The areas of work in which we have particular expertise, experience and excellence
The areas of work in which we have particular expertise, experience and excellence
Barristers
Call 2013
Stephen has a varied and extremely busy criminal defence practice. He accepts both
private and publicly funded instructions covering the whole spectrum of crime,
including: organised crime, sexual offences; serious violence; drug supply; offences
relating to weapons; and dishonesty offences. Stephen also has the experience and
confidence to handle multi-defendant and long running trials.
Prior to joining chambers, Stephen spent time investigating fatalities in prison. His varied
and unorthodox career also includes many years as a very successful pub manager and
five years as an underground coal miner.
Given Stephen’s diverse history, he is comfortable communicating and relating to clients
from all backgrounds — readily gaining their trust and confidence. This further enables
Stephen to communicate with a jury, pitching his oratory with exactly the right tone.
R v NC (2026)
Stephen is currently instructed to represent NC, charged with
conspiracy to supply bulk quantities of cocaine. NC is one of 9 defendants in
trial 1, which is scheduled to run for 8-10 weeks from January 2026.
R v CD (2025)
CD was one of 8 charged in a case involving ‘conveying
articles into prison’ and ‘conspiracy to supply class A drugs’. CD was the only
defendant acquitted.
R v PJ (2024)
Stephen was led in a multi-kilo drug conspiracy, helping to
draft legal arguments which culminated in the prosecution accepting a plea to
‘transferring legal property’. PJ received months rather than many years.
R v NU (2023)
Stephen was instructed in a long trial involving 9 Defendants
facing perverting the course of justice allegations and other related matters.
R v DF (2025)
Stephen represented DF who was charged with a series of
knifepoint robberies, using his job as a scooter delivery driver as a cover.
R v HA (2023)
HA was acquitted of arson reckless as to endangering life
after a successful submission of no case to answer at half time. This 4 week
trial involved multiple Defendants on a variety of counts.
R v SS (2023)
SS was acquitted after Stephen managed to keep out all of
his previous convictions (over 200 offences) and exclude the identification
evidence of police officers witnessing the driver of a car fleeing the scene.
R v SA (2023)
Stephen represented SA who was charged with fraud due to
his role in extracting money from students via a complex fraudulent scheme.
R v JG (2022)
JG was acquitted of 4 counts of arson reckless as to
endangering life, her partner having already pleaded guilty. The jury were
persuaded that she was unaware of the fires.
R v PR (2022)
PR was acquitted at half time of a brutal assault in an alleged
revenge attack between feuding families. The Judge agreed that it was not
safe to leave it to the jury despite the complainant purporting to identify PR.
R v AF (2025)
AF was acquitted despite a substantial quantity of class A
drugs being found in the boot of the car he was driving. The jury accepted
AF’s account that he had borrowed the car from his drug dealer.
R v MB (2025)
MB was acquitted of a drug conspiracy after being found
staying in a house with 3 ‘drug-line’ phones and frequently co-locating with
them elsewhere. MB was alleged to have played the leading role. Stephen’s
diligence and ability to work with other counsel, ensured the trial did not
become a ‘cut-throat’ which would have harmed his client’s case.
R v RS (2024)
RS was acquitted of intending to supply class A drugs. A
significant quantity of high purity cocaine was found at his house, but the jury
accepted that he was dealing cannabis to fund his cocaine addiction.
R v AA (2022)
Stephen secured AA’s acquittal after trial by jury for
possession with intent to supply class A drugs. This was despite body warn
footage of AA admitting the offence to police at the scene.
R v VK (2021)
Stephen represented VK who was charged with cannabis
cultivation when found in a house with a substantial cannabis grow.
R v MY (2025)
MY was charged with historic child sex offences. He was
acquitted after trial of all the allegations he faced initially, but the jury were
unable to reach verdicts on 2 counts added after the close of the prosecution
case. Stephen is currently running ‘abuse of process’ in respect of the retrial.
R v MB (2025)
Stephen represented MB (a youth) in a rape trial involving a
youth complainant. This case involved other youth witnesses and was further
complicated due to a witness appearing via video link from another country —
this witness having recorded the alleged incident via a video call from MB.
R v BM (2025)
BM was charged with a series of sex offences against a 13
year old. Identity was not contested, but the offending was. This case involved
the recorded cross examination split over 2 days due to complainant issues.
R v SE (2025)
SE was charged with sexual assault against a girl who was in
the care of his child minder mother. This case was dismissed at half time after
Stephen diligently reviewed the records kept by SE’s mother to show the
alleged offending could not have occurred.
R v RF (2024)
RF was acquitted after trial of assault by penetration of his
partner at the time, after Stephen exposed significant inconsistencies.
R v BB (2024)
Stephen represented BB when charged with assault by
penetration against a colleague — both being police academy graduates.
R v FL (2022)
FL was acquitted of sexual assault against a co-worker, after
Stephen exposed inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses.
R v MB (2025)
MB had a trial over 4 weeks for very serious offences of
violence and other matters within a domestic context. He was acquitted of the
violent allegations but convicted of less serious matters.
R v MH (2025)
MH was acquitted after trial of affray in respect of an incident
involving barbers in conflicting shops. MH persuaded the jury he acted in self
defence, protecting his colleague when attacked by men from the other shop.
R v BO (2025)
BO was acquitted of a stabbing, despite CCTV. BO also told
detention staff (on camera) he had stabbed the man. Stephen probed an eye
witness who described a different person and type of knife, before arguing the
camera footage was bravado.
R v DD (2023)
Stephen secured DD’s acquittal of serious domestic assaults
with a submission of no case to answer, bad character evidence having being
successfully excluded.
R v PV (2022)
PV was charged with assaulting mental health staff, which
was caught on CCTV. The case was complicated by medication and mental
health issues. Stephen persuaded the jury to accept PV acted in reasonable
and lawful self defence.
R v FS (2022)
FS was acquitted of very serious assaults against his partner,
despite his previous for like offences being adduced. Doubt was cast on the
police investigation after they failed to investigate another suspect, who was
duly summonsed by the defence to give (no comment) evidence.
R v AF (2022)
AF was acquitted of assaulting an emergency worker, after
the jury believed him over the complainant police officer and several
colleagues who purported to witness the incident.
R v JO (2024)
Stephen was led in a case involving a ‘gang related’ stabbing
in the heart of London in an area widely covered by CCTV cameras. JO
accepted his identification as the principle offender, but unsuccessfully argued
‘loss of control’ during the trial.
R v CS (2024)
Stephen was led in respect of the murder of a drug user who
had outstanding debts to his suppliers (CS and others). The evidence was
meticulously pieced together, with CS convicted, albeit by a narrow majority.
R v RK (2025)
Stephen defended RK in a very complex trial attracting a lot
of media interest, involving the stalking of an international influencer.
R v CB (2023)
Stephen represented CB in a 4 week trial relating to the
possession and sale of Anglo Saxon coins (criminal property). This trial
involved extensive expert evidence regarding the nature of treasure and the
significant historical significance of these particular coins. There was
consequently a great deal of media interest, including globally.
R v MN (2022)
MN was charged with 2 counts of keeping a person in
slavery or servitude. The trial lasted over 4 weeks and involved multiple
Defendants. One charge was dismissed following a submission of no case to
answer at half time, but MN was convicted of the other charge.
R v HR (2021)
HR was acquitted of assaulting a dementia care patient in
her care following a 7 day trial. The alleged incident was caught on a secret
camera installed by the patient’s family, but Stephen was able to persuade the
jury that HR was acting in the best interests of the patient.
R v EH (2025)
EH’s sentence was reduced significantly after Stephen
successfully argued it was manifestly excessive.
R v NU (2024)
Stephen successfully argued that NU’s sentence was
manifestly excessive with a significant reduction applied.
R v HK (2023)
HK’s sentence was halved after Stephen successfully argued
the sentence passed at the Crown Court was manifestly excessive.
R v BP (2023)
Stephen orally renewed an application for leave to appeal
after this was rejected by the Single Judge. Leave was granted, however the
sentence was ultimately deemed not to be manifestly excessive.
Stephen’s client was originally sentenced to 30 months custody following a guilty plea to possession with intent to supply class A drugs, with further charges relating to class B drugs and the possession of criminal property…
Stephen’s client (D) was arrested following a ‘dawn raid’ on a property where the police alleged he was living. Seized at the property were 3 ‘drug line’ phones which had been active for the preceding…
Regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB)
Regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and holds a current practising certificate. If you are not satisfied with the service provided, please click here.
For help and advice talk to a member of our clerking team. They can advise on the best options for your matter.
Call: +44 (0) 20 7353 3102
