R v Correia and Others
Instructed to defend one of 13 young men alleged to have murdered a 16-year old boy arising from an alleged gang feud. To be tried.
R v O’Brien & Others
Instructed to prosecute 3 defendants alleged to have stabbed the deceased repeatedly before leaving the body in a canal. To be tried.
R v Heni
Instructed by the Crown to prosecute the defendant alleged to have struck the deceased leaving him incapacitated in the road who was then killed when subsequently run over by a taxi. To be tried.
R v Peake and Others
Instructed to defend one of 5 defendants alleged to have murdered the victim of a robbery. On going.
R v Brown & O’Casey
Instructed to prosecute this case in which 2 drug dealers caused the deceased’s death while engaged in a confrontation in the deceased’s home. Ongoing.
R v Rowen
Instructed to defend a seriously mentally ill young man who decapitated his cousin.
R v Skana
Instructed to prosecute this tragic and high-profile case that involved the defendant cutting the throat of a 7-year old child in the presence of her mother and father. The trial revolved around issues of the defendant’s mental illness.
R v Holden
Instructed by the Crown at short notice to prosecute in a case that arose from long-standing animosity between defendant and deceased. Another example of the defendant’s mental illnesses and personality disorders played a significant role.
R v Bitton & Dixon
Instructed by the Crown to prosecute in a neighbour dispute that arose during the Covid 19 “lockdown.”
R v Ward & Smith
Instructed as leading junior for the Crown in a case made difficult by the absence of witnesses and the vulnerability of the defendant Ward who suffered from a range of mental health and learning difficulties. Murder conviction secured.
It was during this case that that Michael took Silk.
R v O’Donnell
Conspiracy to Murder
Instructed to prosecute as leading junior. All 6 defendants were represented by QC and junior. A very significant undertaking that involved appearing at the CACD during the trial to appeal a terminating ruling. The CA described Michael’s performance as “powerful”. Positive comment was also made about Michael’s written submissions which “eased the path of the court.”