Called to the Bar in 2006
Practice Areas: Crime, Family
Nathan has an impressive range of experience across different areas of law for somebody of his call. An advocate with a calm, attentive approach to his Professional and Lay clients, his practice is divided into 2 main areas of Law namely;
Family Law – Public and Private Law Children Proceedings and Financial Relief for Parties to Marriage/Divorce Proceedings and Children of the Family; and
Criminal Law (Defence Only) including Proceeds of Crime/Confiscation Proceedings and Road Traffic Proceedings.
In recent years there has been an ever increasing overlap between Criminal and Family Law which is attractive to both Professional and Lay Clients, especially when there are Ongoing Children Act Proceedings in the Family Courts and the Lay Client also stands Charged in the Crown Court (with Child Cruelty for example). The benefit being that both the Solicitor and the Client can instruct Nathan and have continuity of legal representation, Nathan would have knowledge of all the issues in both arenas, can adequately deal with disclosure issues of 3rd Party material in Crown Court Proceedings which saves time and can strengthen the Lay Clients case.
Nathan has also developed a small but unique practice alongside his other work in Immigration Law ranging from Bail Hearing to Immigration Appeals against immediate deportation and Asylum Hearing. The unique aspect of this derives from the fact that within the Immigration Cases, there is always usually Children present within the family structure and with Nathan’s Family Law Children Background he is able to utilize this skill set to argue structured Right to Family and Private Life under Article 8 ECHR in Court.
Prior to commencing Pupillage Nathan spent 3 years working in-house within Local Government Children Services department at Haringey Legal Services, assisting up to 4 fee earners on care proceedings ranging from low level neglect to complicated Non-Accident Injuries of serious physical injuries. This has meant that Nathan has an understanding of Local Authority Procedure having worked alongside their own in-house solicitors and Social workers.
The experience above has enabled Nathan to develop steady practice acting in both public and private law matters. Nathan works hard for his clients to put their case whilst adopting a friendly approach. Nathan is experienced in acting for parents and other family members notably grandparents in cases where allegations in respect of harm against children ranging from;
Neglect ranging from a lack of food to Chronic Neglect of severe household uncleanliness and leaving Children unsupervised for large periods of the night;
Serious physical chastisement through the use of belts and other implements as a weapon;
Stress positions holding items in the air for extended period of times culminating in physical and emotional distress (Particularly cases involving Children/Parents of a African/Caribbean Background);
Significant injuries notably non accidental burn injuries with hot implements where the child has been permanently scarred and witnessed by other siblings; and
Sexual Abuse including with implements such as Hot Chili’s and Ginger; and
Parental Alcohol/Substance misuse or domestic violence/abuse during pregnancy and thereafter.
Nathan has managed these cases through all stages from case management to fact-finding hand final hearings at all levels of Court including the High Court. Nathan has appeared in cases in the Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) involving serious Substance misuse of alcohol and Class A Drugs.
Nathan has also acted for family members in cases concerning Child Abduction outside the Jurisdiction and threat of Removal from the Jurisdiction in the High Court in Public and Private Law Proceedings. Nathan is available to advise at short notice.
Nathan also represents parents in Family Law Act matter (non-molestation and Occupation applications) and Private Law Child Arrangements for Contact or Residence that frequently involve intractable hostility or serious allegations including Rape and Serious Domestic Violence raised by one parent (or the child) against another. Nathan’s particular interest is in cases that involve careful consideration of criminal evidence and material due to his criminal expertise and knowledge.
Nathan also takes on Direct Access work in Private Law Family matters, and is frequently instructed to represent clients who want to have sole access with a barrister, without the need to instruct to instruct a solicitor, which can be more cost effective for the client. Nathan welcomes cases of this nature.
Nathan also represents Husbands or Wife’s in Financial Remedy proceedings in connection with Divorce Proceedings in the UK. Nathan has managed cases from First Appointment, Financial Dispute Resolution and Final Hearings. Due to Nathan’s experience in Public and Private Law Children Cases, his expertise assist greatly in Financial Relief Proceedings that concern children under 18 and where there are complex needs, previous/current involvement with Social Services or concurrent Private Law Child Arrangement Hearings.
Nathan’s route to the Bar was a little different from others and he understands the needs of solicitors, as prior to pupilage he worked in-house as a paralegal at a large, reputable, firm of Criminal Defence solicitors in London and a few other smaller firms for a few years to gain further experience.
Nathan is a passionate and developing into an experienced criminal defence practitioner, practicing in London and outside M25. His practice covers a wide area of criminal work and he enjoys defending cases that evidentially involve complex and technical points, which require a tough approach and fearless advocacy in court. Nathan thrives at addressing jurors in closing speeches and fights diligently and professional for all his clients, no matter how strong or weak the client’s case is.
Recently, Nathan has developed a growing practice of representing clients charged with Child Cruelty/Neglect/ Assault on Children where there are concurrent Family Law Proceedings in the County Court. Nathan’s experience in Family Law Proceedings is an invaluable asset in Child Cruelty/Neglect/Assaults on Children especially when dealing with 3rd Party Social Services Disclosure of Material request on behalf of the Defence and PII applications on behalf of Local Authorities.
Nathan regularly defends in Privately Paid or Direct Access Road Traffic Offences such as:
Failing to respond to Section 172 Notices of intended Prosecution;
Failing to name other drivers in the event of Prosecution;
‘Totting’ offences, where defendants fall to be disqualified by virtue of accruing 12 points on their licence;
No insurance Cases;
‘In Charge’ and ‘Driving whilst Unfit’ offences;
Failing to provide evidential samples;
Driving whilst Disqualified, Driving without Due Care, and Dangerous Driving.
Nathan is particularly experienced in arguing ‘special reasons’ and ‘exceptional hardship’ to prevent the disqualification of drivers, or ‘short period disqualification’ to minimise the length of time drivers are disqualified for.
In the event of disqualification or any adverse finding by the Court he is happy to provide clear and frank advice on any avenues of appeal that have a prospect of success.
R v SWABY et al, (Kingston Crown Court 2018) A widespread conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs across London, namely Heroin and Cocaine valued in excess of 1 million pounds. Multiple defendants with use or access to encrypted phones, seizure of numerous ‘dirty phones' resulting in need to undertake call data records and cell site analysis spanning thousand of pages, including covert surveillance techniques by the police deployed over a number of months.
R v FRANCIS - (Aylesbury Crown Court 2017) - Defendant spared immediate prison sentence, instead received a suspended sentence for the serious offence of misconduct whilst acting in role of public office through having an inappropriate relationship with a serving prisoner at a young offenders’ institution via text, telephone calls and letters as an employee within the prison system. Counsel’s robust mitigation and ability to draw key distinctions between this case and several previous Court of Appeal authorities, persuaded the court to conclude that this was a case where a suspended sentence could be imposed despite the theme of the courts that offences of this nature are not only serious and but a grave breach of trust. News report here.
R v O'BRIEN – (Inner London Crown Court 2017) – Defendant Acquitted of Grevious Bodily Harm with Intent on a Police officer (Section 18) after a 3 day trial. The case concerned a police officer in the course of his duty, attending to a police call out concerning a domestic dispute between a couple along a busy public road. The police in an attempt to apprehend the defendant in his car was subsequently hit by the same car and tossed into the air, the defendant then driving off leaving the Police Officer injured, in middle of the road. The case concerned extensive cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses, mainly Police Officers and crucial examination of CCTV available from the on-board police vehicle device. All 12 jurors returned a verdict of Not Guilty within 1 hour.
R v OKORONKWO – (Snaresbrook Crown Court 2016) – Defendant Acquitted of Sexual Assault by Touching of young girl under 13. The case concerned allegations by a young girl against her child-minder’s husband of extensive sexual touching and trying to induce the young girl by offering her alcohol. The complainant was cross-examined meticulously over video-link.
R v ORUMWENSE – (Inner London Crown Court 2015) – Husband acquitted of 4 Charges of Child Cruelty, which included allegations of Severe Physical Chastisement with instruments and “Stress Positions” by instructing a young girl to hold large Items in the air above her head for a few hours each day. The complainant was again cross-examined meticulously over a video-link.
R v SERAH GIBSON et al – (Inner London Crown Court 2014 -2015) – This case concerned allegations of Serious child cruelty including Stress Positions, Severe Physical Chastisement and my client was charged ABH on a child it being alleged she used a weapon to hit the children. The defence raised various issues regarding concerns on the lack of disclosure of Social Services Material and the Crown not being able to demonstrate that it had fulfilled it disclosure obligations. After 17 days of trial and 3 children having been cross-examined, the judge discharged the jury as a key piece of 3rd party material was disclosed to the defence, which struck at the heart of the credibility of the 3 young girls.
A re-trial was set several months later, and the defence again raised concerns regarding disclosure. As the Prosecution still could not deal with the disclosure issues raised by the Defence, an Abuse Application was submitted on behalf of the defendants, that they no longer could have a fair trial and the prejudice suffered due the delay, these proceedings having lasted for over 2 years now. Whilst the Abuse argument was not granted but certainly given Judicial Approval on it’s merits, the Learned Judge invited the Crown to re-think whether it wanted to continue its case due to disclosure issues and whether it was in the best interest of the 3 children to have a re-trial. The prosecution 2 weeks later offered no evidence on all charges against the defendants.
The defence then made a wasted costs application as a matter of principle against the Crown, on the basis that there was clear evidence of improper, unreasonable and negligent act by the Crown and CPS in preparing its case and dealing with 3rd Party Disclosure Material as expressed by the defence in its Defence Statement and Section 8 Application. The learned Judge granted the application and made an order for wasted costs against the CPS.
R v SHAH – (Isleworth Crown Court 2014) – This case concerned a large-scale conspiracy to Import Heroin from Pakistan concealed within various items/products. The prosecution involved 8 defendants, however the police believed more unknown person were involved. The value of the seized drugs was estimated around 1.1 million pounds the overall conspiracy said to be way into the millions.
R v QEMA – (Snaresbrook Crown Court 2012) – The defendant was charged with consecutive rapes on a particular date. A substantial amount of money was lodged into court as a security to secure bail, which was successful pending the trial commencing. The case was complex as the allegations dated back to 2005 and involved extensive cross-examination of the complainant and crown witnesses.
R v ALLEN – (Harrow Crown Court 2011) – This matter concerned commercial supply of Class A drugs to undercover officers over a period of time, after a large scale police operation in South Kilburn against commercial supply of drugs and other serious crimes.
In 2014, Nathan provided free legal advice to drop in clients at Fulham Legal Advice Centre (FLAC) for approximately 9 months in areas of Criminal and Family Law in 2014 before it sadly shut down due to funding issues. He now provides free and impartial legal advice at Nucleus Legal Advice Centre in London every Monday evening.
Y and Z (Separation of Siblings)  EWFC B59 (Bailii)
Y (disclosure to MPS)  EWFC B33 (Bailii)
D (appeal) (PD12J) Fact Finding Principles and Interim Contact Arrangements
Criminal Bar Association
Family Law Bar Association
Direct Access Qualified
Reading Crime Novels