1st Mar 2021 Read more
Daniel’s reputation and experience in defending serious organised crime as both a led junior and junior alone has seen him instructed in cases nationwide by clients charged with a wide range of offences, namely homicide and serious violence, firearms, large scale drugs offences, conspiracies and serious sexual offences.
He excels in his analysis of evidential and tactical issues at the early stages of a case, and in the skilled and carefully constructed presentation of arguments to courts and prosecuting authorities. Daniel understands the benefits of adopting a proactive and collaborative approach to his cases and is a naturally versatile barrister; his experience and judgment in defending serious crime puts any client at ease.
R v PO
Aggravated burglary, GBH with Intent (s.18) and Witness Intimidation. Represented a man alleged to have impersonated a police officer in order to mount a home invasion robbery in which the occupant was viciously and repeatedly struck with a hammer, causing broken bones to the face and legs; augmented by threats at court to kill. Defence case was ‘fit-up’. Jury acquitted on all charges following a two-week trial.
R v SH
s.18 GBH and Conspiracy to rob. Targeted robbery in which the complainant’s taxi was followed home from Central London and he was attacked in his kitchen with knives. Defence used the prosecution’s own CCTV and ANPR evidence – and evidence of the victim’s conduct – to successfully undermine the ‘targeted robbery’ theory and establish instead that the victim’s home had been attended by arrangement for the purpose of purchasing drugs from him. Complete acquittal following a three-week trial.
R v SM
Represented the lead defendant and alleged head of an organised crime group in relation to multiple kilogram shipments of Class A drugs from the North West of England to Scotland.
R v BD
Secured the acquittal of a former prison officer alleged to have conducted an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner. Detailed and extensive requests for third-party disclosure led to the production of intelligence reports and internal emails which formed the backbone of the defendant’s case that she was the victim of misconduct rather than the perpetrator of it.
R v PB
Sexual activity with a child under 13. Historic allegations made by the defendant’s sister and niece. Trial involved meticulous cross-examination of a 13 year old complainant.