Alex Jamieson

Barrister

"Alex is a remarkable lawyer who shows a mixture of legal know how and client care and compassion together with a practical attitude to getting on with the job at hand. He is extremely hard working and a very clever strategist. He is an exceptional advocate." Legal 500 2025

Practice Overview

Alex is a tenacious and results-driven advocate. He practices principally in the areas of

National Security
Inquiries and Inquests
Regulatory Law
Serious and Organised Crime

The hallmarks of Alex’s practice are forensic analysis, strategic advice and powerful advocacy. He specialises in those cases that concern the most fundamental collision between individual and corporate rights on the one hand, and the interests of the State on the other.

Alex has been instructed to appear at many of the major public inquiries of recent years, whether as Counsel to the Inquiry or on behalf of a core participant. For 2024/25, Alex has been instructed to represent the victims of Lucy Letby at Lady Justice Thirlwall’s Inquiry. During 2023 he served as junior Counsel to Sir John Mitting at the Undercover Policing Inquiry, where (amongst other duties) he represented the Chairman in relation to restriction orders sought by the Security Service and the police forces. Before that, he served for 4 years as first junior counsel for the bereaved families of those killed in the Manchester Arena Bombing Public Inquiry.

Complementing his Inquiry practice, Alex has extensive experience in inquest proceedings where he represents both families and those under scrutiny. He has appeared in many complex Article 2 cases, particularly those that touch upon deaths arising in healthcare, prison and military settings.

Alex was appointed to the Attorney General’s panel of Special Advocates in 2017 and is one of the very few advocates trusted to represent excluded parties in Closed Material Proceedings, whether before SIAC or any other tribunal. In recent years, he has been instructed in many of the leading National Security cases including: Abu Zubaydah (a claim for damages against the UK for complicity in torture in US ‘Black Site’ prisons); Saifullah (the human rights judicial review that led to the creation of the Afghanistan Public Inquiry); LetterOne (the first challenge brought to trial in relation to the Secretary of State’s call-in powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021); and various legal challenges to the Afghanistan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP) cases including CX1 and MP1.

The foundations of all of Alex’s practice have been built on many years of Courtroom experience in the litigation of fraud and of serious crime. He still accepts instructions in those areas, and tends to be particularly sought after where factually and legally complex allegations are concerned.

As well as providing courtroom representation, Alex advises individuals and corporates, particularly in the areas of regulatory compliance and investigations. Recent clients have included international film industry bodies, sporting regulators and household-name corporates.

Alex can accept Direct Public Access instruction.

National Security

Abu Zubaydah v FCDO and others: Abu Zubaydah was detained by US military forces in Pakistan in March 2002, and has been in detention ever since. Between 2002 and 2006 he alleges that he was tortured at a series of ‘black sites’ across the world, before his transfer to Guantanamo Bay in 2006 where he remains. His claim alleges UK complicity in his unlawful rendition and torture, and has already been considered by the Supreme Court on the issue of whether domestic law is applicable. Alex is instructed as Special Advocate for the Claimant.
R (CX1, MP1 and others) v Secretary of State for Defence: The case was heard before the Divisional Court, with HMG represented by a team of advocates led by Sir James Eadie: Alex was instructed as Special Advocate for the Claimants. The facts concerned judicial review challenges brought by the Claimants against decisions of the SoS that they were not eligible for relocation to the UK under the ARAP scheme. The claim succeeded.
R (Saifullah) v Secretary of State for Defence: Bereaved Afghani civilians claimed that their relatives had been deliberately and unlawfully killed by UK Special Forces in the conduct of ‘Direct Detention Operations’ and brought judicial review proceedings alleging breach of Article 2. At the Defence Secretary’s application, the Court made a CMP declaration pursuant to s6. of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and Alex was then appointed junior Special Advocate, led by two KCs. After an extended disclosure exercise, the case concluded with the Government’s concession that it would appoint Lord Justice Haddon-Cave to chair a new statutory public inquiry to investigate and report on allegations of wrongdoing by the British Armed Forces in relation to their conduct of deliberate detention operations (DDOs) in Afghanistan in the period 2010 - 2013
R (L1) v Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office: A novel and high-profile judicial review challenging the SoS’ exercise of new call-in powers under the National Security and Enterprise Act 2001. The case concerns a challenge to a Final Order (issued in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine) that a Russian-owned investment company must divest its holding in a UK broadband provider for national security reasons. Alex is appointed as Special Advocate for the Claimants.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v LXB: Proceedings considering the first TPIM imposed on an individual said to hold extreme right-wing beliefs.
C9: A deprivation case. C9 challenges the decision to deprive him of his British Citizenship on national security grounds. The decision is defended on the grounds that the NCA assess him to be the head of an organised crime group focussing primarily on organised immigration crime facilitating the movement of migrants by HGV’s and small boats.
C10: C10 is one of a number of deprivation cases where British women detained in Camp Roj, Syria challenge the decision to strip them of their citizenship. Alex is appointed as Special Advocate, with the case to be determined once the linked case of Shamima Begum has concluded.

Directory Recommendations

Alex has been recommended in the professional directories for many years and under several specialisms. Recent citations include,

"Alex is an exceptional advocate who gets the best results possible." Chambers UK 2025, Professional Discipline
"An excellent, thoughtful and forensic advocate." Chambers UK 2025, Professional Discipline
"He is like a silent assassin in his cross-examinations." Chambers UK 2025, Professional Discipline
"Alex is well-respected within the profession. He is very experienced and is also a very skilled and persuasive advocate who has a calm and gentle manner which can be disarming for his opponents." Legal 500 2025, Crime
"Alex is a great tactician. He inspires confidence in his clients with his gravitas and reasoned approach." Legal 500 2025, Fraud: Crime
"Alex is a remarkable lawyer who shows a mixture of legal know how and client care and compassion together with a practical attitude to getting on with the job at hand." Legal 500 2025, Inquests and Inquiries
"Alex's knowledge of procedure in these fields is unparalleled. He is extremely hard working and a very clever strategist. He is an exceptional advocate." Legal 500 2025, Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Work
"Alex is the complete package. A compelling and forensic advocate, hugely bright, and gets to the key issue of a case exceptionally quickly. Excellent with clients." Legal 500 2024, Inquests and Inquiries
"He delivers fantastic results on veterinary work. He's a hugely empathetic individual who is razor-sharp intellectually. He's excellent at understanding and explaining the issues. I couldn't praise him highly enough" Chambers UK 2024, Professional Discipline
"Alex is extremely personable and down to earth and provides honest and practical advice. He cares deeply about his clients and in court, he is eloquent and persuasive." Legal 500 2024, Fraud: Crime
"Alex always surpasses expectations - he's very thorough and very academic; he has very good judgement and is somebody I would instruct in a heartbeat." Chambers UK 2024, Professional Discipline
"A skilled barrister with a robust cross-examination technique and adaptable style." Legal 500 2024, Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Law
"Alex is calm, considered, reassuring and intellectual. He is a safe pair of hands for any case." Legal 500 2024, Crime
"Provides direct and clear advice in an empathetic way. Puts clients at their ease but gets his message across very effectively. Understated but persuasive advocacy style - very measured." Legal 500 2023, Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Law
"Alex is tremendously diligent and hardworking. He is also very attentive and compassionate in relation to his clients" Legal 500 2023, Inquests and Inquiries
"Alex is extremely knowledgeable. He is down-to-earth which makes him well-liked by clients. He is a passionate advocate." Legal 500 2023, Fraud: Crime
"Alex has a razor-sharp academic mind which he uses to apply nuanced arguments to every case. He is approachable and practical and immediately puts clients at ease" Legal 500 2023, Crime
"Alex brings an incredible calmness to case preparation and court advocacy. He seems able to slow time and centres on the key issues in cases, filtering out the noise. His calmness and targeted communication allows him to engage with lay clients at ease, building respect and confidence with them. It also allows him to command the attention and respect of judges and tribunals alike." Legal 500 Crime 2022
"A great advocate who is down to earth, knowledgeable, and remains serene under pressure." Legal 500 Fraud Crime 2022
"Excellent with clients and very user-friendly - definitely a team player. His advocacy skills are top class." Legal 500 2022 Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Law
"Very thorough and detail focused - a supremely confident performer and impressive advocate." Legal 500 2022 Inquests and Inquiries
“A superb barrister. Impressive beyond his years, clever and with excellent judgement…” Legal 500, 2021 (Professional Discipline)
“Alex has the gravitas of someone more senior than his years and his approach to cases is sensible, pragmatic, reasonable and thorough. He meticulously prepares all cases and will run all the possible legal arguments required taking advantage of lapses in procedure to exclude and challenge evidence. He is a class act and someone who can turn his hand to any case. He is popular with clients who find his manner approachable and his willingness to go the extra mile for a client is noteworthy.” Legal 500, 2021 (Fraud)
“He exudes an aura of control through his calm demeanour. His calmness and measured approach, allows him to engage with lay clients at ease, building respect and confidence with them quickly. Lay clients find his “no nonsense”, “say it as it is” approach reassuring, as it provides clarity." Legal 500, 2021 (Crime)
"Hardworking, with a brilliant brain." Legal 500, 2020 (Fraud)
"A poised and persuasive advocate." Legal 500, 2020 (Professional Discipline)
"He has a controlled and measured approach..." Legal 500, 2020 (Crime)
"He knows his cases inside-out and impresses with his attention to detail. He is very bright and tactical, clients like him because of his relaxed manner." Legal 500, 2019
“He exudes confidence in an understated way." Legal 500, 2018
“He has an eloquent and uncompromising approach, combining genuine legal acumen with a practical touch.” Legal 500, 2017

Selected Lectures and Publications

Human Rights and Benefit Calculations – Address to the Criminal Law Friendly Society
Unexplained Wealth Orders – 25 Bedford Row Fraud Group Bulletin
Impairment, Sanction & the Public Interest – Address to the General Dental Council
Approaching the Inquest from the Regulatory Perspective - Address to the Royal College of Nurses
The Regulation of Health & Social Provisions Bill
The Criminal Liability of Companies – for PLC

Professional Memberships

Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers
CyberCrime Practitioners Association

Education

MA (Cantab) in Law, Jesus College, Cambridge

Inquiries

The Thirlwall Inquiry: Alex is instructed as junior counsel for two groups of families who fell victim to the crimes of Letby. The Inquiry is due to hear evidence for the remainder of 2024 and conclude sometime in 2025.
The Dawn Sturgess Inquiry: Alex has been instructed to represent the interests of an individual called to give evidence before the Inquiry.
The Manchester Arena Inquiry: Alex appeared as First Junior (and latterly Leading Junior) in a team of advocates representing families of those killed in the bombing of the Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena. The substantive hearing began in September 2020 and sat for more than 100 court days over 18 months. Sir John’s 3 reports into the tragedy laid bare the failures at every level that had created the circumstances in which the murderers could launch their cowardly attack on unsuspecting members of the public.
Afghanistan Armed Forces Inquiry: Instructed as Special Advocate in the Saifullah judicial review. Bereaved Afghan citizens alleged that their relatives had been unlawfully killed by UK forces in the conduct of Direct Detention Operations, and that those events were subsequently ‘covered’ up by senior figures in the military and Government. The extensive disclosure exercise conducted by the Special Advocates uncovered evidence that has led to the Defence Secretary to appoint Lord Justice Haddon Cave to conduct a full, Statutory inquiry into issues raised by the allegations.
Undercover Policing Inquiry: Alex was appointed as Counsel to Sir John Mitting’s Inquiry during 2023. He served on the Tranche 3 team, which focuses on the actions of the Met Police’s Special Demonstration Squad between 1993 and 2007.
David Fuller Inquiry: Instructed to represent several family groups both in their interactions with Sir Jonathan Michael’s Inquiry and in their related civil claims.

Inquests

Deepcut: Together with King’s Counsel, Alex represented the family of Geoff Gray, 3^rd of the 4 young soldiers to die at the notorious Deepcut barracks in the 1990s/ early 00s. Alex was instructed both in the proceedings before the High Court that led to the quashing of the original inquest, and at the extensive re-inquest before HH Peter Rook QC in the Spring and Summer of 2019.
Olivia Perks Inquest: Olivia died whilst training to become an Officer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in February of 2019. The circumstances of her death were then the subject of a full Service Inquiry conducted by Col Rob Manuel and disciplinary and criminal investigations concerning various members of the Academy staff. The full The case has been covered extensively in the media throughout its progress. Alex has been instructed to represent her father at the inquest before the Berkshire Coroner’s Court which is to be heard across 5 weeks in the Spring of 2023.
Harper Denton Inquest: Harper was only 8 weeks old when she was murdered by her father Kevin Eves. After her death, it emerged that – under a different name - he had previously served a long prison sentence for seriously assaulting another infant in his care. After release he had been successful in avoiding monitoring by changing identity and moving county. Alex was instructed by the local authority and their Safeguarding Children Board, who had investigated the matter and concluded that gaps in the national legislative landscape had contributed to Harper’s death. He was successful in persuading the Coroner to hold an Article 2 inquest, to join the Home Office as an interested party, and ultimately to issue a PFD reports to National Government concerning the lack of a register (or notification requirements) for those who offend violently against children
Jason Milnes Inquest: Representing an NHS hospital trust at an enhanced Article 2 inquest into the circumstances in which an inpatient had self-ligatured whilst suffering from the side effects of uncontrolled HIV and secondary infection.
Mark Clark Inquest: Representing a GP alleged to have contributed to the death of a prisoner who developed cancer whilst incarcerated by providing inadequate care. After Alex’s cross-examination of the expert who had provided that opinion, the Coroner concluded that there had been no such causal failure and returned a conclusion of natural causes.
Chris Carpenter Inquest: Representing the responsible NHS Trust in relation to the death of a prisoner in HMP Woodhill. Mr Carpenter was a vulnerable prisoner with an extensive history of substance misuse and self-harm. The Senior Coroner held an enhanced Article 2 inquest and together with a jury inquired into the provision of the various healthcare services within the prison; the availability of ‘spice’ and other drugs in the custodial environment; and instances of bullying and prisoner violence. At the end of the evidence the Coroner withdrew from the jury any issue of insufficiency of healthcare-provision.
Jacqueline Oakes Inquest: Jacqueline Oakes was killed by her partner Marcus Musgrove in January 2014. Given his antecedent criminality and her significant vulnerabilities, the circumstances of her death and the involvement of various state agencies in the case was considered in an enhanced Article 2 inquest before the Senior Coroner for Birmingham in October 2018. Alex represented the six police officers who had been involved in various investigative decisions proximate to the killing of Ms. Oakes, and whom the relevant police force had declined to represent. At the conclusion of the case, the jury returned a determination that held none of them caused or contributed to the death.
MD Inquest: Mrs D. tragically died of complications that arose from an epidural she was given during childbirth. At inquest, Alex represented the Specialist Registrar who was said to have failed to apprehend signs of Mrs D’s deteriorating health. Those allegations did not feature in the Conclusions returned at the end of the case.

RCVS v Dr P: A complex case concerning allegations of the utmost seriousness that sat over 4 weeks. Dr P was the principal vet and owner of a large and successful multi-site veterinary practice. She faced multiple charges of dishonesty, lack of probity, clinical incompetence and lack of care. Following cross examination, she was acquitted of all the dishonesty, probity and lack of care allegations. The admitted clinical shortcomings were dealt with at stage two with a finding of no misconduct, a finding which amounted to a ‘complete exoneration’ in the words of the College
Met Police v PC RH: A notorious case, involving three serving police officers sharing egregiously racist and sexist material on a ‘private’ WhatsApp group. At the conclusion, RH was found (on his admission and in contrast to his co-defendants) to have committed only misconduct, rather than gross misconduct. Whilst the other two officers were dismissed, the Panel held it was not necessary to impose that sanction in his case.
GMC v Dr MI: The Dr was alleged to have been culpable in the death of a young mother in childbirth, and the GMC sought his interim suspension. Through forensic analysis of the Council’s own evidence and expert reports, it was possible to show that there could be no causal link between the Dr’s actions and the tragic outcome, and he was permitted to continue practicing without restriction. The GMC were then persuaded to discontinue the substantive proceedings.
CICIAIR v AI: Representing private-sector approved building inspectors, accused of failing to discharge their fire-safety responsibilities in respect of the conversion of an office block to residential flats. CICAIR were persuaded to disapply their Rules’ purported reverse-burden of proof. The Inspector was acquitted of deliberate wrongdoing, and permitted to continue to practice in respect of the admitted shortcomings.
FA v DN: Instructed by the Association to resist an appeal brought by a football coach against disciplinary sanctions, imposed in respect of charges that he had used racially aggravated insulting words and behaviour towards a player in his own team. Following written and oral submissions, the appeal was dismissed with the panel’s original findings and sanction maintained with costs.
R (XYZ) v Commissioner of the Metropolis: Instructed by the Royal College of Nursing, Alex brought judicial review proceedings of the Met Commissioner’s refusal to quash a criminal caution imposed on a nurse. The application was successful with the caution quashed, and the nurse’s record expunged.
RCVS v IV: Defending a vet accused of failing to obtain informed consent and record keeping errors in relation to a dog that died shortly after a dental procedure done under anaesthetic. Mr V was acquitted of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect (the College’s equivalent of serious misconduct) and allowed to return to practice unhindered.
RFU v JG: Instructed to advise and represent a Premiership coach in relation to his interim ban from participation in rugby related activity. Negotiated return to practice agreed with the Union after detailed representations on the merits of the case.
GDC v TA: Defending in a notorious case before the GDC, the registrant was a former dentist to the rich and famous, and the UK’s foremost provider of ‘Invisalign’ invisible orthodontic teeth aligners. He was alleged by the GDC to have continued to accept payments for treatments which were impossible for him to perform since he had ceased making payments to the manufacturers, and had instead diverted funds from the practice. The case required 60 sitting days spread across many months.
FA v AG: The case concerned allegations that a professional footballer had placed bets on the outcomes of matches in competitions in which his team participated, including the FA cup and Football League matches. The case concluded with a modest financial penalty, and no ban from football related activity.
GDC v XY: A serious and novel case: the Registrant was accused of continuing to practice over many years whilst concealing his knowledge that he was HIV+ and refusing treatment for his condition, thereby exposing all those he dealt with to the risk of infection. His defence involved challenging the accuracy of the scientific consensus around HIV, AIDS and the efficacy of diagnostic tests.
GDC v MS: Junior alone in a case concerning complex allegations of clinical incompetence and financial impropriety in the operation of the DenPlan capitation scheme.
NMC v DG: A harrowing case: The Registrant – a senior nurse in charge of a secure mental health facility – was accused of violently assaulting, beating and attempting to smother a series of vulnerable patients in her care. The matter had been prosecuted criminally, but when the CPS did not proceed with the case, the NMC brought forward the same allegations. Four apparent eyewitnesses to the abuse (care staff working on the ward) were called to substantiate the allegations. However, in the course of cross examination, it became apparent that the allegations had been made only when one of the four (all close friends) was herself under suspicion for serious misconduct, and had feared the Registrant was about to be a witness against her. In the panel’s words, their evidence was shown to be inconsistent, weak and not worthy of belief. At the close of the Council’s case, a submission of ‘no case to answer’ was granted on each of the counts, with the Registrant entirely exonerated.
NMC v SV: A case of alleged criminal sexual assault and unrelated poor clinical practice. The sexual assault element was found not proven after complainant was discredited in extensive cross-examination. The clinical issues – admitted at the outset – resulted in a caution, and the Registrant was ultimately able to return to practice without restriction.
NMC v AB and XY: Appearing alone for two Registrants in a case arising out of the notorious Parkside Nursing Home Scandal. The allegations were of systematic lack of care and neglect across multiple areas of daily life for vulnerable Residents with complex care needs. The result was one of the longest and most complex single NMC fitness to practice cases, with the substantive hearing listed for 7 consecutive weeks and involving complex, contested expert evidence and thousands of pages of primary material.
NMC v RB: A serious case that arose from the Mid Staffordshire Trust scandal, with the allegations including that the Registrant had been unaware of a patient’s decline and death, since she had been shopping for clothes on eBay. At the conclusion of this contested case, the Registrant was able to return to practice immediately, and subsequently all restrictions upon her practice were removed.

Fraud and Business Crime

HMRC v XYZ FC: Ongoing instruction to advise and to represent a sporting regulatory body, directly concerned with the investigation. The allegations at issue concern direct VAT and income tax fraud in the transfer of premier league football players, and have already been considered both by the High Court and the Crown Court.
Guernsey Law Officers v X: Instructed to advise in relation to on ongoing fraud and money laundering investigation. The case includes challenge to the pre-charge restraint order made under the law of the Bailiwick
City of London Police v Y: Instructed to seek the return of over £1million frozen under an AFO, in relation to an Iraqi national accused of grand corruption in state procurement. The Order was discharged and the funds returned.
R v LC (Leeds Crown Court): Defending a Trading Standards test case, where the allegation is of multi-million fraudulent trading. At issue is the legality of the secondary ticketing market for ‘gig’ tickets, and the operation of well-known platforms Ticketmaster and Viagogo.
R v RK (Central Criminal Court): defending an NCA prosecution described as the biggest money-laundering prosecution undertaken by the agency. The allegation was of a professional and expert organisation layering tens of millions of the proceeds of organised crime, and transferring those proceeds to havens outside of the jurisdiction. Diligent defence work uncovered endemic flaws within the Crown’s case to the extent that all defendants were ultimately acquitted when the Crown accepted they could no longer properly prosecute the matter.
R v LD (York Crown Court): Instructed alone to represent a subject of Operation Bryson, a Trading Standards Investigation alleging a multimillion boiler-room fraud. The case focuses on the alleged mis-selling of trusts and other legal instruments by solicitors and corporates, marketed as avoiding liability to pay for social care.
SFO v Bank PLC: Advising the SFO investigation concerning allegations of illegality in a credit-raising exercise conducted by a well-known UK High Street Bank.
ABC Ltd: Advising an SME in relation to allegations of bribery and corruption, arising out of a successful tendering exercise with a well know high-street retailer. Oversight and direction of an internal investigation, advising the corporate and directors on the issue of self-report to law enforcement.
R v AJ (Canterbury Crown Court): Acted for the first defendant in Operation Drayman, a multi-million pound alcohol diversion fraud and associated money laundering.
R v A, B, C & others (Southwark Crown Court): Case concerned multi-million pound excise-evasion fraud prosecuted by HMRC. Instructed to advise on any necessary disclosure and amenability of proceedings to a stay as an abuse of process, arising from alleged prosecution irregularities in pre-trial restraint of assets.
R v OO & others (Wood Green Crown Court): Led junior for the first defendant in a large-scale mortgage and banking fraud. The case involved allegations of complex criminality, multiple false identities and the defrauding many international lending institutions).

Homicide

R v ZK & others (Southwark Crown Court): An allegation of a gangland killing of a drug dealer by a criminal group, where the victim’s body had been dumped in a residential street in South London. The Court acceded to a submission of no case to answer in ZK’s case, with the Crown thereafter exercising their right to appeal the terminatory ruling
R v HC & others (Maidstone Crown Court): An allegation that a group of youths attempted to kill another teenager with ‘Zombie knives’. Acquitted of attempted murder.
R v JG & others: An allegation of joint enterprise murder, prosecuted in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Jogee. The Crown offered no evidence on the murder allegation on the first day of trial and accepted a plea to burglary following submissions before the Court.
R v RI & others: A case concerning an alleged gangland revenge-murder by firearm.
R v SA (Central Criminal Court): One of the most serious allegations of vehicle homicide to come before the Court in recent times. SL was alleged to have consumed very large quantise of alcohol as well as cocaine, before driving a defective motor vehicle in excess of 55 mph in the 30 mph zone. 7 children were struck and injured by the vehicle before it collided with parked cars at the side of the road, one tragically losing her life at the scene. Further details.
R v CG (Central Criminal Court): A case of causing death by dangerous driving in the context of a police pursuit. Following sightings of a drone being flown above HMP Wormwood Scrubs in the early hours of the morning, the defendant embarked upon a 90mph police chase through central London. He lost control of the vehicle and collided with a lamppost, killing his girlfriend who was the other occupant of the car. A drone was recovered from the wreckage of the car, together with drugs and phones. Further details.
R v SL & another: The defendant faced trial for his part in a serious motorway pileup, which caused the death of another motorist. He was ultimately accepted to have neither been responsible for the fatality, nor to have driven dangerously. The co-defendant received a lengthy prison sentence. Further details.

Trafficking

XX v & others: Presently embargoed. This case involved the most serious allegations of rape, torture and trafficking by an organised group of males, and concerned highly vulnerable complainants. The defendant was acquitted of all charges following submissions at the conclusion of prosecution case.
R v TS & others: (Central Criminal Court) trial. Appearing as led junior for the first defendant, the case concerned conspiracies to traffic Roma women into and within the UK for exploitation and sexual exploitation. The case concerned the making of the Country’s first Modern Slavery prevention orders. In relation to that issue, Alex led the complex legal arguments on behalf of the defendants, which touched upon issues of human rights, extra-territoriality and the proper ambit of enforcement by extradition.
R v JD & another: Appeared alone for the first defendant in an NCA modern slavery prosecution. The case concerned allegations of international trafficking of vulnerable Slovak Roma and subsequent forced servitude throughout the United Kingdom. The indictment spanned many complainants and spanned more than a decade.

Drugs

R v KJ & others (Liverpool CC): Instructed alone to defend a subject of Operation Manhattan investigated by TROJAN and prosecuted by a team led by King’s Counsel. The case involved a 30-defendant drug supply network of national reach, said to have deployed sophisticated counter-surveillance technology and techniques over an operative period of several years.
R v RA and others (Maidstone CC): A case deriving from the English Channel interception of a private yacht, which when examined was found to secreted throughout it more than a ton of high-purity cocaine.
R v ML & others (Basildon CC): Appearing alone against leading and junior counsel for the Crown, Alex defended the first defendant and principle subject of Operation Sunset, a joint prosecution mounted by the Metropolitan Police and Essex Serious and Organised Crime Division . The case concerned a two-year police undercover investigation into the national, multi-kilo cocaine distribution operation of an organised crime group, said to be headed by ML. At the conclusion of the two month trial, ML was acquitted of all charges and released.
R v AS (Wood Green Crown Court): AS was said to have been the head of two different drug supply conspiracies, each concerning in excess of 50kg of heroin. He had absconded from bail and left the country, and so was not present at the initial trials of each conspiracy, each of which resulted in comprehensive convictions. He was arrested upon his return to the country several years later, and Alex appeared alone at the trial of both matters before the same jury, who also heard of his previous conviction for an identical offence. At the conclusion of the trial, Mr AS was acquitted by the jury of involvement in either conspiracy.
R v RP & others (Central Criminal Court): Defending an NCA prosecution, concerning the ‘King of Benzocaine’, and revolving around alleged multi-ton drug conspiracies and the industrial-scale supply of cutting agents. After a month-long trial, Alex’s client was the only defendant acquitted of all charges by the jury. Further details.
R v SC & others: Appearing alone for the first defendant at trial in this large scale and complex drugs and money laundering conspiracy. The money laundering aspect of the case turned upon the proper construction of section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and has been reported in the Court of Appeal.

Other Serious Organised Crime

R v MM & others: Instructed for the first defendant in relation to an allegation of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The charges had arisen following 2 years of detailed investigation into the robbery of commercial premises in Putney. MM was the manager present in the premises at the time of the robbery, and had initially been interviewed as a witness. Detailed cell-site, telephone, forensic and ANPR investigations had led to his identification as the mastermind of the crime, and to the arrest of his confederates. At trial, MM was acquitted at the direction of the Judge. The remaining defendants were each convicted by the jury.
R v JB & others: Defending in a 20 defendant conspiracy to riot and rob, arising out of the London Riots in 2011. The case involved an organised mob descending on cafes in the St John’s Wood area and acting in concert to rob and riot. Served evidence included extensive phone and cell site evidence, expert video identification and contested DNA and fingerprint evidence. JB faced an overwhelming case (being obviously visible on camera wearing a motorcycle helmet, running from police, changing his appearance, and refusing to answer questions in interview). One of 3 defendants acquitted at the conclusion of a 5 week trial during which he did not give evidence.
R v AP & others: Defending the first defendant in eight-handed criminal proceedings arising from “Operation Canopus”, a year-long covert investigation into an organised crime gang operating in and around Croydon. The allegation was that the defendants had stolen to order dozens of high-powered motorcars, used those vehicles to commit a string of commercial burglaries, and deliberately engaged the police in high speed pursuits through residential streets, often discharging powder fire extinguishers out of vehicle windows in order to facilitate their escape.
R v MB: Possession of firearm with intent, following the discovery of three firearms at his property in the circumstances of his having allegedly threatened his neighbour with a gun. Acquitted.