Robert Meikle

Robert Meikle

Call: 1970

Interested in instructing Mr Meikle?

Please call 020 7353 6802 or complete the form below:

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Robert is a very highly experienced specialist criminal advocate.

Interested in instructing Mr Meikle?

Please call 020 7353 6802 or complete the form below:

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Crime Barrister

Robert has appeared in numerous serious cases across all areas of criminal work, including: murder, rape, offences of serious violence, importation of substantial quantities of class ‘A’ drugs and complicated frauds.

Notable Cases

  • Regina v Nazrul Khalique (2016): Successful prosecution of a husband who kidnapped his estranged wife outside her son’s school and so terrified her that, fearing he would kill them both, she attempted to leap from moving car at 40 mph.
  • R v Robert Delaney (2010) EWCA Crim 105 CA: Unlawful wounding by “glassing”. Defence of self-defence must be clearly explained to the jury, in particular that the onus of disproving self-defence lies on the Crown to the criminal standard.
  • Regina v Birmingham Crown Court ex p Nash (2005) EWHC 333 (Admin) DC: A defendant charged with an offence under s. 1 (1) (a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 is entitled to know the specific act or omission, alleged to have caused suffering to an animal, with which he is charged (MCR 1981 r 100)
  • Regina v McCarthy (2000): Leading counsel in conspiracy to import a very large quantity of Class ‘A’ drugs. One of a series of cases reliant on the evidence of a major “supergrass”, and the only one resulting in an acquittal.
  • Regina v Beatrice Jones (1999) Crim L R CA: Leave to appeal 7 years out of time following the decision in R v Preddy [1996] AC 815 refused because an alternative offence was available at the time; Article 7 of the ECHR inapplicable.
  • Williams & O’Hare v DPP (1994) 98 Cr App R 209 DC: Agent provocateur: extreme example of entrapment by police where they left the doors of a van open to see who would steal from it. Not liable to exclusion under s. 78 of PACE.
  • Regina v Minors & Harper (1989) 89 Cr App R 102 CA: The standard of proof required in determining whether a witness is available is the criminal standard, for the purpose of what is now s. 116 of CJA 2003.

Education & Qualifications


  • BPTC
  • LLB, University of Birmingham

Memberships


  • Criminal Bar Association
  • South Eastern Circuit

Recognition


  • Holker Award, Grays Inn
Barrister Portfolio close
Barrister Call CV Email

Remove All


Click here to email this list of barrister to a colleague.


Save barrister