Rupert handles exclusively criminal cases, for both prosecution and defence.

His main areas of expertise are as follows:

Sexual crime: involved in primarily defence work for cases involving rape, indecent assault, sexual offences against children and, in particular, computer child pornography. His priority cases involve children and vulnerable witnesses and he is experienced in use of TV and video links.

Violent crime: undertakes prosecution and defence work for Violent crime primarily on South Eastern Circuit. He also conducts serious trial work, primarily defence for Drugs / Firearms cases.

Rupert also has considerable experience in representing Defendants with mental health problems.

Rupert is a Member of the Criminal Bar Association and Southern Eastern Circuit.

Rupert is an extremely thorough advocate who prepares his cases meticulously. He can be robust or sensitive when dealing with witnesses at trial depending upon what the situation demands. He has a wealth of experience of defending in complex trials, multi-handed or otherwise. He is willing to raise any arguable point of law and enjoys exploring interesting legal issues. He gives his clients practical and comprehensible advice in conference and does not attempt to avoid difficult clients or apparently hopeless cases. His willingness to pursue all legal avenues on behalf of his clients is reflected in the fact that, since 1999, he has appeared in the Court of Appeal on more than 50 occasions.

Rupert Hallowes is accredited by the Bar Council to provide Public Access services

Some of his reported cases are as follows:

R v Glidewell [1999] 163 JP 557, The Times, 14/5/99 - Forgetfulness as a reasonable excuse for possession of offensive weapon.

R v Kartal & Ors [1999] 10 Archbold News 2, 31 Criminal Law Week 1, 16/8/99 - Excessive judicial intervention infringing D’s right to a fair trial.

R v Denton [2001] 1 Cr.App.R 16; [2001] Crim LR 225; The Times, 22/11/00 - Reading of statements under s.23 CJA 1988. Failure to give reasons in ruling.

R v Lee Oosthuizen [2006] 1 Cr.App.R. 73 – circumstances in which judge may withhold discount for early guilty plea or impose deterrent sentence in view of guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guideline Council.

R v Ashton, Draz, O’Reilly, The Times, April 18, 2006, CA – impact of procedural or jurisdictional failures in the Crown Court on the safety of convictions.

R v Jean-Paul Holman (2007) 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 52 – reduction in sentence for offence of false imprisonment in domestic circumstances

R v David Curtis (2007) 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 52 – applicability of guideline case in burglary with significant aggravating features committed by offender with bad record

R v Jales and Lawrence [2007] Crim LR 800 – judge's findings of contempt of court quashed due to substantial failures of legal procedure

R v Noble, The Times, July 21, 2008, CA - failure to answer a summons cannot be an offence under Bail Act 1976 nor a common law contempt.

R v Freeman; R v Crawford CA [2009] 1 Cr.App.R 11 - judgment clarifying legal principles in relation to cross-admissibility of counts in indictment under bad character provisions.

R v Ellis [2009] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 73 - reduction in sentence for offence of aggravated burglary

Burwell v DPP [2009] Crim LR 897, (2009) 173 JP 351 - a prosecutor's certificate under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, s.11(4) normally determinative of jurisdiction. 

R v Lancaster [2010] 2 Cr.App.R7, The Times, June 2, 2010 - definition of "omits a material particular" under ss.17(1) and (2) of the Theft Act 1968.