Daniel Chadwick

Criminal Defence

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.

Notable cases:

R v CZ

Counsel for the first defendant in a case of supplying fraudulently obtained passports to serious criminals intent on fleeing the jurisdiction. The National Crime Agency have described the case as “one of the most significant NCA investigations of recent times” stating “this group’s activities have enabled some of the most serious organised criminality in the UK and around the world”. The case attracted substantial coverage from the national media.

R v IA

Instructed on behalf of a student nurse alleged to have committed a campaign of rape and sexual assault against psychiatric patients under his care.  Daniel’s cross-examination (under s.28 YJCEA 1999) resulted in the Crown offering no further evidence in respect of one complainant; the trial of the remaining counts has been adjourned until November 2023.

R v EG

Murder. Represented a man accused of murdering and dismembering his mother. The prosecution abandoned reliance on a forensic psychiatrist as an expert witness after the defence exposed his non-compliance with expert evidence rules and ensuing disclosure issues. A special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity was returned. Led by Narita Bahra QC.

R v JR

Attempted murder. Secured an acquittal for a man who stabbed his girlfriend’s father eleven times whilst he lay sleeping in bed. Sole counsel.

R v RJ

Represented a man accused of seriously sexually assaulting his niece and nephew when they were children in the 1980s. The defence case was that the complainants had conspired to falsely accuse him as revenge for their involvement in publicising his daughter’s terminal illness in a local newspaper. Following a seven-day trial, the defendant was completely acquitted of all charges.

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.