Year of call: 2011
Philip joined chambers after completing pupillage at 2 King’s Bench Walk. He is primarily a criminal practitioner who prosecutes and defends all-manner of cases in the Crown Court both as junior counsel and on his own.
He is a Grade 3 Prosecutor who is regularly instructed to prosecute Crown Court trials from an early stage in proceedings. Philip is therefore accustomed to providing advice from an early stage and ensuring that each case is fully prepared before trial. His work as junior counsel has involved serious organised crime which has resulted in a good understanding and ability to deal with complex areas of admissibility, disclosure and PII.
Since becoming a tenant, Philip has been instructed to defend clients charged with serious offences including supply and importation of drugs, money laundering, assault, burglary and sexual offences. He has the ability to put his clients at ease, offers pragmatic advice and explains complex points of law as well as case-theory in a way which is easy to understand.
Prosecution (Notable Cases)
R v B  EWCA Crim 731 – A young defendant appealed his conviction following the court’s decision to exclude a positive conclusive grounds decision by the Single Competent Authority (SCA). The Court of Appeal agreed with the prosecution that SCA caseworkers are not experts and a Conclusive Grounds Decision is not admissible at trial. The court concluded that ‘on an objective view of the evidence the section 45 defence was comprehensively demolished by the prosecution. There is no question that this conviction is safe.’ Instructed by the prosecution as led Junior at trial.
R v C & Others – Instructed as Junior counsel to prosecute an OCG involved in a long-running drug conspiracy. The evidence relied heavily on covert surveillance, attribution, patterns of contact and association between co-conspirators. One defendant asserted that he was a victim of modern slavery and an NRM material was made. The admissibility of such material required extensive legal argument.
R v H – The defendant was charged with a violent street robbery involving the theft of an elderly victim’s bag. The case centred upon identification evidence which was the subject of legal argument in relation to the admissibility of significant aspects of evidence.
R v M – The original count on the indictment alleged aggravated burglary. After advice was provided, it was amended to blackmail which better reflected the unusual set of facts.
R v J & Others – The case involved a pro-active county-lines drug operation which relied heavily on telephone evidence and ANPR captures. Prior to the 6-week trial, my role as junior counsel instructed on behalf of the prosecution involved preparing the schedules as well as working closely with the analyst to compile the graphics bundles.
R v P – Instructed as junior counsel in a 6-week trial in which the defendant was charged with multiple counts of international money laundering. The allegation involved cash and electronic transfer over one-million pounds. Preparation of the case required careful analysis of banking records and money transfers to Nigeria. It was also necessary to send an international letter of request to Nigeria which resulted in a large amount of material in response; the disclosure exercise was therefore both substantial and complex.
R v L – Allegation of serious sexual assault with penetration. A significant part of the prosecution evidence relied upon forensic examination and DNA recovered.
R v C – Defendant alleged to have caused his father GBH with intent. The case required substantial advice as to the admissibility of medical evidence relating to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the allegation.
R v X – Defendant, and two co-defendants, were charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs. The prosecution sought to prove the conspiracy on the basis of phone messages and contact. It was therefore necessary to analyse the phone data carefully in order to compile material from the client’s phone which suggested that he was not involved in any such conspiracy. The defendant was acquitted.
R v M – Instructed as junior counsel in a multi-handed drug conspiracy which lasted 6 weeks. This involved a vast quantity of telephone data, cell site analysis and money transfers which all had to be carefully analysed in order to support the clients defence.
Instructed as disclosure counsel in two high-profile cases.
The most recent instructions related to the Hillsborough disaster which involved analysing statements, exhibits and reports obtained throughout a thirty-year period. It also necessitated a hybrid-approach to disclosure combining the pre-CPIA disclosure regime with the current test for disclosure.
The other related to a banking corruption case with over 300,000 pages of evidence. Due to the significant volume of work there was a large amount of LLP material which had to be carefully considered as well as multiple disclosure requests from the defence.
LLB – University of Swansea
LLM (Financial Regulation and Compliance) – BPP
Click here for my Personal Privacy Statement