R v T  Sexual abuse alleged to have taken place thirty years ago (rapes, buggery and indecent assaults) when the complainant was between 3 and 8 years old and the defendant was himself a child, now a father in his forties and of good character. Defence trial counsel.
R v S  Serious child abuse, child aged 7: section 18, causing grievous bodily harm with intent (fractured femur), child cruelty over a six-month period, including excrement smearing. Defence trial counsel for victim’s mother’s boyfriend. Both defendants had very limited English; trial preparation included translation of voluminous material and the trial was conducted with translators. First on the indictment, therefore leading cross-examination and legal arguments. Expert evidence from and cross-examination of a Home Office Pathologist, the Director of Manchester Sexual Assault Referral Clinic and a Consultant Paediatrician.
R v B  Penetrative sexual assault on a fourteen-year-old girl by her step-father; defence trial counsel. Detailed cross-examination of a forensic scientist regarding mixed profile DNA on underwear.
R v O  Sexual assault allegation upon teenager with learning difficulties by her mother’s boyfriend. From unused medical records Rachel identified the need for an intermediary, who assisted the complainant at trial. Prosecution trial counsel.
R v J  False imprisonment during the course of a domestic dispute; trial of issue defending a young adult with Asperger’s Syndrome. Sensitive preparation to assist the defendant in fully understanding the applicable law and the need to focus upon the relevant issues when considering the evidence objectively.
R v O & others  Led by Mike Brady QC prosecuting a conspiracy to murder (a sawn-off shotgun discharged at point blank range from which the complainant survived). Appeal against a terminating ruling, when the case against one of the four defendants was withdrawn from the jury at the close of the prosecution case.
R v D  Defending a young adult with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Working together with her instructing solicitor from an early stage, to support the defendant in understanding the complexities of the law in this area so that he could reach an informed decision as to plea and fully understand the likely consequences. Having pleaded guilty to sexual offences upon a relative (including three counts of oral rape when the victim was between 8 and 10 years old and he from aged 16 until just after he turned 18) mitigation required particularly delicate submissions. He was sentenced to 5 years’ detention.
R v W  Defending a man diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome; working together with her instructing solicitor from an early stage, advising upon the instruction of expert medical reports and assisting the defendant to understand the legal complexities of the allegations, allowing an informed decision regarding the consequences of pleading guilty to the sexual assault of a 7-year-old family friend. An early plea and considerable mitigation gave rise to a suspended sentence.
R V BG (2017) Conspiracy to supply Class A – defending a man of good character. Legal argument regarding the admissibility of psychological evidence relevant to features of his assessed low intelligence (including features of verbal masking and a low threshold for cognitive disintegration).
R v I  Successfully appealed a terminating ruling, where an abuse of process argument in a non-recent sexual abuse case had wrongly led the Crown Court Judge to stay the indictment.
R v IM (2016) S18 – Defending a woman of good character who stabbed her neighbour to the eye thereby blinding him. The Defendant had no recollection of the assault. The factually complex background gave rise to consideration of psychiatric evidence, psychological evidence regarding altered states of consciousness during the practice of Shamanism and pharmacological evidence regarding the effect on prescribed medication of a juice diet combined with sudden nicotine withdrawal. The case concluded by the jury’s verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
R v W (2015): Allegations of historic penetrative sexual assault of his step-daughter and her mother. The defendant had learning difficulties and the trial was conducted with an intermediary.
R v A (2015): Defending an allegation of rape: the schizophrenic complainant was cross-examined via an interpreter, under the supervision of an intermediary whilst observed by a psychiatrist (who gave evidence, inter alia, about the complainant’s psychiatric history of hallucinations).
R v CJ (2015): Defending an allegation of rape: defence reliant in part on the schizophrenic complainant’s psychiatric history of hallucinations; defendant acquitted after trial.
R v MC & others (2014-2015): Led by Raymond Wigglesworth QC, prosecuting an alleged conspiracy to defraud the Traffic Commissioner of Great Britain. A four month trial pursuant to a VOSA (now DVSA) investigation of a company’s approach to obtaining multiple Operator Licences in conjunction with other haulage businesses.
R v M (2013): Defending a young man with known learning disabilities on what were originally rape allegations of a 13-year-old girl (reduced to penetrative sexual assault when the complainant was not relied upon by the Crown). Defence psychiatric expert evidence confirmed post-interview diagnosis of ADHD, the combination of which rendered ‘admissions’ regarding his knowledge of her age as equivocal and unreliable. Acquitted following a ruling that the interview was inadmissible.
R v C (2012): Defending multiple allegations of rape and sexual assault of 6-year-old granddaughter. Sensitive cross-examination of the complainant gave rise to a successful submission of no case to answer at the conclusion of the prosecution case.
R v W (2012): Defending; a stabbing to the complainant’s neck indicted as section 18 (wounding with intent) was reduced to section 20 (unlawful wounding) following evidence of a toxicologist corroborating lack of specific intent on account of voluntary intoxication. Legal argument separated the trial of a second man who had, in turn, stabbed the defendant to the chest.
R v D (2012): Defending a father accused of twice deliberately burning his son. A bad character application against the complainant incorporated argument regarding psychological expertise against a history including fire-setting, animal cruelty and sexual misbehaviour. Defendant acquitted after trial.
R v MD & 12 others (2010): Led by Raymond Wigglesworth QC defending a man of good character, acquitted of conspiring to defraud Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The value of this red diesel fraud exceeded £10m.
R v K (2009): Defending a non-English speaking man on an allegation initially of rape, reduced to sexual assault on account of the evidence limited exclusively to the defendant’s semen present on the complainant’s clothing. The case was dismissed before trial following successful legal argument that (i) ejaculation causing semen to contact clothing was not of itself a ‘sexual touching’ and (ii) the Crown’s forensic expert conceding in cross-examination that she was unable to exclude an indirect transfer of semen to the clothing.
R V IJ (2008): Junior to a leader defending in a HMRC multi-million pound cigarette duty evasion prosecution.
R v S (2008): Junior to a leader defending in a multi-handed cut-throat long firm fraud of in excess of £1m.
Re: Mr Harry Boodhoo Solicitor (2007) EWCA Crim 14: The Court of Appeal (the Bar Council and the Law Society having been asked to intervene) examined and reviewed my professional conduct favourably on the question of the absence of a defendant at trial.
R v H (2003): Defending indictment of theft from employer stayed as abuse of process consequent to forensic accounting evidence.
R v B (2003): Defending a man of good character acquitted of historical indecent assaults on his deaf mute granddaughter.
R v L (2002/2003): Junior to a leader in a multi-handed drugs conspiracy trial lasting 6 months.