Allan Compton

Year of Call: 1994  


Overview


Allan Compton has a wide-ranging practice embracing all areas of serious crime both as leading and junior counsel.

In particular he defends and prosecutes in murder, manslaughter, corporate manslaughter, health and safety offences, other crimes of serious violence, substantial drugs conspiracies and tobacco importations, serious sexual offences fraud and money laundering. He has extensive experience in people trafficking cases and large-scale conspiracies to control prostitution.

In recent years Allan has acted in major drugs and money laundering conspiracies many of which have involved global networks importing many tonnes of controlled drugs and manufacturing equipment into the United Kingdom.

He has also defended in a series of high profile cases involving young defendants, often charged with murder, rape and other serious sexual offences. In addition he has extensive experience in ‘baby shaking’ cases, and other allegations of parents or carers inflicting fatal or significant injuries on children.

Allan is also regularly instructed in non-legally aided cases and ensures that a dedicated and bespoke service is provided from the early stages of case. He has acted for many clients requesting a discreet and effective service including premiership footballers and managers, members of the legal profession and bankers and accountants. He is qualified to accept instructions on a direct access basis.

Allan is a Grade 4 prosecution advocate for the Crown Prosecution Service and is accredited to prosecute serious Sexual Offences for the CPS Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Unit (RASSO).

Appeals


Mr Compton has appeared for both prosecution and defence in the Administrative Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and Supreme Court.

He is regularly instructed by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals to act in cases in which he did not appear at first instance including facing appeals against unduly lenient sentences instituted by the Attorney General.

In addition to acting for defendants in appeals against conviction and/or sentence Mr Compton has acted for both defence, the Crown Prosecution Service and Local Authorities in judicial review proceedings and appeals by way of case stated.

Cases

  • Attorney General’s Reference No.9 & 10 of 2011 [EWCA Crim 1953]: An application prosecuted by the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC for the Court to increase the sentence of 21 years imprisonment imposed for a series of rapes and people trafficking offences committed by the defendant, a Romanian national.
  • R v Seed 2 Cr.App.R. (S) 69: One of the leading authorities concerning the approach sentencing Judges should take in the light of prison overcrowding and more effective fines enforcement.
  • R v Harwich Justices Ex Parte Meredith [2006] EWHC 3336: Judicial review concerning the admission of evidence under s116 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
  • DPP v Sheldrake [2005] 1 AC 264: Junior counsel for the respondent in the House of Lords Appeal concerning reverse burdens of proof.
  • R v Wood [2002] JPL 219: Guideline case concerning the statutory defence to prosecutions for breach of enforcement notices under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  • R v Basildon Crown Court Ex Parte Cooper LTL 16/2/2000: Acting for the Crown in judicial review concerning the procedure to be employed when the defendant asserted her guilty plea was equivocal.
  • McDermott v DPP [1997] RTR 474: Leading authority on the definition of failing to stop.
  • R v Geary & Others [2012] EWCA 1540: Successful appeal against a sentence of nine years imprisonment imposed for attempted robbery, on a defendant only recently released from serving a 14 year sentence for serious sexual offences.

Confiscation


Mr Compton has extensive experience in confiscation proceedings often following substantial drugs, money laundering and/or fraud trials.

He is well versed in drafting s17 Proceeds of Crime Act responses in complex cases as well as drafting subsequent submissions and/or skeleton arguments.

Mr Compton has acted in both the Crown Court and High Court in a number of cases where the prosecution have sought to recover millions of pounds against impecunious defendants, alleging hidden assets and/or tainted gifts.

Mr Compton has particular expertise where the prosecution seek to appoint enforcement receivers to realise assets held by defendants and has acted in a number of cases involving third party interventions where assertions as to proprietary interest in property are made by such parties.

He has also acted in cases where a defendant holds assets in other jurisdictions and argues that realisation of such assets is impossible due to the relevant legislation in those jurisdictions preventing sale or disposal of those assets.

Additionally Mr Compton has acted for defendants in enforcement proceedings, in the Magistrates’ Courts, where defendants face substantial terms of imprisonment as a consequence of failure to comply with confiscation orders.

Cases

  • R v Howard Allen: Acting for a defendant in confiscation proceedings in the high Court. A prosecution application for the appointment of an enforcement receiver to enforce the sale of five properties owned by the defendant following his conviction for a multi-million pound VAT fraud was successfully resisted during a two day hearing in the High Court.
  • R v John White & Others: Acting for a defendant who following his conviction for his part in a major drugs conspiracy was the subject of confiscation proceedings in which the prosecution alleged a benefit of £63million and substantial hidden assets. Ultimately the Court approved a confiscation figure of £13,000.
  • R v Barry Goodhead: Acting for a businessman who had been convicted of offences arising out the counterfeiting of photocopying cartridges on a massive scale. It was agreed that profits were in excess of £4million and that the defendant had invested in property in the Caribbean. The prosecution alleged that this property was worth in excess of £1million. It was successfully argued that such were the provisions of the contract, coupled with the relevant laws applicable to the island of St Kitts that the property was, in reality, worthless and could never be realised. The Court eventually approved a figure of £30,000.
  • R v WG: Acting for a businessman released after serving 7 years of a fourteen year sentence for his involvement in a drugs conspiracy. Having not acted in the original confiscation proceedings in which a figure representing hidden assets in excess of £800,000 was agreed the enforcement court was persuaded not to activate the 7 year default period and instead allow the defendant substantial time to re-establish his businesses and pay of the outstanding sum.
  • R v Jabar Hussein: Leading counsel instructed for the applicant in a four day asset forfeiture trial at Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court following the seizure of vast quantities of cash from the applicant’s home address.

Crime


Throughout his career Mr Compton has acted in cases involving allegations of the utmost gravity and complexity including allegations involving huge international drugs conspiracies, kidnapping of high profile victims, cases involving the infliction of savage and extensive violence and those involving serious assaults on babies, young children and vulnerable victims.

In recent years he has acted in a number of cases involving complex scientific evidence, particularly where there are allegations of ‘baby shaking’, and has considerable experience of the cross-examination of experts, whether it be neurologists or in other fields such as DNA and cell-site analysis.

Mr Compton is particularly adept in multi-handed cases where often tactically sensitive and difficult decisions need to be taken as to the nature of the defence advanced and its impact on other defendants in the case.

He has also acted in terrorism cases and numerous allegations of misconduct in public office against serving police officers, often involving unauthorised access to police databases followed by disclosure of sensitive information to journalists or organised crime groups.

Cases

  • R v Savva & Others: Leading counsel defending in a multi-handed benzocaine importation in which it was alleged that enough benzocaine and other applied pharmaceutical ingredients were imported and distributed so as to enable the cutting of £246million of Class A drugs.
  • R v Wendy Dang & Others: Defending a company director accused of running a sham garden centre facilitating the importation of vast quantities of equipment enabling the establishment of over 60 cannabis farms in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The case involved 22 defendants and an estimated yield of £100million of cannabis.
  • R v John White: Leading counsel in a major drugs conspiracy to supply large quantities of cocaine across Essex and East Anglia. Following conviction the prosecution sought £63million in confiscation proceedings from the defendant.
  • R v Gianni Danzieri: Defending one of two defendants charged with conspiracy to import £7million of cocaine. Despite previous convictions for similar importations the defendant was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
  • R v Arie van der Klij: Defending a Dutch lorry driver alleged to have made 22 trips into the United Kingdom importing half a tonne of cannabis at a time. It was estimated the conspiracy resulted in the importation of over 20 tonnes of cannabis into the United Kingdom.
  • R v McFarlane & Others: Defending one of eight defendants charged with the kidnap and blackmail of Gianni Paladini, the chairman of Queens Park Rangers football club, during a championship game. They were alleged to be part of a plot orchestrated by a fellow director of the club to force Paladini to sign his shareholding over, at gunpoint.
  • R v Vrabel & Others: Defending one of three defendants accused of engaging in a gunfight with two other travellers, whilst driving at high speed through the streets of Coventry. Two members of the public were caught in the crossfire and shot in the face and hand.
  • R v AD: Defending a 21-year-old male who admitted shaking his baby and causing irreparable brain damage. It was successfully argued that he had shaken her in a genuine panic response to a perceived ALTE (Apparent Life Threatening Event).
  • R v KS: Defending an 18 year old mother alleged to have shaken her baby causing catastrophic brain injuries.
  • R v H & T: Prosecuting two parents charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm and neglect of a 6-week-old baby. Both defendants blamed each other for the infliction of serious injuries. Both were convicted of all charges faced.
  • R v DC: Defending a mother charged with neglect of her children. The case made headlines around the world as it highlighted the addictive nature of on-line role-playing games. The defendant became so immersed in the games that she allowed family pets to die through malnutrition as well as neglecting her children.
  • R v Mirza Khan: Defending a paranoid schizophrenic who discharged a shotgun at two police officers prior to a high-speed police chase.
  • R v Jordan Haynes & Others: Defending a multi-handed armed robbery involving gang members targeting jewellery shops in Southend, Essex.
  • R v Saddam Fareed & Others: Defending in a multi-handed gold bullion and jewellery robbery where the victims were tied up and tortured.
  • R v Wendy Jones & Others: Defending an alleged prostitute who conspired, with others, to rob a client. He was attacked during the course of the robbery, dying three months later.
  • R v Albert Buckley & Others: Defending the lead defendant of nine defendants accused of the kidnap of two children during a feud between two traveller’s families.
  • R v Yefgeny Ivanovs & Others: Defending one of four Russians charged with the kidnap and assault of a Lithuanian alleged to have stolen from them.
  • R v Greener & Others: Defending in a drugs conspiracy involving the supply of multi-kilo deals of cocaine between London, Ipswich and Essex. After five trials the defendant was acquitted of all charges.
  • R v James Collins & Others: Defending in a massive tobacco importation conspiracy involving 15 defendants importing articulated lorries filled with tobacco. Despite previous convictions for similar offences the defendant was one of only two to receive a suspended sentence.
  • R v Ali Ashraf: Defending in a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. The defendant masqueraded as a solicitor providing legal advice to immigrants and then used contacts within the Border Agency to falsify documents giving them leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
  • R v Nicholas Weston: Prosecuting allegations of causing death by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The defendant, whilst drunk crashed his van into a ditch killing a rear passenger and seriously inuring another.
  • R v Raymond Titchmarsh: Defending in an allegation of causing death by careless driving where the defendant crashed head on into an oncoming vehicle causing the death of a baby who was unsecured in her mother’s lap in the rear of their car.
  • R v RC – Acting for a defendant who had pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s58 Terrorism Act 2000, having been found in possession of a number of documents including bomb making instructions, articles concerning detonators and explosive devices, and instructions detailing how to post covertly on the internet. Material demonstrating an interest in anarchist and direct action organisations was also seized from the defendant.Following submissions HHJ Stockdale QC agreed that RC was not, nor had he ever been, a terrorist and had now sufficiently rehabilitated himself to justify the imposition of a suspended sentence.

Defence


The bulk of Mr Compton’s practice comprises of heavyweight defence work both as leading junior and junior counsel. He is frequently instructed in cases of the utmost gravity and complexity ranging from murder and terrorism cases through to cases involving serious sexual offences, fraud and health and safety offences.

Mr Compton is also regularly instructed in non-legally aided cases and ensures that a dedicated and bespoke service is provided from the early stages of case. He has acted for many clients requesting a discreet and effective service including premiership footballers and managers, members of the legal profession and bankers and accountants.

In recent years Mr Compton has acted in a number of cases involving the service of hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence and unused material. His ability to marshal the evidence in such complex cases, yet provide simple, clear and effective advice is regarded as exceptional whether acting as leading or junior counsel.

Mr Compton is often asked to advise at a very early stage in proceedings, often securing favourable outcomes for potential defendants seeking to avoid prosecution.

Cases

  • R v Paul Greenwell: Defending the most senior employee of Sterecycle Ltd, a company charged with corporate manslaughter, following a fatal explosion at a recycling plant based in Rotherham. Following repeated submissions as to the adequacy of the particulars of the indictment the prosecution offered no evidence a week before the close of their case.
  • R v Philip Meakins: Defending the most senior employee and Company Secretary facing charges under the Health and Safety at Work Act following a fatality at the Peterborough Raceways Karting track.
  • Re Wave Services Ltd: Advising as to potential criminal charges arising from a complex competition law dispute concerning intellectual property rights to music used in fitness centres across the United Kingdom and Europe.
  • R v Edward Redman: Defending the only defendant charged with the murder of Jay Whiston. The defendant, who was 17 at the time was alleged to have stabbed the victim at a party in Colchester, Essex, at which over a 100 people, many of whom were witnesses, attended. The trial lasted 65 days.
  • R v Andrew Bertram & Others: Leading counsel in an incitement for murder case where the defendant’s allegedly hired a hitman (an undercover police officer) to murder a relative.
  • R v Mark Czapla: Defending a man alleged to have stabbed his partner to death in front of their four year old child (who gave evidence). The trial was unusual in that the defendant refused to enter the courtroom throughout the entire trial.
  • R v Lewis Hayward & Others: Defending a 14 year old boy charged with murdering a 25 year old woman when he was 13. He was acquitted following a successful cut-throat defence.
  • R v Robert Sloan: Defending a Detective Constable alleged to be in a corrupt relationship with a police informant who was later discovered to have tried to murder two police officer’s families by firebombing their homes. Such was the sensitivity of the case that the prosecution unsuccessfully applied for the entire case to be tried in camera.
  • R v John Green & Others: Defending in 13 handed allegation of controlling prostitution and facilitating breaches of immigration law via what were alleged to be the two biggest brothels in the United Kingdom. Listed for a four-month trial. The case was stayed following a successful abuse of process argument based on the submission that the local police had encouraged the operation of the brothels as a method of controlling street prostitution.
  • R v Jason Shelley & Others: Defending a businessman accused of running a network of prostitutes across the United Kingdom via a series of bogus escort agencies. It was alleged he had made in excess of £5million profit. The defence employed an innovative defence securing LSC funding for a defence test purchase operation into the activities of a co-defendant. After two trials the case was stayed as an abuse of process following serious non-disclosure by the prosecution following service, by the defence of the results of the test purchase operation.
  • R v Stuart Mansfield: Defending a businessman accused of controlling prostitution using escort agencies in Essex and Suffolk. He received a suspended sentence.
  • R v Sophie Mills: Defending a conspiracy to defraud involving the Government’s “Back to Work” scheme. The allegations included the creation of “ghost students” and the falsification of qualifications on an industrial scale.
  • R v Barry Goodhead: Defending a businessman charged with fraudulently creating a business counterfeiting photocopying cartridges on a massive scale resulting in profits in excess of £5million.
  • R v Daljeet Bhajaj & Others: Defending in a multi-handed conspiracy to defraud and handle stolen goods involving the laundering of hundreds of thousands of car parts via e-bay and other trading sites.
  • R v Sydney Fletcher: Defending in a complex confidence fraud involving 12 victims, all of whom were either frail, elderly or disabled. The defendant stole in excess of £450,00. The nine and a half year sentence substantially reduced in the Court of Appeal.
  • R v Stacey Robinson: Defending the principle money launderer in a 13 handed case alleging confidence fraud of 24 elderly and vulnerable victims.
  • R v Savva & Others: Leading counsel defending in a multi-handed benzocaine importation in which it was alleged that enough benzocaine and other applied pharmaceutical ingredients were imported and distributed so as to enable the cutting of £246million of Class A drugs.
  • R v Wendy Dang & Others: Defending a company director accused of running a sham garden centre facilitating the importation of vast quantities of equipment enabling the establishment of over 60 cannabis farms in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The case involved 22 defendants and an estimated yield of £100million of cannabis.
  • R v James Collins & Others: Defending in a massive tobacco importation conspiracy involving 15 defendants importing articulated lorries filled with tobacco. Despite previous convictions for similar offences the defendant was one of only two to receive a suspended sentence.
  • R v Ali Ashraf: Defending in a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. The defendant masqueraded as a solicitor providing legal advice to immigrants and then used contacts within the Border Agency to falsify documents giving them leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
  • R v Karlton Cummings: Defending a drug dealer accused of deliberately injecting his girlfriend with poisoned heroin.
  • R v Bhebe:  Defending one of six defendants charged murdering a rival gang member in Southend. The case concerned members of two gangs based in London now supplying class A drugs in Southend and Essex. Following an attack by the deceased on one of the defendants it was alleged that the six defendants were responsible for a revenge attack, stabbing the deceased to death in broad daylight in Southend.
    Following a submission of no case to answer made by Mr. Compton the defendant was acquitted of murder and conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm. At a later hearing he was given a suspended sentence with regard to two separate indictments concerning the supply of Class A drugs to undercover police officers

Environmental


Mr Compton has acted, both for the prosecution and defence in a, wide range of environmental enforcement matters.

He has been regularly instructed by Local Authorities to prosecute matters involving pollution, food hygiene, animal welfare, breaches of tree preservation orders. In addition he has represented a number of companies and individuals prosecuted by the Environment Agency and other authorities.

For a number of years, prior to joining 2 Bedford Row, Mr Compton prosecuted on behalf of both Essex County Council and Basildon District Council, all substantial matters concerning environmental enforcement pursued by those authorities, giving him extensive experience in this area.

Mr Compton has also delivered lectures, on behalf of Chambers, concentrating on the powers of the Environment Agency to investigate and prosecute both individuals and Companies.

Cases

  • R v Sundorne Ltd: Acting for a Waste Management Company alleged to have polluted Welsh mountain streams following unprecedented rainfall in the area.
  • R v Manoj Patel: Prosecuting a sandwich supplier in food hygiene case involving over 40 counts contrary to the Food Safety Act.
  • R v James Holford: Defending a farmer alleged to have buried vast amounts of controlled waste on his land.
  • R v Paul Greenwell: Acting for the most senior employee charged arising from a fatal explosion at Sterecycle Ltd in Rotherham. The defendant was the Operations Director for a waste recycling plant using innovative technology to process waste using pressurised autoclaves. It was alleged that the defendant had pressurised employees to continue operations notwithstanding substantial problems with the technology and equipment. Following repeated submissions as to the breadth of the duties alleged to have been breached the prosecution offered no further evidence against the defendant four weeks into the trial, a week before they closed their case. Sterecycle Ltd were subsequently convicted of corporate manslaughter.

Fraud


Mr Compton is meticulous in his preparation and advice and has consequentially acted in a number of substantial and complex allegations of fraud.

He is frequently asked to advise pre-charge on behalf of defendants, companies and the Crown Prosecution Service and is known for his discreet and effective advice.

Mr Compton has acted in a wide range of frauds including conspiracies to defraud public institutions and organisations, diversion frauds, confidence frauds and conspiracies to cheat the Inland Revenue.

Cases

  • R v Sophie Mills: Defending a conspiracy to defraud involving the Government’s “Back to Work” scheme. The allegations included the creation of “ghost students” and the falsification of qualifications on an industrial scale.
  • R v Barry Brooks: original counsel instructed to defend a man charged with conspiracy to defraud millions of pounds worth of benefits via bogus companies purporting to provide employment for disabled workers.
  • R v Paul Marshall & Others: Defending in a multi-handed bonded warehouse diversion fraud at Stansted Airport.
  • R v Barry Goodhead: Defending a businessman charged with fraudulently creating a business counterfeiting photocopying cartridges on a massive scale resulting in profits in excess of £5million.
  • R v Daljeet Bhajaj & Others: Defending in a multi-handed conspiracy to defraud and handle stolen goods involving the laundering of hundreds of thousands of car parts via e-bay and other trading sites.
  • R v Sydney Fletcher: Defending in a complex confidence fraud involving 12 victims, all of whom were either frail, elderly or disabled. The defendant stole in excess of £450,00. The nine and a half year sentence was substantially reduced in the Court of Appeal.
  • R v Stacey Robinson: Defending the principle money launderer in a 13 handed case alleging confidence fraud of 24 elderly and vulnerable victims.
  • R v Rene Bingelli: Defending a Swiss national (with numerous foreign fraud convictions) charged with the forgery and counterfeit of bankers drafts valued at £1.5million.
  • R v Brian McInerney: Defending in a multi-handed money laundering conspiracy in which it was alleged over £20million had been diverted through a series of money exchanges across the United Kingdom.
  • R V Rayner & Rayner: Successfully prosecuting a Ponzi fraud operated by husband and wife defendants in which they secured over £1.7 million of investment from investors based on a purported hedge-betting system with Betfair. The defendants, in fact, invested very little, using the purported investments to subsidise a lavish lifestyle including multiple vehicles, plastic surgery, private school fees and numerous foreign holidays.
  • R v Brian McInerney: Defending in a multi-handed money laundering conspiracy in which it was alleged over £20million had been diverted through a series of money exchanges across the United Kingdom.

Health & Safety


In recent years Mr Compton has been regularly instructed in cases prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974. In particular he has acted in cases involving fatalities in the workplace culminating in charges including gross negligence manslaughter, corporate manslaughter, breaches of s2 and s3 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and prosecutions of employees under s7 of the HSW Act.

He has particular experience of representing directors and senior managers of Companies charged either under s7 or s37 of the HSW Act with regard to their personal liabilities for Company failures.

As well as defending Mr Compton has been instructed by a wide range of prosecution authorities, including the CPS, local authorities and the HSE, prosecuting cases ranging from gross negligence manslaughter to breaches of enforcement and improvement notices.

He also regularly advises companies both pre-charge and pre-inquest as well as acting at Coroners’ inquests where necessary.

Cases

  • R v Paul Greenwell: Acting for the most senior employee charged arising from a fatal explosion at Sterecycle Ltd in Rotherham. The defendant was the Operations Director for a waste recycling plant using innovative technology to process waste using pressurised autoclaves. It was alleged that the defendant had pressurised employees to continue operations notwithstanding substantial problems with the technology and equipment. Following repeated submissions as to the breadth of the duties alleged to have been breached the prosecution offered no further evidence against the defendant four weeks into the trial, a week before they closed their case. Sterecycle Ltd were subsequently convicted of corporate manslaughter.
  • R v Paul Meakins: Acting for the Company Secretary and most senior employee charged arising from a fatality at Peterborough Raceways Karting Track in Peterborough. Allegations that the defendant bore responsibility for the actions of a rogue employee who operated the track without authorisation leading to the death of a member of public using the Karts, were dropped on the first day of the trial following submissions made by the defence.
  • R v Alan Turnbull, NEMOC Ltd & Christopher Taylor: Prosecuting three defendants charged following a collapse of steelwork during dismantling works at the Swan Hunter Shipyard on Tyneside. The first defendant was charged with gross negligence manslaughter, the remaining defendants with offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Following a five-week trial all defendants were convicted of all charges they faced.
  • R v EG Ltd: Representing a Company in interlocutory proceedings, charged with offences contrary to the Work at Height Regulations 2005, following a fatal fall during roofing repair works on farm buildings.
  • Re JL: Representing and advising a major car manufacturer in Inquest proceedings following a fatal road traffic accident.
  • R v Steven Adams & Adams Home Centre Ltd: Junior Counsel prosecuting health and safety offences arising from an oxygen leak at a company specializing in decanting explosive gasses into cylinders. As a consequence of the leak a catastrophic fire developed killing one employee, in part because of the inadequate provision of exits, risk assessments and safety procedures in the event of a fire.

Murder & Manslaughter


Mr Compton has, over the last twenty years, defended and prosecuted in numerous cases involving allegations of all forms of homicide including murder, attempted murder, incitement and conspiracy to murder, manslaughter and corporate manslaughter.

He has represented defendants in cases involving group attacks (particularly allegations where joint enterprise is in issue), contract killings, parents’ accused of the murder of children and killings of one spouse by another.

In particular Mr Compton has extensive experience in cases involving loss of control and diminished responsibility, including those involving Battered Woman’s Syndrome and “slow burn provocation”.

In recent years he has acted in a number of high profile cases throughout the country such as R v Edward Redman (the murder of Jay Whiston in Colchester Essex), R v Turnbull & Others (gross negligence manslaughter prosecution in Newcastle Crown Court) and R v Paul Greenwell (acting for the most senior employee charged in a corporate manslaughter prosecution in Sheffield).

Cases

  • R v Edward Redman: Defending the only defendant charged with the murder of Jay Whiston. The defendant, who was 17 at the time was alleged to have stabbed the victim at a party in Colchester, Essex, at which over a 100 people, many of whom were witnesses, attended. The trial lasted 65 days.
  • R v Andrew Bertram & Others: Leading counsel in an incitement for murder case where the defendant’s allegedly hired a hitman (an undercover police officer) to murder a relative.
  • R v Mark Czapla: Defending a man alleged to have stabbed his partner to death in front of their four-year-old child (who gave evidence). The trial was unusual in that the defendant refused to enter the courtroom throughout the entire trial.
  • R v Lewis Hayward & Others: Defending a 14-year-old boy charged with murdering a 25-year-old woman when he was 13. He was acquitted following a successful cut-throat defence.
  • R v Alan Turnbull & Others: Prosecuting a gross negligence manslaughter arising from the dismantling of steel structures at the Swan Hunter Shipyard on Tyneside. Two individuals and a company were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and health and safety offences.
  • R v Kenny Cornwall: Prosecuting a 16 year old drug dealer charged with murdering a crack and heroin addict in Braintree Essex.
  • R v Simon Meecham: Defending a man charged with murdering his partner (who was also his step-daughter) in front of their son.
  • R v Peter Knight & Others: Defending a man charged with murdering his 76 year old future mother in law and then burying her body before creating a false missing person’s appeal.
  • R v Wayne Perry & Others: Leading counsel defending an attempted murder where it was alleged the defendant and two others organised a revenge shooting of the father of a minor criminal in Essex.
  • R v Anne Dobson-Starmore: Defending an alcoholic charged with murder who stabbed her partner to death. Battered women’s syndrome was at the forefront of her defence.
  • R v Hayley Onley: Defending a teenage mother charged with the murder of her baby.
  • R v Terry Benstead & Others: Defending in a multi-handed murder allegation running a cut-throat defence.
  • R v Michael Hewson: Defending in the first murder to be tried at Basildon Crown Court.
  • R v Aykut Sokmen: Defending the former bodyguard of the head of the Turkish Prison Service, a paranoid schizophrenic, charged with two attempted murders (including a policewoman). He was found unfit to stand trial 10 days into the trial at which his defence had been insanity.
  • R v Angela Bush & Others: Defending in an attempted murder trial. A cut-throat defence was run involving the admission of the co-defendant’s previous conviction for manslaughter.
  • R v Simon Jennings: Defending in an attempted murder and triple s18 where the defendant had shot three men trying to burgle his home.
  • R v Bernie Saunders – representing a traveller who together with others was charged with the attempted murder of another traveller following a long-running feud. Mr. Compton was instructed at the re-trial of the defendant securing an acquittal of attempted murder following a guilty plea to affray.
  • R v Bhebe: Defending one of six defendants charged murdering a rival gang member in Southend. The case concerned members of two gangs based in London now supplying class A drugs in Southend and Essex. Following an attack by the deceased on one of the defendants it was alleged that the six defendants were responsible for a revenge attack, stabbing the deceased to death in broad daylight in Southend.Following a submission of no case to answer made by Mr. Compton the defendant was acquitted of murder and conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm. At a later hearing he was given a suspended sentence with regard to two separate indictments concerning the supply of Class A drugs to undercover police officers.

Professional Discipline


Mr Compton has acted for presenting authorities and defendants in a number of different spheres of professional discipline. He is currently an accredited case presenter for the Nursing and Midwifery Council and has presented a number of cases involving serious allegations against nurses and other health care professionals, many involving serious overdoses and/or fatalities.

The principle area of Mr Compton’s professional discipline work is in the field of Police Discipline. He has been instructed on behalf of the Police Federation of England and Wales in a wide variety of cases representing police officers facing criminal prosecutions and/or gross misconduct proceedings before a Misconduct Panel.

Mr Compton has defended police officers facing criminal allegations including serious corruption, misconduct in public office (often involving unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information to third parties), assaults, sexual assaults whilst on duty, fraud and dangerous driving both on and off duty. He frequently defends officers of a senior rank in the Magistrates and Crown Courts as well professional discipline proceedings.

Mr Compton also advises in and acts in proceedings before the Police Appeals Tribunal.

Cases

 

  • PC DC: Acting for a PC in disciplinary proceedings. He had allegedly befriended a domestic violence complainant before misusing the police national computer to obtain her details, contact her and then exchange explicit images with her.
  • PC TC: Defending an officer in disciplinary proceedings accused of assaulting a prisoner in front of two other officers.
  • PS BP: Defending a police sergeant in disciplinary proceedings accused of assaulting a 15-year old boy and the falsifying reports of his own movements.
  • PC MS: Defending an officer in disciplinary proceedings arising from an alleged sexual assault on a secretary in a school that the officer was seconded to.
  • PC SF: Defending an officer in disciplinary proceedings, accused of assaulting a prisoner in a holding cell at Basildon Police Station.
  • PS MG: Defending a police sergeant in disciplinary proceedings following an acquittal in the Crown Court for perverting the course of justice.
  • PC DB: Defending an officer in disciplinary proceedings accused of accessing personal information on the police intelligence system.
  • PS MA: Defending a police sergeant in disciplinary proceedings accused of stalking his ex-partner and unauthorised access to personal information on the police intelligence system.
  • R v Robert Sloan: Defending a Detective Constable alleged to be in a corrupt relationship with a police informant who was later discovered to have tried to murder two police officer’s families by firebombing their homes. Such was the sensitivity of the case that the prosecution unsuccessfully applied for the entire case to be tried in camera.
  • R v CI PM: Defending a chief inspector accused of assaulting a motorist in a road rage incident.
  • R v CI JB: Defending a chief inspector accused of falsifying expenses claims.
  • R v PC HN: Defending an officer charged with misconduct in public office, accused of falsely informing a rape victim that no further action was being taken with regard to the rape investigation.
  • R v PC ML: Defending an officer charged with six counts of sexual activity with a child.
  • R v DC FM: Defending a Detective Constable charged with misconduct in public office, having set up a “Crimestoppers” website using sensitive information to assist victims of crime.
  • R v PC MR: Defending an officer charged with making indecent photographs of children.
  • R v PS AW: Defending an officer charged with data protection act offences. Following cross-examination of his immediate superior, a Divisional Intelligence Officer and the Head of Information Management at Essex Police the prosecution did not oppose the defence submission of no case to answer.
  • R v PC CP: Defending a policewoman accused of assaulting her own children.
  • R v PC IT: Defending an officer charged with dangerous driving during an emergency. The accident caused life-changing injuries to a colleague as well ass seriously injuring a member of the public.
  • R v PC ND: Defending an officer accused of misconduct in public office. It was alleged she was passing sensitive information to a local drug dealer, informing him of the nature of the police investigation into his activities.
  • R v PC NC: Defending an officer accused of sexually assaulting two vulnerable whilst on duty, in police vehicles and police interview rooms.
  • R v CI NG: Defending a chief inspector charged with s20 grievous bodily harm and dangerous driving.
  • R v PC BB: Defending an officer charged with misconduct in public office arising from multiple disclosure to friends and family of sensitive information from the police national computer.
  • R v PC JB: Defending an officer charged with dangerous driving following a serious road traffic accident as he attended an emergency call.
  • PC ST: Defending a police officer charged with misconduct in public office following inappropriate communication with and sexual contact with numerous female complainants encountered during his duties as a police officer. Following submissions that the offences had been committed whilst the officer was suffering from an undiagnosed serious psychiatric disorder he received a suspended sentence of imprisonment.
  • CI BH: Defending a Chief Inspector charged with possession of indecent images of children. Following a detailed, in depth investigation by the defence many of the images that were alleged to have been indecent images of children were shown to be of consenting adults, resulting in the most serious charges being abandoned by the prosecution. The officer received a suspended sentence of imprisonment with regard to the possession of three images only.
  • PC SF: Defending an officer in disciplinary proceedings who was alleged to have conducted unauthorised business activities (including the trading in motor cars and sales on e-Bay). He also faced allegations of failing to properly investigate and process allegations of domestic violence.
  • DC DP: Representing an officer in the Police Appeals Tribunal with regard to his dismissal for poor attendance over a three-year period.
  • PC MR: Defending an officer in disciplinary proceedings (following his acquittal in the Crown Court for possession of indecent images) facing allegations of unlawful sexual intercourse with one complainant and inappropriate sexual relationships with three other sixteen-year-old girls.

Prosecution


Mr Compton is currently a Grade 3 prosecutor and accredited to prosecute serious sexual offences on behalf of the CPS. He has prosecuted the full range of criminal offences including allegations of murder, manslaughter, serious sexual offences and frauds.

Prosecuting authorities in cases of a complex and difficult nature regularly instruct Mr Compton, particularly those involving sensitive disclosure issues. He is especially experienced in preparing and making public interest immunity applications both on an ex parte and inter partes basis.

Mr Compton is consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service to advise on complex and grave cases, often pre-charge, whilst investigations are still on-going. He is also consistently instructed to prosecute cases involving very young defendants alleged to have committed serious sexual offences or crimes of violence against other youths and/or adult victims.

Additionally Mr Compton has acted in a range of regulatory disciplines including health and safety offences, matters before the Nursing and Midwifery Council, prosecuting on behalf of Trading Standards Departments of Local Authorities and prosecuting enforcement notice cases and firearms appeals in the Crown Court.

Cases

  • R v Kenny Cornwall: Prosecuting a 16 year old drug dealer charged with murdering a crack and heroin addict in Braintree Essex.
  • R v Alan Turnbull & Others: Prosecuting a gross negligence manslaughter arising from the dismantling of steel structures at the Swan Hunter Shipyard on Tyneside. Two individuals and a company were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and health and safety offences.
  • R v H & T: Prosecuting two parents charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm and neglect of a 6-week old baby. Both defendants blamed each other for the infliction of serious injuries. Both were convicted of all charges faced.
  • R v John Rowland: Prosecuting a defendant charged with historic sexual assaults on his two daughters dating back to the 1960’s and 1970’s.
  • R v DW: Prosecuting a defendant charged with sexual assault and attempted rape on his 10 year old daughter.
  • R v G: Prosecuting a 15 year old charged with serious sexual assaults on a 13 year old girl.
  • R v Nicholas Weston: Prosecuting allegations of causing death by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The defendant, whilst drunk crashed his van into a ditch killing a rear passenger and seriously inuring another.
  • R v David Morris & Others: Prosecuting a multi-handed £20million counterfeit clothing case on behalf of Essex County Council Trading Standards Department.
  • R v Emma Ruffell: Prosecuting a prostitute accused of a near fatal stabbing of one of her elderly clients.
  • R v Christopher Bosworth: Leading counsel, prosecuting an Anglican Catholic priest for historic sexual offences committed on patients and mentally unwell individuals, whilst the defendant was a community psychiatric nurse in the 1980’s and early 1990’s.
  • R v Steven Adams & Adams Home Centre Ltd: Junior Counsel prosecuting health and safety offences arising from an oxygen leak at a company specializing in decanting explosive gasses into cylinders. As a consequence of the leak a catastrophic fire developed killing one employee, in part because of the inadequate provision of exits, risk assessments and safety procedures in the event of a fire.
  • R v Rayner & Rayner: Successfully prosecuting a Ponzi fraud operated by husband and wife defendants in which they secured over £1.7 million of investment from investors based on a purported hedge-betting system with Betfair. The defendants, in fact, invested very little, using the purported investments to subsidise a lavish lifestyle including multiple vehicles, plastic surgery, private school fees and numerous foreign holidays.

Regulatory


Allan both defends in and prosecutes a range of regulatory offences including; health & safety offences, matters in the Nursing & Midwifery Council, trading standards offences, prosecutions by the Environment Agency, enforcement notice cases and firearms appeals in the Crown Court.

Allan regularly acts for police officers, public officials and journalists charged with criminal offences, with particular emphasis on offences of misconduct in public office, often involving the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information to third parties. He also frequently represents police officers in misconduct proceedings in the police disciplinary tribunals.

Serious Sexual Offences


Mr Compton has huge experience in defending and prosecuting cases involving serious sexual offences. He is an accredited serious sexual offence prosecutor and is regularly instructed by the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Unit (RASSO) at the Crown Prosecution Service.

In particular Mr Compton is often asked to review cases of historic sexual abuse and advise from a very early stage, often prior to any charges being brought.

In addition to representing adult defendants Mr Compton has also defended and prosecuted many young defendants charged with sexual offences. He is widely respected for his tactful, courteous yet effective cross-examination of complainants and young defendants.

Cases involving the allegation of serious sexual offences regularly involve third party summonses and disclosure applications from bodies other than the CPS, such as Social Services and schools. Mr Compton has extensive experience in preparing and making such applications particularly in cases that are historic in nature.

Mr Compton has been involved in a number of cases alleging the establishment and operation of escort agencies and brothels, often operating on a national scale. In a number of these cases he has successfully applied to stay prosecutions as a consequence of police malpractice or non-disclosure issues. He has also acted in cases in people trafficking cases with both domestic and international dimensions.

Cases

  • R v John Green & Others: Defending in 13 handed allegation of controlling prostitution and facilitating breaches of immigration law via what were alleged to be the two biggest brothels in the United Kingdom. Listed for a four-month trial. The case was stayed following a successful abuse of process argument based on the submission that the local police had encouraged the operation of the brothels as a method of controlling street prostitution.
  • R v Jason Shelley & Others: Defending a businessman accused of running a network of prostitutes across the United Kingdom via a series of bogus escort agencies. It was alleged he had made in excess of £5million profit. The defence employed an innovative defence securing LSC funding for a defence test purchase operation into the activities of a co-defendant. After two trials the case was stayed as an abuse of process following serious non-disclosure by the prosecution following service, by the defence of the results of the test purchase operation.
  • R v Stuart Mansfield: Defending a businessman accused of controlling prostitution using escort agencies in Essex and Suffolk. He received a suspended sentence.
  • R v MB: Defending a deputy head teacher charged with sexually assaulting a learning support assistant whilst on a school trip.
  • R v Sean Bailey: Defending a man charged with multiple rapes and sexual assaults on five victims (some committed whilst on bail).
  • R v David Howard & Others: Defending in a conspiracy to run a network of brothels in West London.
  • R v AK: Defending a 19 year old charged with rape of another male in a park in Southend.
  • R v Nicholas Creane: Defending a male facing multiple rape and sexual assault allegations made by two 12 year old victims.
  • R v JG: Defending a 16 year old charged with raping an 18 year old girl in Colchester High Street.
  • R v Johann Villuenueva: Defending a Philippines national charged with multiple rapes on a six year old girl.
  • R v GH: Defending a youth charged with a number of sexual assaults and rapes from the age of 13 to 16, in a series of trials.
  • R v RP: Defending a 12 year old boy both in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal, charged with multiple indecent assaults on a series of adult female victims.
  • R v TC: Defending a 12 year old boy charged with serious sexual assaults on his 3 year old sister.
  • R v John Rowland: Prosecuting a defendant charged with historic sexual assaults on his two daughters dating back to the 1960’s and 1970’s.
  • R v DW: Prosecuting a defendant charged with sexual assault and attempted rape on his 10 year old daughter.
  • R v G: Prosecuting a 15 year old charged with serious sexual assaults on a 13 year old girl.
  • R v DS: Successfully defending a man charged with 18 counts of rape and sexual assault relating to 5 different complainants. The allegations were all historic in nature allegedly committed on young children whilst the defendant himself was a teenager.
  • R v P: Prosecuting a defendant who committed multiple rapes and indecent assaults on his disabled stepdaughter over a ten-year period, causing her to become pregnant
  • R v CT: successfully defending a 16 year old charged with multiple sexual assaults on a three and a half year old child, being cared for by his mother, a registered child-minder. The case involved cross-examination of a four-year old child. Of the charges he faced, some were discharged following an application to dismiss, others following a submission of no case to answer and the remaining counts resulted in acquittal by a jury.
  • R v Christopher Bosworth: Leading counsel, prosecuting an Anglican Catholic priest for historic sexual offences committed on patients and mentally unwell individuals, whilst the defendant was a community psychiatric nurse in the 1980’s and early 1990’s.

Memberships


  • Criminal Bar Association