Home > Tenants > Michael Ivers QC

Michael Ivers QC

  • Call: 1991
  • Silk: 2016
Michael Ivers
Legal 500 UK Awards 2015: Winner
"His practice includes defence in terror and other violence cases."

Legal 500, 2019

"A very skilful advocate with a very impressive understanding of juries."

Legal 500


Michael has a busy practice in criminal defence. He is well respected for his flair before the jury and his ability to hold the confidence of the court and clients alike. He has represented in a number of murder trials in recent years as well as human trafficking, serious drug offences, revenue fraud and sexual offences. He has a friendly, approachable and highly creative style. Additionally, his human rights work in Strasbourg comprises many landmark cases.

Sexual offences

Michael has also conducted a number of cases involving serious sexual allegations, both historical and current. These include recently representing Ilyas Ashar, an 84-year-old who faced trial for offences of historical sexual abuse of a deaf mute girl who was kept in conditions of servitude for many years in Manchester. The case received extensive press coverage and involved a cross-examination of a highly vulnerable complainant (through an intermediary) in circumstances where cross-examination by previous counsel, at an original trial, had been heavily criticised by the Court of Appeal.


Michael has represented a number of defendants in terrorism cases recently including defendants who had returned from Syria having joined anti-Assad forces there: R v Nawaz at the Central Criminal Court and R v Sarwar at Woolwich Crown Court. These were the first cases of their type, thus engendering heavy press interest. Michael’s previous experience of chairing the Kurdish Human Rights Project gave a valuable insight into the geo-political situation in Syria and the various groups operating there.

Additionally, Michael represented Anthony Small, an ex-commonwealth champion boxer charged with terrorism glorification offences for the YouTube channel he produced. This was a pivotal free speech case where he secured an acquittal. He also represented Shazib Khan in a substantial terrorism trial involving complex issues around social media evidence and evidence from an undercover operative. Omar Khan was charged with terrorism offences in prison, he was acquitted following complex issues around Legal Professional Privilege.

He represented Kamran Hussain, charged with terrorism offences, with free speech issues at the centre of the trial.


He represented Nathan Bell, charged with murder with a complex expert evidence rubric concerning causation in respect of the fatal injuries where the client was acquitted of murder. He is often and is currently instructed in a number of homicide cases involving disputed scientific and medical evidence as well as cases involving mental health issues. He is wholly comfortable around scientific issues.

Notably, he recently secured an acquittal for the lead defendant in the multi-handed trial of David Osadebay, aka the Grime music star Cbiz, charged with organising a gangland murder. This case involved considerable cross-examination around vast and often misleading social media evidence.

He recently secured an acquittal for murder in a complex multi-handed case for Ali Tas where there had been complex cut-throat elements between the defendants. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter.

In two recent trials at the Central Criminal Court he needed to expertly tackle complex psychiatric issues; in Joseph Tripp after 4 weeks the defendant was found to be unfit in a trial where 4 psychiatrists had given evidence and in Mark Loveridge a complicated historical medical and diagnostic rubric needed to be tackled, again involving complicated and conflicting expert evidence.

Notable cases

Domestically Michael has acted in a variety of serious cases.


R v Jermaine Reid – A murder allegation connected to a failed drug deal

R v Nathan Bell – A murder trial involving complex issues around medical causation

R v Osadebay – Representing the Grime rap music star Cbiz, charged with a gangland murder

R v Feliciano – A multi-handed gang murder involving an execution with a submachine gun

R v Kooner – An honour killing

R v Powar – A gang murder from west London involving some of the first arguments concerning anonymity

R v McCoy – An attempted murder alleged to have resulted from resentment over a failed relationship

R v Farah – The Camden Town gang stabbing

R v Miles – A notorious stabbing in Reading town centre

R v Gurung – A multi-handed murder within the Nepalese community


R v Sarwar – Terrorism cases involving a defendant who had returned from Syria having joined anti-Assad forces there

R v Anthony Small – Ex-commonwealth champion boxer charged with terrorism glorification offences for the YouTube channel he produced in a pivotal free speech case

R v Nawaz – Terrorism cases involving a defendant who had returned from Syria

R v Shazib Khan – A substantial terrorism trial involving complex issues around social media evidence and evidence from an undercover operative

R v Omar Khan – Complex trial involving issues around Legal Professional Privilege

R v Chentouf – A terrorism case involving a landmark decision on the ambit of the Terrorism Act

Court of Appeal

R v Shazib Khan & Others – A leading case concerning sentencing in terrorism cases

R v Navabi [2005] EWCA Crim 2865 – First appeal concerning Immigration Act Offences

AG’s Reference R v Arbuah [2006] EWCA Crim 2632 Sentencing – Firearms cases

R v Kalar [2006] EWCA Crim 1097 – Sentencing – Imprisonment Public Protection

R v Kaur [2005] EWCA Crim 2883 – Presence alone as sufficient evidence

R v Robin Woods [2003] EWCA Crim 1147 – Expert evidence – Rape cases

R v Wright [2000] Crim L.R. 510 – Agreed Submissions

R v Smith (Trevor) 9802692Z3 – Identification

R v Powar – see above – Anonymity

Other notable cases

R v Sarrisky – A large-scale people-trafficking conspiracy involving serious sexual offences

R v Sokoloskiy – A multi-handed highly complicated revenue fraud

R v Xing – A large-scale fraud concerning false student visas and a fake education institute

R v Brady – A conspiracy trial involving 18 armed robberies

R v Indrit Krasniqi – The Prospect Park murder in Reading

R v Spencer – The first professional ‘hit’ with a machine gun

R v Pereira – Murder involving a missing body

R v Daniel Connors – Armed escape from Staines Magistrates Court

Human Rights

As legal adviser to the Kurdish Human Rights Project, and former Chairman of the respected NGO, Michael has conducted numerous cases before the ECHR concerning Kurdish Applicants, including Ocalan v Turkey representing the PKK leader before the court concerning the failure to hold a retrial suggested by the Court in the previous Grand Chamber hearing.

Additionally he is the elected Treasurer of the Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC).

Grand Chamber hearings at the ECHR are rare and Michael has conducted two in recent years.

Chiragov v Armenia is a pivotal and landmark case concerning internally displaced persons and ethnic cleansing which arose from the expulsion of Azeri Kurds from Nagorno Karabak. There were complicated jurisdictional issues and issues around ‘continuing violation’ since the actual expulsions occurred prior to Armenia and Azerbaijan signing up to the Convention. Some 1300 other cases depend upon the result of the case – thus it being heard in the Grand Chamber in an unusual direct referral. Azerbaijan (still having no control over the region in their own borders) joined as an interested party.

Ines Del Rio Prada v Spain is the most important case from Spain before the Grand Chamber in many years and concerns one of Spain’s most notorious ETA terrorists and the legality of the so called ‘Parot Doctrine’ created by the Spanish Supreme Court in 2006 whereby a retrospective change to remission rules meant her serving a far greater period in prison. Many other ETA prisoners were affected. Articles 5, 7 and 14 are engaged. The issue is highly politically charged in Spain: the government there have made a number of comments about interference by the ECHR in domestic policy (mirroring comments made by politicians in Britain). This again is the test case upon which many other cases depend. The case thus involves not only careful handling in terms of its legal uniqueness but is complicated in its political dimensions.