, as he lay on the ground, turned and pointed the loaded weapon at the pursuing officers. He ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.

    R v Guy (2018) – prosecution junior (led by David Brooke Q.C.) – prosecuted the defendant for the manslaughter of his former partner’s son. The defendant had, in 1998, assaulted his then partner’s son (who was then 6 months old), causing him serious brain injuries and epilepsy, which was to cause his death in May 2016, aged 18 years. In light of the body of medical opinion assembled by the prosecution, the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and, taking into account the period he had originally served in 1998, was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment, which was reduced on appeal.

    R v Z (2018) – prosecuted the defendant for the rape, on two occasions, of a 14 year old. The defendant was unanimously convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment with a 2 year extension period under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

    R v Calvert (2018) – having being briefed following the retirement of trial counsel, appeared in the Court of Appeal and successfully resisted the appeal which the Appellant brought in respect of the trial judge’s rulings on the admissibility of ‘bad character’ evidence in his trial for sexual assault by penetration of a child under 13 years. Thereafter, appeared at trial to prosecute the defendant in respect of separate allegation of rape, to which he ultimately pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a total of 16 ½ years’ imprisonment with a 1 year extended sentence under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

    R v W (2017) – Represented the defendant who had a long-standing history of mental health issues and engaged in erratic behaviour which culminated in him being detained at Darlington police station where he seriously assaulted a police officer. His car was subsequently searched and an axe and knuckledusters recovered. The defendant was charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent to the police officer and affray and possession of offensive weapons, however, after the defence obtained psychiatric evidence which confirmed that, due to his mental state, the defendant would likely have been incapable of forming the necessary specific intent at the material time, the prosecution accepted guilty pleas to causing grievous bodily harm and the other matters. The defendant was sentenced to a Suspended Sentence Order with a requirement that he complete a rehabilitation programme.

    R v Husman & Others (2017) – prosecution junior (led by Nicholas Campbell Q.C.), instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division – prosecuted two serving police officers – Wahid Husman and Tahsib Majid – who planned to carry out unlawful ‘sting’ operation, steal the drugs which they seized and then supply them on via their criminal associates, for their own profit. In addition, both officers had, separately, obtained and disclosed personal and sensitive data from police systems for their own, unlawful, purposes.  In Mr. Husman’s case that included passing the information to his criminal associates. On 7th August 2017, Wahid Husman and the officer’s criminal associates pleaded guilty in respect of their involvement in the plot and the disclosure of personal data, and on 22nd August 2017, after a trial which had lasted ten days, Tahsib Majid, was unanimously convicted of all counts. In October 2017, the two police officers were sentenced to a total of 31 years’ imprisonment, and their criminal associates a total of 28 years’ imprisonment for their involvement in the offences. The case involved careful analysis of cell site and ANPR evidence, covert recordings and piecing together a complex circumstantial case.

    R v Cahill and Harper (2017) – prosecution junior (led by Andrew Robertson Q.C.) – prosecuted two defendants for the murder of Owen Kerry, in Cramlington Working Men’s Club on Christmas Eve 2016. Brian Cahill accepted being the person who inflicted the fatal stab wound, but he denied that he did so deliberately. His partner, Lyndsey Harper, who was with him in the Club that night, admitted causing trouble in the Club but denied any knowledge of or participation in the fatal attack. Despite there being no evidence that Lyndsey Harper was aware that Brian Cahill had a knife with him, on 27th June 2017, after a 12 day trial, both defendants were unanimously convicted of murder. On 28th June 2017 Brian Cahill was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 26 years and Lyndsey Harper was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years. The case involved careful analysis of joint enterprise post-Jogee and the taking of evidence via Skype from a witness whilst she was on holiday overseas.

    R v Amir (2017) – prosecuted the defendant for two offences of male rape, after he targeted men leaving bars in Newcastle city centre late at night. After a four day trial the defendant was unanimously convicted on all counts and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment.

    R v Catchpole (2017) – prosecuted the defendant for operating a substantial security business without the requisite license from the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and associated money laundering offences, having advised that the proceeds of the defendant’s business activities could properly be categorised as the proceeds of crime. The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to all matters and was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a Serious Crime Prevention Order in light of his persistent, extensive and serious offending, which netted him over £1.1m in turnover. At the subsequent Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) proceedings, the defendant’s criminal benefit was found to be £1.1m and he was found to have assets of £50,000, which he was Ordered to pay over.

    R v Bashir & Others (2017) – defence junior (led by Adrian Waterman Q.C.) in a 12 week trial before Males J at the Crown Court at Sheffield representing a young defendant charged along with 2 adults and two youths with murder of Craig Preston. The two adult defendants, Shiraz Bashir and Leonie Mason, were found guilty of murder and the three 15 year old defendants were found guilty of manslaughter. The case involved consideration of vast quantities of unused material, analysis of cell site evidence and complex issues of causation (as the deceased, having initially been assaulted in a layby outside Rotherham, was driven by the two adult defendants to a ravine on the Woodhead Pass where his body was thrown to into a river below), and associated issue of neuropathology. Appeared alone at the sentencing hearing and the defendant received a sentence of 3 years’ detention, the lowest of the sentences imposed, an application by the media to lift reporting restrictions in respect of the young defendants was successfully resisted.

    R v Y (2017) – represented the defendant, who faced 8 counts of rape, a count of sexual assault, two counts of affray and a count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, after his former partner accused him of a conducting a campaign of rape and violence against her adopting a persona to do so. The defendant said in interview that he had such a persona, and that the persona encouraged him to rape the complainant and he suffered blackouts during which he may have committed the alleged offences. At trial the defendant admitted having put the complainant in fear and having assaulted the complainant, including causing her petechial haemorrhage which required hospital treatment, but asserted that he did so as part of consensual sexual activity. After a five day trial, the defendant was acquitted of all of the sexual offences and received a non-custodial sentence in respect of the admitted non-sexual offences.

    R v Thaxter (2016) – prosecution junior – following a five week trial before Globe J, Jason Thaxter was unanimously convicted of the murder of Thomas Groome, his mother’s long-term partner, and conspiring with his mother to prevent the lawful burial of Thomas Groome’s body. On 19th December 2016 Jason Thaxter was sentenced to life imprisonment and must serve a minimum of 30 years before he may apply for release on life license.

    In March 2015 Jason Thaxter’s mother, June Buttle, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in respect of her involvement in the killing of Thomas Groome, preventing the lawful burial of a corpse and fraud, and is currently serving a 16 year prison sentence.

    The prosecution of Jason Thaxter was a formidable challenge, given that the deceased’s body has never been found and there was no forensic or eye witness evidence against the defendant. Instead it was necessary to rely extensively on hearsay evidence; from the defendant’s ex-partner, to whom the defendant confessed in the hours after the murder, but was medically unfit to attend the trial, and from two Irish nationals to whom the defendant’s mother confessed both her own and the defendant’s involvement in Thomas Groome’s killing several years after the event, despite the defendant’s mother (who was also called to give evidence) denying having made the confessions. The case also involved liaison with police forces in Portugal (where the deceased had moved shortly before his death) and Ireland, and the Crown Prosecution Service worked closely with the Irish authorities under the mutual assistance regime to ensure, inter alia, that five witnesses resident in Ireland could give evidence using a live video-link from a courtroom in Dublin rather than travel to the UK. Stephen Littlewood of KBW Chambers acted as disclosure junior.

    R v Ryal (2016) – Prosecuted the defendant for multiple sexual assaults committed against three young women in similar circumstances. On one occasion the defendant filmed a sexual assault on one of the complainant and, when the footage (which did not show the victim’s face) was recovered by the police, claimed the video featured his wife and so a forensic anthropologist was instructed to comment on the similarities of the complainant’s bodily features with those of the woman shown in the footage. There were also complex legal arguments regarding the cross-admissibility of the complainant’s evidence. The defendant was convicted of all counts after a 6 day trial and imprisoned. Subsequently successfully resisted the Appellant’s appeal, brought on the basis that the Judge’s directions on cross-admissibility were flawed.

    R v Madoyan and Gailius (2016) – Following a four week trial, Haik Madoyan, who was extradited from Switzerland to face trial, was unanimously convicted of 5 robberies and 3 attempted robberies and 8 associated offences of possession of an imitation firearm. The offences were committed across the country, against bureau de change kiosks located inside high street travel agencies and netted the defendant over £80,000, some of which Haik Madoyan sent to his relatives overseas using the identity his associate, Victor Gailius, who was, for his part, convicted of converting criminal property. Haik Madoyan was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment and Victor Gailius to 9 months imprisonment.

    In order to secure convictions on all counts, it was necessary to call witnesses from across the country, with 10 witnesses giving evidence via video links from the Crown Court at Winchester, Newport and Cardiff, call contested facial mapping evidence, present complex of banking and Western Union transfer evidence and succeed in legal arguments relating to the admissibility of evidence which required, inter alia, consideration of the provision of the Extradition Act 2003 and liaison with the Swiss authorities.

    R v G (2016) – represented defendant charged with three counts of rape and three further counts of sexual assault and breaching the sex offender’s notification regime after an allegation was made by a female he met on the ‘plenty of fish’ dating website. Following a week-long trial the defendant was unanimously acquitted of all counts.

    R v R (2016) – (instructed by Neil Bennett of DMA Law) acted on behalf of the defendant in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where the prosecution originally contended that the defendant’s benefit from his criminal conduct was £5.78 million. Following written legal submissions and a hearing before the sentencing Judge, the prosecution accepted that the defendant’s benefit was that which the defence had contended throughout, namely £1,500 (or some 0.02% of the prosecution’s original application.)

    R v Dobson (2015) successfully prosecuted the defendant for committing serious sexual offences against two complainants, one of whom was 15 years old and gave evidence using the pre-recorded cross-examination provisions under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

    R v Wild & Others (2015) – successfully prosecuted five members of an extended family for conspiring to fraudulently evade duty on imported cigarettes. The ringleaders were proved to have generated £50,000 in profit and a confiscation order was made in that sum.

    R v E (2015) – representing defendant charged with historic sexual offences against a child. The defendant was unanimously acquitted of all charges following a week-long trial.

    R v F (2014) – successfully prosecuted the defendant for child cruelty against his six year old daughter after he assaulted her causing extensive bruising. The complainant gave evidence with the assistance of an intermediary.

    R v H (2014) – defended in a case where the defendant and his co-accused were charged with the historic rape of a male. Despite the defendant admitting sexual activity in interview and maintaining that there was no such activity at trial, the defendant was acquitted of all charges.

    R v Denham & Others, R v Newton & Others (2014) – successfully prosecuted two cases involving undercover operations at scrap metal dealerships in the North East of England where officers attempted to sell ‘stolen’ cable to scrap dealers. The cases involved detailed consideration of undercover surveillance material, the proper authorisation of undercover operations in accordance with RIPA and the law relating to conspiracy to handle stolen goods, conspiracy to convert criminal property and offences of assisting or encouraging an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

    In R v Denham & Others, advice was given at an early stage in relation to the appropriate charges and all of the defendants pleaded guilty. Subsequent Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation proceedings resulted in the yard owner paying £100,000 and £20,000 in prosecution costs. Similarly, in R v Newton & Others, early advice led to acceptable pleas from the defendants and subsequent Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation proceedings resulted in the yard owner paying £50,000 and £10,000 in prosecution costs.

    R v Gibson and Others (2014) – successfully prosecuted the defendant and his associates after the defendant entered the property of his ex-partner and confronted and stabbed his ex-partner’s new partner. The complainant and the defendant’s ex-partner were unwilling to give evidence and so were arrested and brought to court. At the close of the prosecution case the defendant was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to wounding with intent and received an extended sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, which was subsequently upheld on appeal.

    R v M (2013) – represented the defendant, who was alleged to have been involved in a gang grooming young girls. The defendant, who was second on the indictment, was unanimously acquitted of all charges following a trial which lasted almost 7 weeks.

    Appellate work

    Appeared before the Court of Appeal Criminal Division alone in the cases of R v Tyers [2012] EWCA Crim 581 (a successful appeal against sentence in relation to a night time dwelling burglary which involved a confrontation with the householder), R v Dunkova[2011] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 40 (a successful appeal against sentence in a human trafficking case where leave to appeal was refused by the single judge), R v Walker [2009] EWCA Crim 2188 (a successful appeal against sentence in a substantial drugs supply case) R v Richardson [2008] EWCA Crim 1995 (a successful appeal against sentence in a cannabis cultivation case) and R v Jones [2007] EWCA Crim 2545 (a successful appeal against sentence in a robbery case).

    Also Appeared before the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, led by Andrew Robertson Q.C., in R v F [2007] EWCA Crim 2787, responding to an appeal against conviction in a historic sex abuse case involving the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and in R v Cahill and Harper [2019] EWCA Crim 343, led by Adrian Waterman Q.C., responding to the appeal against conviction and sentence where the Appellant contended, principally, that an admission she had made to a prison officer ought not to have been admitted in evidence and that the directions of law in relation to joint enterprise were defective. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds and upheld the conviction and sentence.

    Also regularly instructed as independent counsel in relation to issues of legal professional privilege in relation to on-going, sensitive, investigations.

    Publications

    Practical problems with suspended sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 [Criminal Bar Quarterly Issue 4, October 2008, page 6]

    Putting it to them: Adducing Evidence of Non-defendant’s bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 [Justice of the Peace Journal Vol 170, Number 38, page 729]

    Professional Memberships

    North Eastern Circuit (Circuit Secretary November 2011 – present)

    Criminal Bar Association

    Proceeds of Crime Lawyers’ Association

    Human Rights Lawyers’ Association

    Inner Temple Mentoring Scheme

  • Practice Summary

    Recorder of the Crown Court

    Assistant Coroner for South Yorkshire Eastern District

    Head of Inquests and Public Inquiries Team at KBW Chambers

    Recommended as a Leading Junior in Inquests and Inquiries [Legal 500:2017]

    Inquests

    Has appeared at a substantial number of Article 2 and non-Article 2 coroners’ inquests, conducted both with and without a jury, including inquests relating to deaths in police and prison custody, on behalf of a number of police forces, healthcare providers and others.

    Recent inquests include:

    Inquest touching on the death of ST, Wakefield Coroner’s Court

    Appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police at the inquest of ST, who died who was found hanged after being he was reported missing to the police shortly after his release from police custody whilst still under investigation. The inquest, which lasted four days, returned a short form conclusion of suicide and concluded that the police’s conduct was entirely appropriate.

    Inquest touching on the death of SC, Wakefield Coroner’s Court

    Appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police at the inquest of SC, who died as a result of drug toxicity soon after contact with the police. The jury inquest, which lasted four days, concluded that the police’s conduct was entirely appropriate.

    Inquest touching on the death of TC, Wakefield Coroner’s Court

    Appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police at the inquest of TC, who committed suicide after being reported missing. The inquest, which lasted five days, focused on the police response to the missing person report and concluded that the police’s conduct was entirely appropriate.

    Inquest touching on the death of CH, Bradford Coroner’s Court

    Appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police at the inquest of CH, who died after being reported missing. The jury inquest, which lasted 8 days and focused on the police’s response to the missing person report, including the appropriateness of the grading of the report, concluded that none of the police’s conduct could be said to have caused or contributed to CH’s death.

    Inquest touching the death of BL, Wakefield Coroner’s Court

    Appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police at the inquest of BL, who died after being struck by a car on the M62 late at night. At the conclusion of the inquest the jury found, in a narrative verdict, that whilst the police (rather than the Highways Agency) ought to have responded to the ‘999’ calls which they received regarding BL’s presence on the motorway, their actions could not be said to have caused or contributed to his death.

    Inquest touching the death of TS, York Coroner’s Court

    Appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police at the inquest of TS, who died whilst in police custody in June 2011. At the conclusion of the three week inquest, which heard from a range of witnesses including medical experts, which was conducted as an Article 2 inquiry, the jury found, in a narrative verdict, that neither the detaining officers nor the custody officer should have recognised that TS needed to be taken to Accident & Emergency for emergency medical treatment.

    Inquest touching the death of DB, Wakefield Coroner’s Court

    Appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police during the inquest DB, who died after an unattended police vehicle struck him in Pudsey Park, Leeds. At the close of the evidence, which included expert automotive engineering evidence, there were extensive legal submissions regarding whether the inquest was properly an Article 2 inquiry and the Coroner agreed with the Chief Constable’s submissions that Article 2 was not engaged. After a four day hearing the jury recorded a verdict of ‘accident.’

    Inquest touching the death of HM, Bradford Coroner’s Court

    Appeared for the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police in the inquest of HM. The coroner returned a narrative verdict which made no criticism of the police’s conduct.

    Inquest touching the death of PW, Teesside Coroner’s Court

    Appeared for West Yorkshire Police in the inquest of PW where the deceased died at HMP Holme House after being transferred from the custody of West Yorkshire Police. The jury made no criticism of the police.

    Inquest touching the death of BS, Leeds Coroner’s Court

    Appeared for a healthcare provider in the inquest of BS where the deceased died at HMP Leeds after being transferred from the custody of West Yorkshire Police. The jury made no criticism of the healthcare staff or healthcare provider.

    Inquest touching the death of CJ and Others Bradford Coroner’s Court

    Appeared for West Yorkshire Police at the inquests CJ and Others where the deceased were in a vehicle being followed by a police vehicle when the driver of their vehicle crashed and the four occupants died. The coroner made no criticisms of the police’s conduct.

    Inquests into the London Bombings of 7th July 2005

    Throughout 2010 and 2011 was instructed as second junior counsel for West Yorkshire Police at the Coroner’s Inquests into the London Bombings of 7th July 2005 (in respect of which he was cited in Legal 500.)

    Has Developed Vetting (DV) security clearance which permits consideration of sensitive material, whether in the context of inquests or other instructions (see below.)

    Disciplinary

    Has acted as the legal advisor to police misconduct panels and on behalf of police officers appearing before such panels across a number of force areas.

    Judicial Review

    Appeared before the Administrative Court on behalf of the CPS and successfully resisted an application by one of the defendants in the high profile (but wrongly described) ‘Edlington boys’ case for judicial review of the decision of the Doncaster Youth Court to commit him for trial (R (on the application of JC and BC) v Doncaster Youth Court and The Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 2180 (Admin)).

    Has recently advised a police force in connection with a complex judicial review claim relating to police powers of arrest and, separately, in relation to the disclosure of criminal convictions.

    Appeared in the Administrative Court on behalf of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police in T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2012] All ER (D) 154; [2012] EWHC 147 (Admin), successfully defending a substantive judicial review relating to the lawfulness of the current enhanced criminal records disclosure regime.

    Miscellaneous advice

    Acted as independent counsel throughout 2011 and 2012 in relation to issues of legal professional privilege in a prosecution being conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (R v L).

    Has provided operational advice to a number of police forces in respect of on-going sensitive investigations, particularly those connected to serious organised crime and terrorism, since 2012.

    Other Applications

    Extensive experience appearing on behalf of the police in disclosure (‘C2’) applications in relation to family proceedings and appeared for the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police in Re B (A Child: Disclosure of Evidence in Care Proceedings [2012] 1 F.L.R. 142; [2011] Fam. Law 1200 and applications related to restraint proceedings and cash forfeiture (both at first instance and on appeal) and advises private clients and a number of police forces on such applications.

    Also has extensive experience appearing in connection with claims under the Police Property Act and at licensing hearings, firearms appeals and in relation to gang related violence injunctions.

    Professional Memberships

    North Eastern Circuit (Circuit Secretary November 2011 – present)

    Administrative Law Bar Association

    Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers

    Human Rights Lawyers’ Association

    Inner Temple Mentoring Scheme

  • Practice Summary

    Recorder of the Crown Court

    Assistant Coroner for South Yorkshire (Eastern District)

    Recommended as a Leading Junior in Inquests and Inquiries [Legal 500: 2017, 2018]

    Has acted for and advised a large number of police forces in relation to misfeasance actions (including claims for assault and false imprisonment), employer liability claims, applications under the Police Property Act and at licensing hearings.

    Has appeared at a substantial number of Article 2 and non-Article 2 coroners’ inquests, conducted both with and without a jury, including inquests relating to deaths in police and prison custody, on behalf of a number of police forces, healthcare providers and others.

    Was instructed as second junior counsel for West Yorkshire Police at the Coroner’s Inquests into the London Bombings of 7th July 2005 (in respect of which he was cited in Legal 500).

    Has Developed Vetting (DV) security clearance.

    Recent cases include:

    J v A Chief Constable (2019 – ongoing) – Representing the defendant in a claim for trespass to person and false imprisonment following a police investigation into the conduct of a police officer.

    R v A Chief Constable (2018 – ongoing) – Representing the defendant in a prospective claim alleging misconduct in a public office and malicious prosecution against a number of police officers.

    K v A Chief Constable (2018 – ongoing) – Representing the defendant in a claim alleging breach of confidence, interference with goods, trespass to goods and property and claims under the Human Rights Act.

    In the matter of a private prosecution of three police officers (2018) – Instructed by the Chief Constable to represent three police officers resisting applications for summons to be issued against them alleging that they had committed offences of fraud by failing to disclose relevant material in a criminal investigation. The application was successfully resisted and the District Judge refused to issue the summonses.

    G v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (2017) – Represented the defendant in a claim brought for breach of confidence and breach of privacy and successfully applied to strike out the claim, with the Claimant Ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs.

    Dear v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2017) – Instructed to resist the appeal brought following the making of a cash forfeiture order in the sum of £131,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Appellant argued that the application contravened the Appellant’s rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (she having been acquitted of concealing and possessing criminal property in criminal proceedings in respect of the same cash) and that the statutory test was not, in any event, satisfied. Following significant legal argument, the appeal was dismissed and the Appellant Ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs.

    S v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2016) – Instructed on behalf of the Defendant in relation to a claim arising from an incident where the Claimant was bitten by a police dog. The Claimant ultimately discontinued the claim having failed in a number of interlocutory applications.

    Howe v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2015) – successfully represented the Defendant in a claim alleging unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and trespass to property. All of the Claimant’s numerous interlocutory applications were dismissed and the Claimant ultimately discontinued his claim.

    Dahou v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (Jan 2015) – successfully applied to have the Claimant’s claim (which alleged misfeasance, unlawful arrest and false imprisonment) struck out. The Claimant was also ordered to pay a substantial sum towards the Defendant’s costs.

    Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Shahsavar (May 2014) – appeared for the Chief Constable in a cash forfeiture application. The application was wholly successful and a forfeiture order was made in the sum of £117,287.05 following a two day abuse of process hearing followed by three day contested forfeiture hearing before the Wakefield Magistrates’ Court. The Court also ordered the Respondent to pay West Yorkshire Police’s costs.

    Ball v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (June 2013) appeared for the Chief Constable defending an action for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and conversion of property. Following a two day trial, which involved issues of PII and intelligence material, the claim was dismissed in its entirety and the Claimant ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs.

    Widdowson v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police (May 2013) appeared on behalf of the defendant defending a claim arising from the allegedly negligent driving of a police officer responding to a emergency ‘999’ call. The Claimant also contended that the categorisation of the call as an emergency was itself negligent. The claim failed on both grounds and a costs order was made against the Claimant.

    Has considerable experience advising on and appearing on behalf of police forces in respect of firearms and shotgun certificate appeals in the Crown Court.

    Also has very extensive experience of acting on behalf of a number of police forces (including advising on the making of applications) in respect of applications for Football Banning Orders, Closure Orders, Gang-Related Violence Injunctions, Violent Offender Orders, Domestic Violence Protection Orders, Sexual Offences Prevention Orders and Foreign Travel Orders including obtaining (in February 2012) one of fewer than five worldwide travel restrictions currently in force nationwide and (in July 2012) successfully resisting an appeal against the making of the Order.

    Has extensive experience of making cash forfeiture applications under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, both at first instance and on appeal and acted, in June 2011, for West Yorkshire Police in respect of the Force’s biggest ever cash forfeiture application, relating to £1.1 million. Has also successfully resisted abuse of process arguments based on, inter alia, delay and contravention of the presumption of innocence, in the course of such proceedings.

    Extensive experience appearing on behalf of the police in disclosure (‘C2’) applications in relation to family proceedings and appeared for the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police in Re B (A Child: Disclosure of Evidence in Care Proceedings [2012] 1 F.L.R. 142; [2011] Fam. Law 1200.

    Appeared before the Administrative Court on behalf of the CPS and successfully resisted an application by one of the defendants in the high profile (but wrongly described) ‘Edlington boys’ case for judicial review of the decision of the Doncaster Youth Court to commit him for trial (R (on the application of JC and BC) v Doncaster Youth Court and The Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 2180 (Admin)).

    Has recently advised a police force in connection with a complex judicial review claim relating to police powers of arrest and appeared in the Administrative Court on behalf of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police in T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2012] All ER (D) 154; [2012] EWHC 147 (Admin), successfully defending a substantive judicial review relating to the lawfulness of the current enhanced criminal records regime.

    Professional Memberships

    North Eastern Circuit (Circuit Secretary November 2011 – present)

    Criminal Bar Association

    Proceeds of Crime Lawyers’ Association

    Human Rights Lawyers’ Association

    Inner Temple Mentoring Scheme

  • Called to the Bar 2003/Inner Temple

    Inner Temple Exhibitioner

    Recipient of the Paul Methven Scholarship Benefactors Award

    Accredited Inner Temple Advocacy Trainer

    Accredited Pupil Supervisor

    Recorder of the Crown Court

    Education

    King’s College, London, LLB (Hons), 2000

    BPP Law School, London, Bar Vocational Course, 2003

    Professional Memberships

    North Eastern Circuit (Circuit Secretary November 2011 – present)

    Criminal Bar Association

    Proceeds of Crime Lawyers’ Association

    Human Rights Lawyers’ Association

    Administrative Law Bar Association

    Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers

    Inner Temple Mentoring Scheme