Daniel Darnbrough

 

Year of Call: 2006

Practice Group(s): Crime

Portrait of Daniel Darnbrough

Practice Profile:

Over the past 13 years at Lamb Building, Daniel has established himself as a successful criminal practitioner having been instructed on a number of high profile cases. He is regularly instructed in cases involving very large amounts of controlled drugs as well as cases of serious violence and sexual offences. He has particular expertise in interpreting and analysing mobile phone records and computer records, which are regularly required in large scale drugs cases.

Notable Cases:

R v HK – Salisbury Crown Court [2019]
Leading Junior instructed on a complex and evidence heavy ‘county lines’ case.

R v ZS – Manchester Crown Court [2018]
Represented the Defendant in a 12 week trial on an indictment alleging the importation of cannabis from Europe.

R v NB – Luton Crown Court [2017]
Leading Junior representing a Defendant charged with conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm and conspiracy to possess firearms. The Crown alleged that the Defendant was involved in a series of tit for tat shootings between two gangs over the course of an evening in Bedford. An innocent bystander was injured after being shot with a Skorpian submachine gun. The Defendant was acquitted of all charges following a 7 week trial.

R v TW – Kingston Crown Court [2017]
Represented a Defendant charged with false imprisonment and threats to kill. The case involved the pre-trial recording of the cross examination of the victim.

R v AL – Isleworth Crown Court [2017]
Represented a Defendant who alongside his partner was charged with Possession of a Firearm. He was successfully acquitted by the jury after running the defence of duress. The case was featured in a BBC documentary.

R v JTW – Bournemouth Crown Court [2016]
Represented the Defendant who was charged with conspiracy to evade the prohibition on the unregistered manufacture of tobacco. After a four week trial the case was dismissed following a successful submission of no case to answer.

R v NJ - Woolwich Crown Court [2016]
Represented the Defendant alleged to play a vital role in a conspiracy to supply £70 million worth of cocaine through importations at Tilbury Docks. The case was a complicated conspiracy which involved surveillance of several of the parties for approximately 6 months. The Crown's case relied heavily on cell site data and mobile phone records in an attempt to establish patterns of calls between the defendants. The Defendant was acquitted following a six-week trial.

R v RP - Winchester Crown Court [2015]
Instructed to represent the Defendant who was acquitted of conspiracy to supply heroin following a lengthy trial. The Defendant was one of several defendants alleged to play a role in the supply of heroin throughout the Nepalese Community in Aldershot. The Crown relied heavily on mobile phone evidence which exceeded 10,000 pages. The Defendant was successfully acquitted after it was shown that the Crown's interpretation of the defendant's mobile phone contact with his alleged co-conspirators was flawed.

R v TT - Blackfriars Crown Court [2015]
The Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and heroin with intent to supply. His defence was that the police had planted the drugs. He was acquitted by the jury of all charges.

R v PU - Croydon Crown Court [2015]
Represented the Defendant who played a vital role in a conspiracy regarding the importation of kilos of cocaine and its onward supply. The Crown's case was largely based on extensive phone records between the parties, the evidence of which exceeded 10,000 pages.

R v RJ - Southwark Crown Court [2012]
Instructed as a Led Junior in a conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary of a number of high end fashion retailers in the West End. The allegation was that the gang had used mopeds to steal over £1 million worth of designer goods. The Defendant was successfully acquitted of the charges involving firearms and robbery following an analysis of the mobile phone evidence. Through the introduction of defence maps the defence were able to show that it would not have been possible for the Defendant to have been present.