Joe is a busy junior practising Criminal Law. He became a tenant in chambers in 2018 after pupillage. Joe provides robust advocacy services in court and personable but effective advice to his clients. The balance of his practice is defending but he also appears for the Crown and other prosecuting authorities.
In the Crown Court, Joe is instructed in a variety of trials including matters of serious violence, dishonesty, drugs and public disorder. He is also instructed in sex cases, including child exploitation, indecent images of children, exposure and sexual assault, as well as quasi-sex cases such as disclosing private images.
Joe has experience of representing vulnerable clients and those whose fitness to plead is in issue. He has conducted contested fitness to plead hearings and has experience of dealing with expert/medical evidence. In addition, Joe has prosecuted and defended in a number of Ground Rules Hearings and trials with the use of intermediaries.
Joe appears in the London courts and across the South East, but is prepared to travel further should his clients require it. He has, for instance, successfully represented a defendant at trial in the Crown Court on the Isle of Wight.
At the appellate level, Joe has successfully appeared in the Court of Appeal where sentence was reduced following complex argument on totality and the structure of concurrent/consecutive sentences.
Summary of indicative experience
Court of Appeal:
R v JB: appeal against sentence following plea to threatening with an offensive weapon. Sentence reduced from 28 to 16 months imprisonment. Grounds of appeal were amended orally during the hearing before the full court.
Trial instructions include:
R v C T-G: first defendant in two-handed s18. Case concerned violent reprisals against a police informant carried out with a machete. The defendants filmed themselves during the incident and posted the footage on-line.
R v RK: armed robbery of delivery drivers on D’s doorstep allegedly carried out with a combat knife. Bad character and cell-site excluded following legal argument. D’s uncle came to court and gave evidence of confession which he then accepted in cross-examination he had never heard.
R v RT: many counts of making indecent images, having extreme pornography and voyeurism. D appeared personally in part of the video footage concerned which included the abuse of his seven year-old niece. He was initially thought not fit to plead (and both experts agreed) but was found to have malingered and was in fact fit. Following a guilty plea and submissions in mitigation he was given a Community Order.
R v J N-C: case of drugs supply and firearms. Question of fitness to plead.
R v BP: count of disclosing private sexual films dismissed on application.
R v WP: multi-handed affray.
R v YM: cannabis farm in a house in South East London. D was apprehended, having jumped naked from a window, running away from the police when a raid was conducted.
R v JW: D alleged to have repeatedly exposed himself and masturbated at neighbours across the street. The defence was that he had not intended to alarm or distress but merely that he was pleasuring himself. The case involved difficult cross-examination to the effect that the complainants had reciprocated the behaviour alleged and even escalated matters by presenting their young children at the window.
R v EP: D acquitted at three-day trial for witness intimidation.
R v FI: D acquitted at trial for sexual assault after complainant accepted in cross-examination that she had consented to touching.
R v GC: hung jury on ABH of woman outside a pub after cross-examination of independent witnesses.
GDL/BPTC (BPP Law School - 2016-17)
MSc: Late Antique, Islamic and Byzantine Studies (University of Edinburgh - 2015)
BA(Hons), First-Class: History (SOAS, University of London - 2014)