Profile
Richard is a specialist criminal law advocate with Court of Appeal experience. He practices in East Sussex (Lewes, Brighton and Hove), Surrey (Guildford) and London.
He practices in all areas of crime, including fraud, drugs, firearms, robbery, serious assaults, kidnap, murder, rape, indecent images of children and other sexual offences.
He finds legal arguments where they have previously been missed and argues with a persuasive manner. He is well known for his tenacious attitude. A particular string to his bow is the cross-examination of experts whether that be in the fields of drugs, technology or other.
Richard is well known for his sensitivity in dealing with clients with specific care needs. He is patient and ensures that all defendants understand the process that they will go through until the end of their case.
Richard has an excellent knowledge of computers and their workings. He has dealt with numerous Computer Misuse Act (hacking) cases including denial of service attacks or hacking for fraudulent purposes. He has dealt with numerous cases where people have mistakenly downloaded indecent images.
He is adept at sentences involving indecent images of children and the issues they raise. He has previously and is willing to deal with these cases on a private basis.
Current cases include conspiracy to supply drugs (multi kilo cases), murder, serious violence, rape, historic sex cases, indecent images and hacking cases (computer misuse act).
Education
BA (hons), CPE PgDI, Bar
Memberships
Middle Temple
Criminal Bar Association
Practice Areas
Cases
R v S – Multi Kilo/multi national conspiracy to supply cocaine. Included the use of Encrochat communications.
R v F – computer misuse act. Hacking into a company holding NHS records.
R v Clark Walker – Successful court of appeal case – found in Banks on Sentence – deals with remand time for IPP prisoners facing new charge.
R v B Foreign national charged with Bitcoin fraud. Complicated trans-European Bitcoin Fraud.
R v C and Others – Multi-handed Sussex drugs conspiracy involving kilos of cocaine and money laundering to Cyprus.
R v N – complex multi victim historic sex case involving complainants from multiple care homes.
R v J – Led by silk – murder trial.
R v P – Computer Misuse Act prosecution leading to the first ‘Bitcoin’ POCA in the country.
R v J and Others – Case of prison mutiny following ‘austerity cuts’.
R V E and Another – Firearms/robbery case where the crown relied on three experts. Acquitted by the judge’s direction after legal argument.
R v S – Judicial review of judge who refused bail. The application was sent to the judge who changed his decision. (Application was based on human rights and bias, the applicant was a member of the travelling community).
R v W –First use of ANPR cameras to prosecute dangerous drive and prove that there was no cloning of a vehicle.
R v D and Others – led by QC in a complex joint enterprise, multi- handed murder case where the ‘wrong victim’ was killed.
R v JS– two-day legal argument leading to a successful application to dismiss. This was a complicated case involving conversion of criminal property where drugs were found in his van and tens of tens of thousands of unexplained pounds were found at the home address.
R v W and Others– leading junior in three month, nine-handed conspiracy to steal high-powered vehicles and caravans. One of the largest vehicle theft conspiracies in the country, which received much media attention in the UK and abroad. Involved complicated cell site analysis and legal argument.
R v I and Others – Three month VHCC. Eleven handed conspiracy to defraud banks of £5 million. Fraud involving ‘plants’ in the bank and key loggers. Included complicated Proceeds of Crime Act application taking almost 2 years to complete.
R v B – Court of Appeal – Appeal against the imposition of a SHPO where the prosecution had failed to follow the criminal procedure rules. Commended by the court of appeal on written submissions.
R v L – Cross examination of a 12 year old in an allegation of rape. Included a successful s.41 argument to cross-examine the victim on her previous sexual history. Various threats were being made leading to a police presence in court.