PracticeDavid has practised exclusively as a criminal defence barrister for the 14 years since he was called to the Bar. BackgroundDavid studied law at Bristol Polytechnic before going to the University of Cambridge where he studied for his Masters in Criminology. While at University, David worked part-time in a mental health resource centre where he organised activities for those users living in the community. Having always been fascinated with all matters related to the criminal justice system, particularly the impact it has on the individuals who come into contact with it, David gained experience with a number of agencies as a volunteer before studying for the Bar. He worked for JUSTICE as a case worker examining possible miscarriage of justice cases before the CCRC had been set up. David worked for the Knightsbridge Crown Court Witness Service advising and supporting witnesses in Crown Court trials and he is still involved in helping to train new volunteers. He also worked in the Visitors' Centre at Feltham Young Offenders Institute with inmates and their families. TrialsDavid has recently defended in a number of serious and complex cases including five murders in the last 18 months (led), attempted murder (leading), large scale-cannabis cultivation conspiracy (alone), conspiracy to facilitate illegal entry (led), money-laundering (currency exchange) (led), one of the biggest harassment cases ever investigated (led) and a conspiracy to defraud (passports) (led). So far this year David has appeared in the high-profile multi-handed murder case at the Central Criminal Court involving the murder of the manager at the Matalan Department Store in Hackney and successfully defended in a large-scale conspiracy to supply heroin case which involved complex evidential issues involving bad character (very old convictions and previous acquittals) and cell-site analysis. David is currently leading junior in a three-handed attempted murder at the Central Criminal Court. Upcoming work in 2010 includes a multi-handed murder trial in Birmingham and a murder trial at the Central Criminal Court. In 2009 David was led in three murders at the Central Criminal Court as well in a multi-million pound "boiler-room fraud" at Southwark CC. The trial lasted for eight weeks and concerned an allegation that investors were dishonestly induced into investing in worthless shares. The case was highly complex and involved the instruction of a forensic accountant. In 2008 David was leading junior in a massive conspiracy to supply class A drugs which pleaded on the first day of trial, and was led in two high-profile shooting cases, an Operation Trident murder at the Central Criminal Court, and a conspiracy to murder at Reading. Both cases relied heavily on mobile phone cell-site evidence, and in the murder trial, David cross-examined the Crown's expert. In 2006, David acted as junior for the second defendant in a nine-handed conspiracy to murder trial in Bristol which lasted five months. The case, which involved two high-profile shootings, was the largest investigation undertaken by Avon and Somerset police and centred to a large degree on cell-site evidence. David's client was acquitted of all counts. Proceeds of CrimeIn 2008 David was instructed in forfeiture proceedings to represent an individual who had had £12,000 in cash seized from his house. The case involved extensive cross-examination of the police's financial investigator and resulted in all the cash being returned to David's client. David recently led in a post-conviction confiscation drugs case where the prosecution asserted a benefit under the Proceeds of Crime Act of £5m, and where it was being argued that the value of the matrimonial home should form part of the confiscation order. After lengthy submissions on behalf of his client the court finally made an order where it was held that the benefit amounted to no more than £4,000. CCRC and AppealsDavid regularly advises convicted prisoners on the merits of making out of time applications for leave to appeal or applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. This mainly involves convictions but recently David has been advising a number of prisoners in relation to sentences of imprisonment for public protection. He currently has two murder cases and one attempted murder case where he has advised that grounds exist to appeal the convictions. In these three cases, decisions from the Court of Appeal (in two cases) and the CCRC (in one case) are pending. He has also recently drafted grounds of appeal against sentence in an IPP case where the sentence was imposed three years ago. This work entails a thorough review of the papers in their cases and can lead to the discovery of apparent irregularities in the trial process in cases where the individual has previously been advised no grounds to appeal existed. In January 2010, the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction for murder that David was led on and in which he had given positive advice on appeal on the basis of fresh evidence and non-disclosure. David is instructed in the retrial which will take place later in the year. In 2008, as a result of his reviews of two separate cases, one where the defendant was serving seven years for rape and the other where the defendant was serving three years for historic sex offences, David obtained extensions of time to appeal against the convictions. Both appeals were based on misdirections by the trial judges which were apparent from the transcripts of each summing up. In both cases trial counsel had advised that there were no arguable grounds of appeal. In both cases David successfully argued that the convictions were unsafe and no retrial should be ordered. Both appellants were released immediately. In October 2007, David successfully appealed the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection in relation to a defendant who had pleaded guilty to grooming on the internet and sexual activity with a child. The Court of Appeal agreeing that the criteria for an IPP had not been met. In 2007 David advised that grounds to appeal existed in relation to a murder conviction and as a direct result of the application to the CCRC drafted by him, the case was referred to the Court of Appeal. The full appeal was heard earlier this year. In 2006 David's research led to two appeals against conviction in conspiracy to rob and murder cases. The basis of both CCRC referrals and subsequent appeals being the trial judges' misdirection to the jury on adverse inferences from silence. David has been instructed in relation to both cases' applications to the European Court of Human Rights. In addition David has also judicially reviewed the CCRC in circumstances where they did not refer a case to the Court of Appeal. David appeared in the Court of Appeal in June 2007 when his client and five other co-defendants had their sentences for a number of robberies on trains and canal towpaths referred by the Attorney General as unduly lenient. David's was the only client whose sentence was not increased. This is the leading case on sentencing for robberies carried out on the transport system. David has a particular interest in the law in relation to the right to silence and has had articles published on the subject and has argued appeals based on misdirections in relation to this area on numerous occasions. Notable CasesR v S unreported 28 November 2008 - where a judge fails to give proper directions on good character, lies, and delay, and where a judge fails properly to sum up the defence case, the conviction cannot be regarded as safe. R v Wheeler [2008] EWCA Crim. 688 (Criminal Law Week 08/15/2) - where a defendant, as part of his defence to a charge of rape, had relied on a number of factual assertions that were not in dispute, but which he had not mentioned prior to giving evidence, the judge had been incorrect to direct the jury, pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that they could rely on his failure to mention those facts as capable of founding an inference of guilt. R v Barwell [2007] EWCA Crim 2561 - A sentence of imprisonment for public protection was inappropriate where there was evidence to suggest that a defendant's repressed paedophilic tendencies could be controlled and minimised with effective treatment. Att.-Gen.'s References (Nos 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2006) (R v Artan and others) [2007] 151 S.J. 1299, C.A. - Guidance on appropriate sentences for offenders committing robbery on the transport system. R v Boyle and Ford [2006] 150 S.J. 1151 CA - Effect of a fundamental misdirection in section 34 CJPOA 1994 cases on safety of conviction. R v Wingrove [2006] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 232(41), C.A.- Importance of credit for guilty plea in sexual offences cases. R v Gibson [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 451 (84), CA - Where a legitimate expectation is given that a defendant will receive a drug treatment and testing order, it will be unjust to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for domestic burglary under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2002. R v Birchall [1999] Crim LR 311 CA - The first domestic authority to recognise that a failure to give accurate directions in adverse inferences from silence cases could amount to a breach of Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights. PublicationsLegal advice to remain silent [2004] 5 Archbold News 6 (co-author Anthony Jennings QC) (Updated June 2005) Adverse Inferences from Silence - an update [2001] 9 Archbold News 6 (co-author Anthony Jennings QC) (Last updated May 2010)
|
