Matthew is an experienced junior who both prosecutes and defends in criminal and regulatory/consumer law cases.
In crime, Matthew’s practice covers, particularly, cases involving sexual offences, large-scale drug supply and production, serious violence (including firearms matters) and fraud. Within regulatory and consumer law, Matthew’s practice includes trading standards, licensing and planning law cases.
Matthew is known as a persuasive and tenacious barrister whose effective court advocacy is underpinned by meticulous preparation. He is accustomed to dealing with cases involving a substantial volume of evidence, requiring careful management and analysis and is often instructed in matters turning on complex issues of law, fact or both.
Matthew also frequently deals with particularly sensitive cases such as matters involving alleged domestic abuse, driving offences where catastrophic injury has resulted, cases involving a mental-health dimension and matters requiring the careful questioning of vulnerable witnesses. Matthew was recently praised by the Court for his approach in prosecuting the difficult case of R v Nay – widely reported in the media (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36396341).
Matthew is committed to providing excellent client care. He seeks to provide advice, at an early stage, in a clear, straightforward and down-to-earth way. In consumer and regulatory areas; Matthew is known for his practical and commercial approach.
- General Crime
- Forfeiture & Confiscation
R v J (Leicester Crown Court)
Representing J, a martial arts instructor, who was accused of sexually assaulting 7 of his students over an 18 month period. J acquitted of all 14 counts charged at trial.
R v S (Leicester Crown Court)
Defending S who was charged with historic allegations of rape, the offences were said to have been committed against family members. S was acquitted after trial.
R v L (Northampton Crown Court)
Representing L who was charged with recent sexual offences alleged to have been committed against a 7 year old child. This case required careful cross-examination of a very young witness. L was acquitted after trial.
R v B (Northampton Crown Court)
Defending B who is charged with making indecent images of children. The defence advanced by B is that he has been the victim of computer hacking by a former business associate. The case involves large volumes of technical computer evidence and several experts are to give evidence at the trial.
R v S (Leicester Crown Court)
Defending S who was charged with mortgage fraud. S was alleged to have duped a vulnerable female friend into signing mortgage documents, obtaining several hundred thousand pounds as a result. This case required the analysis of a very substantial volume of evidence and sensitive but effective cross-examination of the Complainant at trial. S was acquitted.
R v V (St Albans Crown Court)
Defending V who was acquitted of money laundering arising out of a complex fraud conspiracy.
R v S (Nottingham Magistrates’ Court)
Privately instructed to represent S in an application to set-aside a forfeiture notice under s.297E Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
R v P (Luton Crown Court)
Defending P who was charged with s.18 wounding having allegedly slashed the throat of the Complainant with a Stanley Knife during a fight. C suffered near fatal injuries during the incident. P advanced self-defence and was acquitted after trial.
R v C (Snaresbrook Crown Court)
Representing C, a youth, charged with s.18 wounding arising out of an allegation that he had struck an adult with a piece of wood containing nails. Acquittal secured
R v G (Birmingham Crown Court)
Representing G, an elderly man with profound dementia, who had stabbed his wife at home with a kitchen knife. G was subsequently charged with s.18 wounding with intent. He was found to be unfit to plead and an actus reus trial followed. The Court was ultimately persuaded to impose a hospital order without restriction.
R v W (Reading Crown Court)
Defending W, 15, who received a youth rehabilitation order following a plea to serious, multi–handed, offences of violence. Every other Defendant received a lengthy custodial sentence.
R v Wenham (Reading Crown Court)
Led junior. W was accused of the murder of a prostitute – advancing diminished responsibility in unusual circumstances. Case widely reported in the media.
R v L (Reading Crown Court)
L was charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. This case arose out of a lengthy police operation and involved a huge volume of surveillance evidence. Evidence obtained by covertly placed audio recording devices was successfully excluded and an acquittal was secured.
R v J (Luton Crown Court)
Defending J who was acquitted of possession with intent to supply and offering to supply Class A drugs. This case involved interesting legal argument about whether the Crown were required to prove the type of drug offered where slang terms were used to describe substances in text messages.
R v Nay (Northampton Crown Court)
Prosecuting N who collided with a family vehicle after driving dangerously during an incident of ‘road rage.’ Two young children travelling in the family vehicle suffered paralysis. N claimed that the collision had been the result of a momentary lapse of concentration. This explanation was rejected by the Court following a Newton hearing. The case was widely reported in the national media.
R v M (Isleworth Crown Court)
Representing a probation officer accused of Misconduct in Public Office by entering into a relationship with an offender whom she supervised and harbouring him during a further police investigation.
R v W
Prosecuting W who was charged with offences contrary to s.92 Trade Marks Act 1994 in a case involving the sale of counterfeit car wheel and bonnet badges. The prosecution case was that W had been marketing and selling counterfeit badges on a significant scale through Ebay and Paypal accounts (about $55,000 of transactions were discovered upon investigation). This case required the careful analysis of several thousand pages of evidence including financial records. At his first hearing before the Magistrates’ Court; W had indicated his intention to contest the case. A detailed opening note was provided to the defence at an early stage following which W pleaded guilty. Confiscation proceedings are ongoing.
R v O
Prosecuting O who was charged with failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice (Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.179). O had divided a London property into flats, without planning permission to do so, earning a substantial rental income. Following O’s conviction, confiscation proceedings commenced.
R v W
W, a second-hand car trader was charged with multiple offences contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The most serious allegations involved the suggestion that W had falsified MOT certificates in respect of defective vehicles.