+44 (0) 20 7421 8007
Paul is regularly instructed to appear for both the Defence and Prosecution in the most serious criminal cases. He is a Grade 4 CPS Prosecutor and is on the RASSO (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences) panel. He specialises in cases with complex legal issues.
He regularly defends and prosecutes in cases of homicide, serious sexual offending (including rape and child sexual exploitation), arson (with intent to endanger life), large–scale supply of drugs and fraud. He is regularly instructed in firearms matters, including cases where firearms are used to commit serious crime.
He has recently led in the defence a 16 year-old on an attempted murder charge.
Paul has a particular interest in Health and Safety law and associated regulatory offences.
In cases involving novel points of law, Paul will undertake the necessary research and draft the appropriate skeleton argument.
Paul regularly presents lectures on new elements of law and has done so for Leicestershire Law Society, individual Firms and 36 Group.
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. 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 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 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.
VIOLENCE
R v C (2018) Northampton Crown Court (D)
Paul was instructed to defend the alleged shooter in a complex multi-handed section 18 and in a joined 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 also abe to alter his advocacy style as issues arose in order to present the evidence in the best light.
SEXUAL OFFENCES
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.
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 to have the Count relating to stealing vehicles (Count 1). Paul supported his submission with authorities and a skeleton argument.
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.
CONSUMER
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.
NOTEABLE COURT OF APPEAL CASES
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
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