Anthony Metzer KC

Civil Barrister

• O’Sullivan v Trading 212 UK Limited (2025/6): Lead counsel for Claimant in negligence/ contractual claim arising from trading account being closed and shares sold following requirements from the Defendant relating to the provision of identification documents. County Court trial continuing in early 2026. Ongoing.
• Mustafa v Commissioner of the Police of Metropolis (2025): Acting for Claimant in false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault/battery, trespass and breach of Data Protection Act 2018 claim. Police wrongly identified him as his brother whom they sought to arrest.  Claimant was arrested with force and PAVA spray deployed. He was detained for 10 hours.  Allegations of continued failures by the police to ensure the accuracy of personal data on their internal system after the claimant had been released and that prosecution was in bad faith. Ongoing.
• Oladunjoye v Commissioner of the Police of Metropolis (2025): Acting for Claimant following an alleged unlawful strip-search. Ongoing.
• Briggs v Chief Constable of Lincolnshire (2025): Acting for Claimant following a raid of a firearms storage site relating to potential unlawful activity from a tenant. The raid led to substantial losses for Claimant whose tenants’ were unable to occupy the site as he was unable to obtain the relevant permits. Ongoing.
• Longhurst/Ashman v Commissioner of the Police of Metropolis (2025): Acting for four Claimants in a false imprisonment and assault/battery claim with personal injuries sustained.
• Carr and Shanaghan v Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary (2025): Acted for mother and daughter Claimants arising from trespass onto her property and alleged false arrests, assaults and misfeasance in public office over a sustained period. Mother granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal following trial. Claim settled before Court of Appeal hearing.
• Breeze and Wilson v Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary [2025] EWHC 2684 Led two junior counsel in 3 -week malicious prosecution and misfeasance in a public office claim on behalf of Claimants in High Court The previously discontinued prosecution against them related to conspiracy to defraud the NHS based on fees attached to “extra care” in a care home.
• Jane Brown v Chief Constable of Essex Constabulary (2024): Claim for damages for assault, negligence, misfeasance, arising from an arrest in a restaurant where it is claimed police wrongly intervened in a family altercation. Claimant sustained serious injuries (fractured vertebrae) in police custody for which inadequate care was provided by the police. Claim settled on advantageous terms.
• Calvin McKenzie v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2024): Claimant was a university student of good character who was assaulted and falsely arrested for allegations of possession of drugs. Claim included an unlawful search and breaches of the Data Protection Act by the Defendant. Settled.
• Norman and Anor v Adler and Anor [2021] EWHC 3029 (Admin); [2023] EWCA Civ 785 Acted for Claimants in application for the committal of police officers for Contempt of Court arising from applications made by them to the Crown Court for search and seizure warrants. Appeared in High Court and Court of Appeal to set aside the orders and to commit the Respondents.
• Dad v General Dental Council (2021) EWHC 1376 (QB): Led for Applicant, a dentist who was not restored to the register due to a failure to disclose the details of an ongoing investigation  by the Scottish CounterFraudService:https://www.goldsmithchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021_WLR_D_310_Dad_v_General_Dental_Council.pdf
• Young v Commissioner of Police (2021): Acted for Claimant in claim for assault and false imprisonment. He was apprehended by officers wearing balaclavas and pointing machine guns directly at him. Following a search of his vehicle, the officers failed to notify him once he was no longer under suspicion or release him from handcuffs. Mediation led to a successful settlement.
• Marshalleck v MoJ (2021): Acted for Claimant in claim for assault and battery by prison officers whilst in custody at HMP Brixton. Defendant had failed to explain why use of force was reasonable and proportionate when the Claimant was fully compliant and was passive throughout. Settled prior to trial.
• Serafin v Malkiewicz (2020) [2017] EWHC 2992 (QB); ([2019] EWCA Civ 852; [2020] UKSC 23: Acted for the Defendants in this case as leading counsel in Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, after a libel/ misuse of private information trial lasting 8 days in the High Court, where successfully defeated the claims for damages and injunctive relief was defeated on the basis of truth, public interest and lack of privacy.  Court of Appeal overturned the decision on judicial fairness and Supreme Court considered the public interest defence and the extent of judicial intervention and legitimate appellate reversal of findings of fact. https://inforrm.org/2017/12/05/case-comment-serafin-v-malkiewicz-unbounded-self-confidence-and-lack-of-judgment-results-in-failed-libel-action-persephone-bridgman-baker/; https://www.goldsmithchambers.com/supreme-court-hands-down-judgment-in-serafin-v-malkiewicz-and-others/
• Brewer v Commissioner of Police (2020): Represented Claimant in trial heard remotely for personal injury sustained in custody as a result of a cell door having been forcibly closed on his foot.
• McCormick (2020): Acted for Defendant in a police misconduct hearing involving allegations of fraud, sexual complaint and production of false documents.
• Pollard v MoJ (2019-2020): Acted for Claimant in personal injury claim resulting in the loss of an eye whilst working at HMP Ford. Claim settled on advantageous terms.
• R (Hashim) v Police Misconduct Panel (2019): Acted for Claimant in a judicial review application. He was arrested by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service and prosecuted to trial for attempted burglary of a bank which was discontinued.
• Habib v Commissioner of Police (2017): Acted on behalf of deceased’s family following a forceful arrest which led to his death after an inquest concluded on in 2015 with a narrative conclusion critical of the police control/restraint and after-care. Action against the police included assault and breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR leading to a successful settlement and apology.
• Makinde v Commissioner of Police (2017): Represented Claimant at trial in contested action against the police for assault and battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Issues included whether the officers were acting within the Road Traffic Act when seeking to seize Claimant ’s vehicle and whether they were acting in the execution of their duty when they arrested the Claimant.
• Sayers v Hyland & CPS (2016): Advised Claimant charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in respect of a murder acquittal. The judge found a ‘gross failure’ by the CPS to comply with the AG Guidelines for Disclosure and in a second claim against the Chief Constable of Northumbria. Both claims settled.
• Boyle v Chief Constable Hampshire (2016): Trial for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution arising out of a football incident.
• Pugh & Others v Chief Constable South Wales [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB) : Led two junior counsels for 8 of 15 Cs in the UK’s largest action against the police, arising from the collapsed prosecution of the ‘Cardiff Three’.
• McDonnell v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWCA Civ 573: Acted for Claimant in claim for damages in County Court and Court of Appeal relating to excessive force by police. Involved novel Article 3 and 6 ECHR submissions.
• Christmas Island Veterans (Abdale and others v SSD [2014] UKUT 0477): Led in a claim against Ministry of Defence concerning exposure to harmful nuclear testing on Christmas Island during the 1950s, involving complex ( including nuclear physics and meteorology). Then second lead counsel in successful proceedings in Upper Tribunal before High Court Judge: https://www.goldsmithchambers.com/christmas-island-ruling/
• M (anon) & Others v Commissioner of Police (2015): Action against the police concerning widespread allegations of corruption and police connections with a criminal gang. Substantial award in settlement.
• Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis[2014] EWCA Civ 897: Appeared in County Court and successful in Court of Appeal on appeal on damages for false imprisonment. Now leading case.
• Bailey v Commissioner of Police (2012): Successful trial for Claimant for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
• R v HMCS ex p Hunter (2012): Judicial review concerning a rejected CICA Claim denied due to the delay in reporting the rape allegation.
• Ryder-Large v King(2010) [2008] EWHC 3404 (QB): Acted for Claimant in an unprecedented 29 separate allegations of malicious prosecution claims.
• Hunt v AB[2008] EWHC 2724 [QB]; [2009] EWCA Civ 1092 (CA): Acted alone in High Court and junior in Court of Appeal for Defendant in a malicious prosecution claim brought against a woman who alleged rape. Successfully established that she was not the ”prosecutor” in law.
• Buckley v Chief Constable Thames Valley Police [2009] EWCA Civ 356: Acted for Claimant in County Court and then in Court of Appeal on leading case to determine what constitutes objective reasonable grounds to arrest.

Crime Barrister

• R v K (anonymised) (2026): Acting for Defendant charged with assaulting his father following a public altercation whereby he saw him with new partner. Ongoing.
• R v Taylor (2026): Acting for Defendant charged with rape and sexual assault of his long-term partner of 15 years and mother to their five-year old son. Ongoing.
• R v Kleski (2021/6) Acting for Defendant charged with conspiracy to evade excise duty and allegedly using his furniture-importing business in the UK as a front linked with distribution of non-UK duty paid tobacco. Following 10-week trial, there will be re-trial. Ongoing.
• R v Gaberova (2025): Lead counsel for one of five Defendants, a Bulgarian national in a conspiracy allegation of espionage for Russia which attracted national and international publicity e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c39xkevzrdvt. .
• R v Cera (2025/6) : Acted for Defendant, a UK citizen originally from Albania prosecuted for conspiracy to commit immigration offences. Between 2022 – 2024 he allegedly falsely recorded himself as father of eight Albanian infants in order to secure UK passports. Application for permission to appeal sentence before Court of Appeal. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c629n1j79y5o
• R v Patwardhan (2025): Lead counsel in the prosecution of Defendant, previously been convicted of four counts of sexual assault towards patients during his time as a gynaecologist. Following publication of convictions further allegations arose.
• R v Provan (2021/2024): Lead counsel re-prosecuting a police officer previously convicted of raping a 16 year old girl in 2018, following the quashing by the Court of Appeal conviction involving abuse of process arguments. Re-trial in Crown Court alleged that the Court was misled by new evidence. Two complainants of repeated rapes in re-trial. Defendant convicted on all counts and sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment, including extended sentence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66595942
• R v Gaskin (2023): Lead counsel for prosecution where Defendant was convicted of three charges of child abduction.
• R v Boyaram (2023) : Lead counsel for Defendant prosecuted for murder following residential shooting in Birmingham. The case involved complex telephone data, ballistics and circumstantial evidence. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-66988510
• R v P (anonymized) (2023): Lead counsel for Defendant accused of maintaining sexual communications with a child who was 14 years old at the time, and during lockdown, was a pupil in his languages class.
• Moher v Moher (2022): Lead counsel for prosecution in landmark case, in which, for the first time, a man was convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour contrary to s.76(1) of the Serious Crimes Act 2015 for withholding a religious Jewish divorce (a “Get”) following divorce proceedings in the Family Courts.
• Abayahoudayan v Abayahoudayan (2022): Acted for Defendant’s former wife in a private prosecution for an offence of controlling and coercive behaviour based on his refusal to give a Get.
• Hilton and others (2022): Lead counsel for third Defendant in multi-handed conspiracy to import class B drugs and conspiracy to remove criminal property.
• R v Watkinson (2021): Lead Counsel for one of five Defendants charged with murder by stabbing. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis that he anticipated that the victim might come to some harm, but expressly denied he held the necessary intention to inflict GBH. https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/crime/scarborough-murder-trial-suspect-admits-there-was-a-plot-to-attack-solomon-robinson-who-was-fatally-stabbed-3120821
• R v Christensen (2021): Lead counsel for Defendant in murder case. Defendant had a history of killing animals and had expressed his wish to kill people. Defendant considered suitable victims to kill, before settling on an elderly man whom he stabbed repeatedly. He admitted killing and claimed diminished responsibility. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-56675533
• R v Wardley (2021): acted for Defendant an indecent assault and possession of child pornography case.
• R v Smith (2020, 2021): Lead Counsel in Crown Court and Court of Appeal for Defendant in alleged joint stabbing murder and on an appeal against sentence and conviction.
• R v Rekaya (2019): Acted for Defendant charged with fraud for falsely representing that he was a victim of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and further charge of obtaining leave to remain in the UK by deception.
  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/grenfell-tower-fraudster-jailed-after-claiming-90k-by-posing-as-victim-a4005006.html;  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46401808
• R v Aloudha (2019): Acted for Defendant prosecuted for a serious sexual assault and trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence in the London hotel room of the complainant, whom Defendant had met whilst staying at the same hotel.
• R v Simpson-Scott (2019): Lead counsel for Defendant prosecuted for the murder of his partner of 15 year and for the attempted murder of his friend and neighbour.
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48788677
• R v Lockridge (2019): Lead counsel for Defendant charged with the murder of her partner.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-47860444

• R v Bosha (2018): Lead counsel for one of five Defendants in murder trial where victim was killed in a frenzied stabbing for revenge. Defendant successfully acquitted of murder.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-46283396

• • R v T (2018): Prosecuted Defendants for  sexual assault on a child and cruelty offences against their two daughters, aged under 9 at the time, and perverting the course of justice.
  • R v Proctor (2017) : Lead counsel for Defendant in murder trial involving the death of a young woman while he was under the influence of cocaine. https://www.lhchambers.co.uk/newsroom/news/craig-andrew-proctor-sentenced-in-ellesmere-port-murder/
  • R v P (2017): Acting for the RASSO unit prosecuting a police officer accused of historic indecent assault.
  • R v Khan (2016): Lead counsel defending husband accused of the murder of his wife.
  • R v Ledesma (2016): Lead counsel defending nurse accused of gross negligence manslaughter after she transferred the wrong type of blood to the deceased. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-38918459
  • R v Dalli (2016): Acted for 17-year old Defendant in allegation of conspiracy to murder. Successfully acquitted. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/luigi-dalli-jailed-hitman-jilted-11289384; https://www.goldsmithchambers.com/anthony-metzer-qc-secures-acquittal-for-youth-in-five-handed-conspiracy-to-murder/
  • R v Beadman (2016): Lead counsel in defending allegations of murder, rape and false imprisonment of a schoolgirl. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20545g9616o; https://news.sky.com/story/man-guilty-of-holding-murdered-kayleigh-captive-10327337
  • R v Hoyle (2015): Lead counsel for Defendant in murder trial, known as the ‘Facebook Reunion Murder’, featuring in the BBC documentary, ‘The Prosecutors’. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-30413998
  • R v Purkins & Others (2014): Lead counsel for Defendant involving the death a private gym user after consuming ‘DNP’, a toxic pesticide. Acquitted of manslaughter. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33677629
  • R v Grillo & Grillo (2013): Successfully defended one of two sisters charged with defrauding Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25466909
  • R v Zinkevicius (2013): Lead counsel for Defendant in murder trial.
  • R v Konigshofer (2012): Acted for Defendant in conspiracy to rape in the Haredi community. Successful acquittal.
  • R v McGrath (2009): Acted for Defendant, a former Deputy Chairman of Preston Borough Council, relating to money-laundering allegations.
  • R v Etchu-Abangma (2009): Acted for Defendant in health and safety prosecution concerning death of vulnerable young person in care home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7913371.stm
  • R v Gomulu (2008). Acted for Defendant in murder trial: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7683524.stm

Immigration Barrister

• Ekwen (2025): Lead Counsel for Appellant in re-hearing following Upper Tribunal referral for national of France who has resided in the UK since childhood and was issued with a residence card under the EEA Regulations. Following an application under the EUSS in 2020, SSHD made decision to deport on basis of criminal offending. Issue whether 10 years continuous residency was interrupted by detention.
• Hasanaj v SSHD (Leonard Vasa v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 777): Lead counsel for Appellant in novel case concerning the interpretation of “facilitation of residence” and the scope of Withdrawal Agreement. Court of Appeal found that the stamp in Appellant’s passport amounted to facilitation. Accordingly, A was protected by Withdrawal Agreement: https://www.goldsmithchambers.com/court-of-appeal-allows-appeal-of-mr-hasanaj/
• E9 v SSHD (2024) (SC/188/2021): Lead counsel for Appellant. SIAC appeal concerning exclusion from the UK on public policy and public security grounds; namely serious organised crime. Appellant argued the decision was not in accordance with residence scheme immigration rules, breached a right of Withdrawal Agreement and Article 8 ECHR.
• Rexhaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 784: Lead counsel for Appellant. Appeal by SSHD granted against decision of the Upper Tribunal, allowing the appeal of SSHD from First-tier Tribunal. A, a national of Albania, sought LTR under the EUSS / Appendix EU. Issue whether Appellant was an extended family member as dependent parent of her Albanian son and Romanian wife who had ILR under EUSS.  Application was refused for failure to prove dependency.
• Gjelaj v SSHD (2024): Acted for Appellant in deprivation of citizenship proceedings. He was granted refugee status on basis of Kosovan nationality and was naturalised as British citizen in 2004. Information was received that A was from Albanian. Appellant appealed to Upper Tribunal on grounds that First-tier Tribunal’s failed to: properly consider Appellant’s length of residence in proportionality assessment, treated the public interest weight as fixed, and the approach to A’s medical evidence.
• Artan Deda v SSHD (2024): Lead counsel for Appellant in deprivation of citizenship proceedings. Appellant was granted British Citizenship following on basis of Kosovan nationality. A challenged poor quality evidence of existence of another individual with details of an Albanian ‘Artan Deda’.  Upper Tribunal found material errors of law and set First-tier Tribunal decision aside in January 2024. Upper Tribunal held SSHD applied policy lawfully on relisting..
• Johnson v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 777.: Lead counsel for Appellant, concerning unlawful detention/ false imprisonment for 489 days. A had history of criminal offending, including aggravated burglary and assault. Issues included nationality (Ugandan national vs UK birth certificate). Anthony argued Hardial Singh grounds and novel argument that automatic deportation could not apply to stateless people in Court of Appeal.
• Mir v SSHD (2022): Acted for Appellant in EUSS appeal relating to grant of residency by virtue of his relationship with an EEA national. Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof that the marriage was one of convenience.
• Democracy Newham Ltd v LBN (2021) [2021] EWHC 150 (Admin): Lead counsel for solicitor in relation to alleged breach of an embargo on a draft judgment. Anthony successfully argued that a referral to a Hamid judge or the Solicitors Regulatory Authority would be disproportionate. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/150.html
• Martin v HM Passport Office (2020): Lead counsel for Claimant in judicial review claim following a delay in issuing a new passport following a legal change in name.  Settled with rare apology for Claimant and SSHD conceding it will amend its guidance on Use and Change of Names to avoid similar situations while ensuring aims of deterrence and detection of crime is upheld.
• KP & another v SSHD (2020): Aced for Appellants (Russian national and dependent) in asylum claim. Argued they were entitled to refugee status and removal would breach Qualification Regulations
• Commonwealth Veterans v MOD & SSHD (2020) AY & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Secretary of State for Defence: Lead counsel for Commonwealth Veterans in judicial review claim regarding ILR applications. Issue related to discriminatory treatment between Commonwealth and UK veterans in the enjoyment of rights under the Armed Forces Covenant, including Commonwealth veterans paying high-costs for the right to settle in the UK: https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/immigration_news/Commonwealth_Veterans%E2%80%99_Legal_Action_Launched_(21_August_2020).html; https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/overseas-troops-could-win-right-to-settle-without-fee
• Prutsa v ECO (2019): Acted for Appellant in appeal on behalf of elderly, functionally blind Ukrainian who sought to join British daughter under Appendix FM. Argued that refusal was a disproportionate breach of the A’s Article 8 rights.
• P v SSHD (2019): Lead counsel in judicial review challenge of EEA Regulations restricting family members category to the EEA national, but not their spouse. The SSHD conceded the application and directly laid amendments to the law incorporating changes due to this challenge under Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1155/made
• PK v SSHD [2020] UKUT 314 (IAC),PK V SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1756 – Lead counsel for A in Court of Appeal against Upper Tribunal decision refusing asylum. Issue whether Upper Tribunal evaded military service in Ukraine and consequences on return. Remitted to Upper Tribunal with renewed permission to appeal application to Court of Appeal.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department v Banger – C-89/17; [2019] UKUT 00194(IAC): Lead counsel in landmark case which sought to include unmarried partners and reintroduce appeal rights for extended family members. Following a successful preliminary ruling from the CJEU, the law was directly amended in 2019. The case was highly commended and was runner up for LexisNexis Case of the Year 2020: C-89/17; [2019] UKUT 194 (IAC); https://www.goldsmithchambers.com/sshd-v-banger-part-two-extended-family-members-and-appeal-rights/
• Zharskiy v SSHD (2018) Lead counsel for Appellant, a Russian national, appealing decision refusing A a permanent residence card as a former family member of an EEA national exercising treaty rights and who had retained a right of residence in the UK.
• LS (Article 45 TFEU – derivative rights) [2018] UKUT 00426 (IAC): Lead counsel for A, primary carer of a British Citizen child. Argued that Article 45 of the TFEU applied.
• KE (Nigeria) v SSHD (2017): Lead counsel for Respondent in SSHD appeal of Upper Tribunal decision to revoke a deportation order. SSHD submitted Upper Tribunal erred in holding that a person who is sentenced to a hospital order combined with a restriction order for an indefinite period does not fall within the provisions of section 117D (4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (‘NIAA’) 2002 which defines “a period of imprisonment”.
• RK (Burundi) v SSHD (2014): Lead counsel for Appellant in appeal against a refusal of declaration of unlawful detention. RK’s continued detention following a refusal for his return by the only country ascertained to carry out deportation order was no longer justified under the Hardial Singh Principles.

Inquests and Inquiries Barrister

• Elaine and Philip Marco Inquest (2025): Counsel for family where deceased died when their car was submerged in a flooded area. The flood risk was known to Liverpool City Council and local residents had complained a number of times including four times prior to their deaths in 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3dgeeejxlo
• Covid Inquiry – Module 2 (2023): Lead counsel for Long Covid Groups in Module 2 Covid Inquiry 2023, included as Core Participant following submissions. Heavily contested issue whether Long Covid a patient-created term, was properly recognised and considered in decision-making. Fundamental disputed issue whether it was foreseeable. Established that, unlike Covid-19, there was not an indiscriminate risk of developing Long Covid based on age, and government decision to lift restrictions which caused substantial increase in developing Long Covid as recognised in 2025 report (paras 8.83-8.90).
• Kazaar McKenzie (2022): Acted for family following death by hanging of deceased at HMP Brixton. Jury made findings that the prison staff had received insufficient training, were flawed in their record keeping and communication, and failed to follow and implement ACCT protocol. They found that there were multiple missed opportunities to assess and mitigate the deceased’s risk. https://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/20663006.suicidal-inmate-restrained-hours-found-hanged/
• Raphael Gill (2022): Acted for family in Article 2 inquest, concerning hospital death of young man who had repeated seizures and had ingested cocaine. Submissions highly critical of the London Ambulance Service and the NHS regarding the delay in treatment, notwithstanding the Metropolitan Police having correctly reported that the deceased was especially vulnerable and at ‘life threatening’ risk.  HMAC subsequently made recommendations including training for paramedics on cocaine toxicity and/or cocaine lowering the seizure threshold.  https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-medics-treated-arrested-man-like-he-was-pretending-before-seizure-death-says-family
• Douglas (2021): Acted for family of deceased following death days after arriving at HMP Long Lartin.  The issues included: alleged failings in handover between prisons; inadequate medical treatment; and poor decision-making and governance within HMP Long Lartin. Highly critical narrative of the prison was provided.
• McGowan (2018): Acted for family of deceased following death of a Southmead hospital patient. Argued that hospital failed to act with due care and diligence and mis-administered medical treatment which they ought to have known could be fatal to the deceased, and that this caused the death. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-54602417
• Shestopal (2017): Acted pro bono for widow. Narrative finding that deceased’s nurse’ improperly removed vascath (a flexible plastic tube inserted into a vein) which led directly to his heart attack and his subsequent death.
• Abiona (2017): Acted for family of deceased concerning the training and care provided in an emergency tracheotomy replacement. Narrative finding that the death was accidental but contributed to by neglect, having made, inter alia, a finding of gross failure on the part of the carer in her actions after the deceased had his tracheotomy dislodged.
• Ullah (2015): Acted for family of man who died during a routine stop-and-search, which later featured on Panorama. https://www.tuckerssolicitors.com/family-pleased-with-highly-critical-verdict-in-habib-ullah/
• Was (2015): Acted for family of 13-year-old killed in a collision arising from a high-speed police pursuit.
• Duggan (2015): Acted for family where deceased died in suspicious circumstances after attending a conference by La Rouche movement.

Family Barrister

• R v T (2026): Lead counsel for mother in High Court case with allegations of alienating behaviour. Ongoing.
• Re A (A Minor: Domestic Abuse: Fact Finding) (No. 3) [2025] EWFC 351: Lead counsel for mother in a sensitive fact-finding hearing concerning allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour and a violent attack carried out by masked men. Case involved complex procedural issues arising from father’s non-attendance. Controlling and coercive behaviour established. Ongoing.
• W v K (2024): Acted for mother in separation proceedings concerning a seven year old child currently living with her father. Mother considered she was a potential victim of coercive behaviour and/or domestic abuse.
• A v B and C (2023): Lead counsel for Appellant in a case with allegations of rape, sexual abuse, domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. Argued trial Judge erred in applying the criminal test of consent and rape in the family courts is wrong. ECHR appeal relates to breaches of Art 6, 8 and 14.
• Re B (Children: Police Investigation)[2022] EWCA Civ 982 (Acted for mother  in CA case allowing Metropolitan Police Service appeal against High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. Court held that the injunction impermissibly interfered with the MPS operational decision regarding the criminal investigation.
• MCP (Case C-6031/20 PPU; CJEU);SS v MCP [2020] EWHC 2971 (Fam); [2021] EWHC 2898 (Fam): Lead counsel for successful mother in child abduction case to India following alleged domestic abuse in High Court and Court of Justice of the European Union. The ECJ held that Article 10 of Brussels IIa would not apply to a child who had acquired habitual residency in a third State following their abduction to that State. Referred back for final determination in High Court  where again successful.