+44 (0) 20 7421 8007
Paul is a renowned jury advocate whose exceptional knowledge of the law has earned him the nickname “Mr. Archbold.” Paul is regularly instructed as a Leading Junior in cases involving homicide, organised crime gangs who deal in drugs and firearms, serious sexual offending, fraud and POCA. He prosecutes and defends in equal measure. and has undertaken numerous cases where his opponent is a KC.
Paul successfully secured the acquittal of a sixteen years old youth with significant neuro-diverse difficulties who was accused of attempted murder. He is regularly instructed to prosecute attempted murder cases and recently successfully stepped up to prosecute the murder of a female who was almost decapitated when leading Counsel fell ill.
In addition to his homicide practice, Paul has a particular interest in Health and Safety Law and associated regulatory offences. He successfully defended a shop keeper who had sold ketamine which caused hospitalisation of consumers and successfully defended a man who was alleged to be providing customers with horse meat and passing it off as lamb.
Paul represented a scrap metal dealer who was ordered to pay a confiscation order of £1,000,000. Paul successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that the law had been misapplied and that the POCA legislation did not apply to his offence. Paul drafted the submissions for Tustin in the Court of Appeal guideline case of R v Stewart, Couzens, Tustin, Hughes, Monaghan in 2022 (re: application of whole life orders). Tustin’s sentence was not increased.
Paul has expertise in the prosecution and defence of serious and historic sexual offences and was recently instructed as Junior Counsel to prosecute in the case of a multiple rapist and blackmailer who received a life sentence upon conviction. Paul was instructed to prosecute the first s28 case in the pilot scheme at Kingston Crown Court.
In a case where Paul acted as a Leading Junior to represent a defendant for fraud which was undertaken by a group of offenders and which involved the theft, re-identification and conversion of the vehicles, Paul made a submission of no case to answer for his client which resulted in the defendant being acquitted of the primary offence. His was the only client not to receive a custodial sentence.
In addition to his court work Paul teaches advocacy for Lincoln’s Inn, regularly lectures on law and procedure for various Law Societies and for Chambers. He is a member of the Leicester Law School Advisory Board and a founder and chair of the Leicestershire Schools Courts Competition. Paul is joint Head of Pupillage at the 36 Group. He teaches barristers who wish to join the RASSO panel and is a vulnerable witness trainer.
CPS Panel appointments
General Crime Level 4
RASSO Level 4
Key cases
D) Defending
(P) Prosecuting
HOMICIDE
R v G (2024) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed as Junior Defence Counsel for the first defendant in this two-handed murder which is currently subject of an appeal. The defendant was a young person and had been subjected to gang-related violence. The incident was caught on CCTV and was significantly complicated by bad character applications by both Prosecution and Defence. There was also an application to exclude Police interview evidence.
R v S (2023) Central Criminal Court (D)
Paul was instructed as Junior Defence Counsel for the second defendant in this three-handed cut-throat murder. In addition to the complicated factual nexus, the case involved numerous complex legal arguments as to causation, exclusion of evidence, bad character, recall of witnesses and the appropriate use of the Court’s case management powers.
R v B and C (2023) Derby Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed as Junior Counsel for the prosecution. Two parents were accused of the murder of a baby in their care. There were large number of text messages and images to be sifted and presented, along with complex pathology evidence. The case was cut-throat and required forensic preparation to comprehend when each parent was alone with the child.
R v P and others (2022) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Paul was Junior Counsel for a young defendant in a multi-handed murder in Leicester. Through careful preparation and presentation of the evidence, it was shown that the Defendant’s involvement was limited. The Defendant was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/4-men-guilty-murdering-18-7797834
R v RM (2022) Leicester Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed as Junior Counsel for the Crown. The Crown’s KC was unwell during the trial and Paul continued the prosecution in his absence. The Defendant commenced a relationship with the victim. He contended that he had been the victim of historic abuse which triggered an episode of post-traumatic stress disorder when they were about to have sexual activity at his home, causing him to stab the victim and then hide her body. The defendant left a false trail for the police to follow which implied that the victim had left his home without incident.
R v M (2021) Birmingham Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed as Junior Counsel for the prosecution. The case was a retrial. It was domestic violence by a woman on a man and involved a large amount of contested psychiatric and psychological evidence. The case led to an unsuccessful appeal on the basis that the householder defence had not been left to the jury.
R v P, P and C (2019) Birmingham Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed by West Midlands Complex Casework Unit to prosecute a number of Defendants who had assisted a murderer to flee the West Midlands following his crime. The opening and closing speeches were important elements of the trial, as they brought together substantial amounts of CCTV, cell-site and mobile phone evidence. Paul prepared an opening that made heavy use of Court technology and visual aids in order to assist the jury understand the nature of the case they were about to hear and reinforced the presentation of the evidence during his closing speech, referring the jury back to elements of the evidence that had been highlighted during the trial.
R v G (2019) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Instructed as Junior defence Counsel in a matter of attempted murder. Visiting the Defendant on numerous occasions in custody, Paul managed to gain the trust of an extremely frightened and troubled young man, allowing him to engage with his Silk and the trial process. During the trial, Paul cross-examined witnesses and drafted submissions regarding the admissibility of key evidence.
R v A (2019) Norwich Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed to defend alone in this attempted-murder case. The case revolved around a serious assault in prison and significant admissions made by the Defendant in custody. Paul advised that psychiatric evidence should be obtained and, once complete, offered advice. An important issue arose during the case that concerned the level of harm suffered by the complainant and this required Paul to cross-examine a psychologist as to the effects of the assault on the complainant.
R v H (2018) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed as defence Junior Counsel in this two-handed murder in Leicester. Paul visited his young client in custody on numerous occasions to ensure he was fully familiar with the allegations and to take instructions. Paul visited the scene to understand the location concerned. The case concerned a stabbing in Leicester and issues surrounding identity and participation. Paul prepared the phone evidence in the case carefully and he cross-examined the Police Officer in the case and the cell-site expert.
R v C (2018) Woolwich Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed as prosecuting Junior in this cold-case murder from the 1970s. Paul examined numerous witnesses during the course of the evidence, including the ballistics expert.
SEXUAL OFFENCES
R v R (2025) Northampton (P)
Paul prosecuted a man in respect of the sexual abuse of a number of his cousins. The case was complicated due to the way in which the complaints emerged. The s.28 procedure was used.
R v L (2025) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Paul was led in this case which involved thousands of pages of evidence involving the grooming and sexual abuse of numerous teenage girls which was video recorded. Much of the evidence was served late and required careful consideration to provide important context. This led to the case resolving on a limited basis without the victims giving evidence.
R v Woodhouse (2023) Nottingham Crown Court (P)
Paul was Prosecution Junior in this case of multi-complainant rapes and blackmail over a period of twenty years which required significant work once the trial commenced. A legal ruling on bad character meant that substantial alterations were required to the jury bundles in order to keep the hearing slot. Paul’s accurate and speedy work on the jury bundles meant that the trial was able to proceed. Paul worked closely with his leader. He made the closing speech for the Crown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck55370xzgwo
R v H (2019) Northampton Crown Court (P)
Paul prosecuted this case where a defendant had sexually assaulted women and girls in Kettering. Due to a unique set of circumstances, and with the leave of the Court, Paul had to examine two witnesses in a recorded interview setting during the trial process. Paul worked hard to familiarise himself with the procedures and techniques used for such interviews and to ensure that they were admissible as evidence in court.
R v D (2016) (Leicester Crown Court) (D)
Allegations of child sexual exploitation including grooming, rape and forced child prostitution by the defendant. Numerous alleged offenders were in the dock. The complainant was vulnerable and required an intermediary. Counsel’s cross-examination of the complainant was commended by the Judge as “first-class.” The case involved vast tracts of telephone data and required numerous s.8 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 disclosure hearings as well as arguments as to admissibility and s.41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Paul produced the first draft of a 40-page admissions document which he then revised and amended following cross-examination and input from other Counsel.
R v B (2014) Kingston Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed to prosecute the first s.28 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act pilot case at Kingston Crown Court. The case concerned allegations that two boys (aged 4 and 6) were physically abused. Intermediaries were unavailable for the case and Paul had to ensure that questions to the witnesses were appropriate and in line with the Advocate’s Toolkits.
GENERAL
R v S (2024) Derby Crown Court
Paul was leading Counsel in this multi-handed car ringing conspiracy case. The case involved careful analysis of cell-site and phone data. Having mounted a number of successful applications to exclude evidence, he successfully applied at the half-way point in the trial that there was no case to answer in respect of the main count which related to conspiracy to steal the vehicles. Paul supported his submission with authorities and a skeleton argument.
R v G (2023) Leicester Crown Court / Court of Appeal
Paul prosecuted a Solicitor who had engaged in a number of serious frauds. The Crown’s evidence was documentary and additionally involved a co-defendant giving King’s evidence. Paul handled the case carefully and showed how the fraud worked using the documents and witness evidence. The Defendant appealed following her conviction, and instructed a KC. Paul appeared for the Crown at the Appeal hearing and demonstrated to the Court how the case was proved by the documents and the evidence of the co-defendant, leading the Court to dismiss the Appeal.
R v P (2021) Oxford Crown Court (D)
Defendant accused of damaging the genitalia of a baby. Paul cross-examined a Home Office Pathologist who had given evidence for the Crown and showed that the text messages in the case put the events in a different light.
R v M and others (2021) Derby Crown Court (D)
Multi-handed firearms case. The Defendant was alleged to have discharged a shotgun into a home late at night in Derby.
CONSUMER
R v H (2017) (D) Leicester Crown Court
Paul was instructed to defend in this case that involved the Fraud Act 2006 and the Food Safety Act 1990. The case involved a commercial-scale fraud of substitution of turkey for lamb perpetrated on butchers, restaurants and food outlets in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and further afield. There were a wealth of seized documents to investigate and explore. Acquitted.
R v P (2015) (P) Leicester Crown Court
Paul was instructed to appear for Leicester City Council in a “rogue-trader” prosecution of a builder. The builder had taken advantage of a vulnerable elderly man and taken large sums of money from him for work that was either not done or done to an inadequate standard.
NOTEABLE COURT OF APPEAL CASES
R v Tustin (re: Whole life orders) – Monaghan-Hughes-Tustin-Stewart-Couzens-Judgment
R v Magson [2022] EWCA Crim 1064 (re: Householder defence) – R-v-Magson-202102271-Final
R v Singh (re: Confiscation Orders (benefit)) [2015] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 14
R v Stallonec(re: proper construction of s.133 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980) [2011] EWCA Crim 1034
R v Ward (re: proper construction of s.240 Criminal Justice Act 2003) [2009] EWCA Crim 1022
R v Noon (re: use of cannabis for medicinal purposes) [2008] EWCA Crim 1928
Areas of expertise
(D) Defending
(P) Prosecuting
R v G (2024) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed as Junior Defence Counsel for the first Defendant in this two-handed murder. The incident was caught on CCTV and was significantly complicated by bad character applications by both Prosecution and Defence. There was also an application to exclude Police interview evidence.
R v S (2023) Central Criminal Court (D)
Paul was instructed as Junior Defence Counsel for the second Defendant in this three-handed cut-throat murder. In addition to the complicated factual nexus, the case involved numerous complex legal arguments as to causation, exclusion of evidence, bad character, recall of witnesses and the appropriate use of the Court’s case management powers.
R v B and C (2023) Derby Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed as junior Counsel for the prosecution. Two parents accused of murder of a baby in their care. There were large number of text messages and images to be sifted and presented, along with complex pathology evidence.
R v P and others (2022) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Paul was junior counsel for a defendant in a multi-handed murder in Leicester. Through careful preparation and presentation of the evidence, it was shown that the Defendant’s involvement was limited. The Defendant was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/4-men-guilty-murdering-18-7797834
R v RM (2022) Leicester Crown Court
Paul was instructed as Junior Counsel for the Crown. The Crown’s KC was unwell during the trial and Paul continued the prosecution in his absence. The Defendant commenced a relationship with victim. He contended that he had been the victim of historic abuse which triggered an episode of post-traumatic stress disorder when they were about to have sexual activity at his home, causing him to stab her and then hide her body. Defendant left a trail for Police to follow that implied the victim had left his home without incident.
R v M (2021) Birmingham Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed as junior Counsel for the prosecution. The case was a retrial and involved a large amount of contested psychiatric and psychological evidence.
R v P, P and C (2019) Birmingham Crown Court (P)
Paul wsa instructed by West Midlands Complex Casework Unit to prosecute a number of Defendants who had assisted a murderer to flee the West Midlands following his crime. The opening and closing speeches were important elements of the trial, as they brought together substantial amounts of CCTV, cell-site and mobile phone evidence. Paul prepared an opening that made heavy use of Court technology and visual aids in order to assist the jury understand the nature of the case they were about to hear and reinforced the presentation of the evidence during his closing speech, referring the jury back to elements of the evidence that had been highlighted during the trial.
R v G (2019) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Instructed as junior defence Counsel in a matter of attempted murder. Visiting the Defendant on numerous occasions in custody, Paul managed to gain the trust of an extremely frightened and troubled young man, allowing him to engage with his Silk and the trial process. During the trial, Paul cross-examined witnesses and drafted submissions regarding the admissibility of key evidence.
R v A (2019) Norwich Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed to defend alone in this attempted-murder case. The case revolved around a serious assault in prison and significant admissions made by the Defendant in custody. Paul advised that psychiatric evidence should be obtained and, once complete, offered advice. An important issue arose during the case that concerned the level of harm suffered by the complainant and this required Paul to cross-examine a psychologist as to the effects of the assault on the complainant.
R v H (2018) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed as defence junior Counsel in this two-handed murder in Leicester. Paul visited his young client in custody on numerous occasoins to ensure he was fully familiar with the allegations and to take instructions. Paul visited the scene to understand the location concerned. The case concerned a stabbing in Leicester and issues surrounding identity and participation. Paul prepared the phone evidence in the case carefully and in Court he cross-examined the Police Officer in the Case and the cell-site expert.
R v C (2018) Woolwich Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed as prosecuting junior in this cold-case murder from the 1970s. Paul examined numerous witnesses during the course of the evidence, including the ballistics expert.
R v C (2018) Northampton Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed to defend the alleged shooter in a complex multi-handed section 18. There were five defendants, three of whom where blaming C. Paul had to steer the case with skill as his case was attacked from all sides. It was necessary for Paul to draft written submissions at very short notice to deal with jury issues, admissibility points and late bad character applications. Paul was able to deploy a variety of advocacy styles as issues arose in order to present the evidence in the best possible light.
R v L (2025) Leicester Crown Court (D)
Paul was led in this case which involved thousands of pages of evidence involving the alleged grooming and sexual abuse of numerous teenage girls. Much of the evidence was served late and required careful consideration to provide important context. This led to the case resolving on a limited basis without the victims giving evidence.
R v Woodhouse (2023) Nottingham Crown Court (P)
Paul was prosecution junior in this case which required significant work once the trial commenced. A legal ruling on bad character meant that substantial alterations were required to the jury bundles in order to keep the hearing slot. Paul’s accurate and speedy work on the Jury Bundles meant that the trial was able to proceed. Paul worked closely with his leader and it was agreed that he would deliver the Prosecution speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck55370xzgwo
R v H (2019) Northampton Crown Court (P)
Paul prosecuted this case where a Defendant had sexually assaulted women and girls in Kettering. Due to a unique set of circumstances, and with leave of the Court, Paul had to examine two witnesses in a recorded interview setting. Paul worked hard to familiarise himself with the procedures and techniques used for such interviews and ensure that they were admissible as evidence in Court.
R v V (2018) Warwick Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed in a sensitive case involving the alleged sexual abuse of three girls. Paul took detailed instructions and advised that numerous actions were undertaken in order to put the best evidence before the Jury. Paul called five defence witnesses via the video link (in order to ensure they gave their best evidence) and used photographs, garments and actual furniture from the scene to avoid lengthy questioning of prosecution or defence witnesses. Paul spent time with the five witnesses overcoming cultural barriers and their concerns before they gave evidence.
R v D (2016) (Leicester Crown Court) (D)
Allegations of child sexual exploitation including grooming, rape and forced child prostitution by Defendant. Numerous alleged offenders in the Dock. Complainant was vulnerable and required Intermediary. Counsel’s cross-examination of the complainant commended by the Judge as first class. Vast tracts of telephone data. Case required numerous s.8 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 disclosure hearings as well as arguments as to admissibility and s.41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. All defence Counsel contributed to a 40-page admissions document prepared and revised by Paul.
R v B (2014) Kingston Crown Court (P)
Paul was instructed to prosecute the first s.28 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act pilot case at Kingston Crown Court. Case concerned allegations of two boys (aged 4 and 6) being physically abused. Intermediaries were unavailable for the case and Paul had to ensure that questions to the witnesses were appropriate and were in line with the Advocate Toolkits.
R v S (2024) Derby Crown Court
Paul led in this multi-handed car ringing conspiracy case. The case involved careful analysis of cell-site and phone data. Having mounted a number of successful applications to exclude evidence, he applied at the half-way point in the trial to have the Count relating to stealing vehicles (Count 1) removed from the Jury in respect of his client, which the trial Judge acceded to.
R v P (2021) Oxford Crown Court (D)
Defendant accused of damaging the genitalia of a baby. Paul cross-examined a home office pathologist who had given evidence for the Crown and showed that the text messages in the case put the events in a different light.
R v M and others (2021) Derby Crown Court (D)
Multi-handed firearms case, the Defendant being alleged to have discharged a shotgun into a home late at night in Derby.
R v H (2017) (D) Leicester Crown Court
Paul was instructed to defend in this case that involved a prosecution concerning the Fraud Act 2006 and the Food Safety Act 1990. The case involved a commercial-scale fraud of substitution of turkey for lamb perpetrated on butchers, restaurants and food outlets in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and further afield. There were a wealth of seized documents to investigate and explore. Acquitted.
R v P (2015) (P) Leicester Crown Court
Paul was instructed to appear for Leicester City Council in a “rouge trader” prosecution of a builder. The builder had taken advantage of a vulnerable elderly man and taken from him large sums of money for work that was either not done or done to an inadequate standard.
R v Tustin (re: Whole life orders)
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Monaghan-Hughes-Tustin-Stewart-Couzens-Judgment.pdf
R v Magson [2022] EWCA Crim 1064 (re: Householder defence) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Magson-202102271-Final.pdf
R v Singh (re: Confiscation Orders (benefit)) [2015] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 14
R v Stallone (re: proper construction of s.133 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980) [2011] EWCA Crim 1034
R v Ward (re: proper construction of s.240 Criminal Justice Act 2003) [2009] EWCA Crim 1022
R v Noon (re: use of cannabis for medicinal purposes) [2008] EWCA Crim 1928