Private Law
Edward regularly represents parents and grandparents in private law proceedings.
He has significant experience conducting complex fact-finding hearings, such as those where allegations of rape and sexual abuse have been made, as well assertions of controlling and coercive behaviour.
Edward strives to identify the key issues early in the proceedings, so the client can be provided with clear advice and a targeted roadmap of the most effective way forward.
Public Law
Edward is experienced in cases involving non-accidental injury and severe domestic abuse, as well proceedings that centre on entrenched substance misuse and neglect.
Known for his pragmatic approach, Edward identifies the core issues quickly and provides advice to clients in straightforward terms.
Edward has completed the FLBA Vulnerable Witness Advocacy Training and has successfully conducted cases involving parties with learning disabilities and cognitive issues, intermediaries and child witnesses.
Public Law Children - Notable cases
Re L [2024] represented a parent facing allegations of causing serious injuries to their child, including a skull fracture. The matter involved cross-examination of multiple medical experts with regard to causation, mechanism, and timing of injury.
Re A [2023] led by June Venters KC, acted on behalf of a local authority in proceedings involving life-threatening injuries to a baby.
Re C [2024] represented a mother in a fact-finding hearing that centred on allegations rape and financial control.
Re A [2024] represented a father in a fact-finding hearing, who faced allegations of sexual abuse, rape, sustained controlling behaviour over a number of years, and physical abuse of their children.
Re H (2020) acted for a mother accused of FII. The case concluded with the local authority withdrawing proceedings.
Re S (2020) represented Stockton on Tees in care proceedings where the parents had long-term drug misuse issues. Care and adoption orders made.
Re G (2019) acted for a father who suffered from long-term drug addiction. The local authority’s application to remove the child was successfully opposed after a 2 day contested hearing.