Dean George

Year of Call: 2002  


Overview


Dean George is regularly instructed in high profile cases and on behalf of high profile clients and organisations.

He has undertaken numerous murders (regularly appearing at the Old Bailey), high profile fraud, drugs, firearms, money laundering, and road traffic cases. He has also been instructed in numerous reported Appellate cases (and has regularly been specifically sourced to undertake appeals in cases which have been conducted by others in the lower courts).

He is often instructed in heavy-weight, multi-handed and document intensive cases, as well as those cases involving complex legal arguments, tactically complicated considerations, and sensitive cross-examination. He is able to assimilate vast amounts of paperwork and detail and is often sought after for his paperwork as well as his advocacy skills.

Dean continues to be instructed to represent figures in the public eye, in the football and media worlds and on behalf of those in high profile positions. Cases in which Dean appears often attract media attention because of the nature of the case or the profile of the accused. He is recognised for his cross-examination, closing speeches, legal argument and ability to dissect the most complicated of expert evidence.

Dean was instructed on behalf of LCpl Cooley in the high profile Iraqi abuse case alleging that British Army personnel based at Camp Breadbasket photographed Iraqi detainees in vulnerable positions. He was also instructed on behalf of one of Britain’s highest profile prisoners in presenting his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

He also specialises in the complex area of road traffic/driving law in which people find themselves facing an array of offences from speeding to drink driving (advising both pre and post summons / charge). His advice in these areas has been sought by those working in large corporations, government, professional racing, footballers, sports and those in media and entertainment.

Dean advised a premiership footballer in his action against the police (leading to a pay out by the police and an admission of wrongdoing), is advising on an action for wrongful arrest against the National Crime Agency and has advised on a highly sensitive judicial review matter against the MOJ.

Fraud


Dean is ranked as a leading individual in fraud and financial crime in the 2015 edition of Chambers and Partners. He is instructed in cases involving multi-million pound allegations, cross-border allegations, cyber-crime, vast money laundering cases and matters involving forensic accountants. His joint degree for law and accountancy provides an additional foundation for cross-examining, preparing, and dissecting such cases.

He is also instructed in large scale cases involving the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on goods (such as drugs, tax and other dutiable goods).

Cases

  • R v B [2015] Crown Court at Chelmsford Acquittal of a G4S security driver / operator alleged to have defrauded / stolen in excess of £800,000 on a security round (described in the media as the biggest security van heist in a decade).The case involved extensive expert evidence including the calling of the designer of the G4S vans / security systems, experts on tracking / GPS / black box devices and psychologists.The lead designer of the G4S van / security system called by the Prosecution (whom had been given special protective measures under the anonymity provisions) was cross-examined as to the incorrectness of where he contended the money was dropped off and had exposed serious errors in a number of his reports and conclusions. The Defence case was that the money was dropped off at a different location from that contended by the Prosecution who had called a number of experts to support their contention. Sole Junior.
  • R v E & Others [2015] Crown Court at NorwichSuccessful Newton Hearing on behalf of Mr E whom the Crown argued was of a high significant role in a multi-Kilo country wide drug conspiracy which justified him being sentenced for a category 1 offence. Following the Newton Hearing Mr E was sentenced as having a lesser role for a category 2 offence. The majority of the co-defendants were sentenced as having leading or significant roles in a category 2 offence. Sole Junior.
  • R v S & Another [2014] Central Criminal CourtRepresenting the lead Defendant in a multi-million pound international fraud. The fraud was said to be extensive and involved the purchase of equipment and money defrauded from countries as far as Eastern Europe to America.A plea was entered on a specific basis (primarily asserting that there was no loss) resulting in the holding of a Newton Hearing in which the Judge found in favour of S on all issues resulting in a suspended sentence being imposed. Sole Junior.
  • R v L [2014] Crown Court at Wood GreenWritten representations / submissions / application to dismiss leading the Prosecution to concede that it had to offer no evidence. L had been charged with fraudulent representations in relation an allegation of him renting out property he was not entitled to/seeking to move tenants into property he had no entitlement to. Sole Junior.
  • R v JV & Others [Dec 2013] Crown Court at KingstonDean successfully applied to dismiss a conspiracy to supply/import 49 kilos of drugs hidden in fruit/using shell companies/real business fronts to commit the fraudulent evasion in which JV had been identified by numerous surveillance officers as being the person in various surveillance videos having meetings with others and involved in incriminating acts on the basis that the identifications were substantially flawed; although the Crown’s case also relied upon telephone/cell site evidence. A number of other defendants have since been convicted of the offence.Since the raising of the submission the IPCC has upheld a complaint about the use by officers of an out-of-date surveillance/comparison photograph used to “identify” JV. Sole Junior.
  • R v RS [2013] Crown Court at WinchesterRS had been charged with 13 counts of fraud representing a loss of over £3.2 million (mortgage frauds). Dean successfully argued against 12 of the counts resulting in the Crown accepting a plea to one count of just over £90,000 for which RS was given a suspended sentence. Sole Junior.
  • R v K & 9 Others [2012] Crown Court at CroydonRepresented the lead defendant (who had largely been based in the Ukraine) in a high profile and highly complicated international multi-million pound cyber-crime involving the issuing of Trojan Malware (a malicious computer virus) which captured the bank and personal details of those who used online banking facilities. Not only were British and European authorities involved in the investigation process but the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also became involved.The fraudulent/criminal funds were alleged to have been diverted through at least 37 different countries (through three continents). It was alleged that over 600 UK customers were directly affected by the fraud with the money that was taken from those accounts being diverted to approximately 680 beneficiary accounts at a total loss that ran into millions to some of the more major banking organisations including HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and Lloyds TSB.Attracted press attention both nationally and internationally. Led Junior.
  • R v H & Others [2012] Crown Courts at Kingston & BristolSole Junior for a person who had been arrested after the trial of a number of other co-accused concerning a conspiracy to import (the acts being successful) of 80kg of cocaine worth £8 million. The first accused received a sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment whereas Mr H received a sentence of 6 years following the Crown conceding various aspects of the case which led to an acceptance of Mr H’s basis of plea.
  • R v LP & Others [2012] Crown Court at BristolSuccessful legal argument (based on a jurisdictional grounds) preventing the Crown from further proceeding in large scale confiscation proceedings instituted against the lead defendant in a conspiracy to supply class A drugs throughout locations in the UK (the only defendant to whom the argument applied). Confiscation orders were made against a number of the other defendants. Sole Junior.
  • R v B & Others [2011] Crown Court at KingstonSuccessful abuse of process argument on behalf of B resulting in his case being stayed. The case involved a multi-million pound allegations of money laundering (sterling and Euros). Amongst other matters it was suggested that: (i) bureau de changes had been used to launder money worldwide; (ii) that there had been large scale concealment of funds by various agencies; (iii) bureau de changes connected to the defendants were used to cover up the activities from criminal gangs linked to identity frauds/thefts and VAT frauds; (iv) the defendants had been involved in the false creation of documents / false accounting to cover up the alleged money laundering; (v) defendants had been involved in MTIC frauds and/or that parts of the money laundered had come from such offences. In total it is alleged that over £100,000,000 was laundered/involved.
  • R v W & Others [2011] Crown Court at KingstonAcquittal of the lead defendant in allegations concerning him orchestrating/being involved in large scale conspiracies to import cocaine. Led Junior and acted alone.
  • R v M & Others [2009] Acquittal of M (the only defendant acquitted of all matters) in a case involving large scale money laundering, and high valued tax evasion/fraudulent evasion on the prohibition of goods (cigarettes). Sole Junior.
  • R v G & Another [2008] Crown Court at ChelmsfordImportation of guns and very high purity cocaine dropped from a plane into a field in Bradbury. The co-accused was convicted on a full facts basis. Mr G sentenced on the basis that he believed all of the items to be cannabis. The case attracted media attention. Sole Junior.
  • R v T & Another Appeared on behalf of M T who initially faced a 30 count indictment and the evidence of 176 witnesses. It was alleged that T had obtained a fake degree and falsely held himself as a solicitor thereby duping Romanian nationals into believing that he could legally render them British Citizens and obtain legitimate British passports for them (with those duped being provided with what were alleged to have been false nationalisation certificates and British passports). The case involved cross-border investigations and was thought to be one of the first cases to rely so heavily on witnesses giving evidence from abroad via live link under the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (a large number of witnesses gave evidence from Bucharest and Rome).
  • R v Ahmet & Others Multi-handed case involving allegations of cross-border money laundering amounting to £34,000,000 in total.

Crime


Dean is ranked as a leading individual in the area of crime in the 2015 edition of Chambers and Partners. As well as undertaking numerous murders, large scale frauds and drug cases (see separate headings) he is instructed in large scale robberies (including a number of high profile robberies), smash and grab robberies of jewellery stores and hotels, kidnapping, firearm, serious violence and other serious and complex areas of crime.

Cases

  • R v L [2015]: Acquittal of Mr L who had been charged with the armed robbery (imitation firearm) and the kidnaps of a man and his 5 year old son. It was alleged that Mr L had driven the two complainants around various locations to force the father to obtain money from cash points / banks. The Prosecution contended that the offences were evidenced by text messages in which it was said that Mr L had warned the complainant father of his intentions to shoot him and “nap” his son. Sole Junior.
  • R v C Crown Court at Chelmsford: Acquittal of Mr C who was charged with sexual assault on the his daughter’s friend.
  • R v M [2014]: M had been charged with a section 18 (GBH) and lesser charges in which it was alleged the victim was hospitalised (and which was allegedly witnessed by a number of others and where the police witnessed the aftermath). He was acquitted of all counts. Sole Junior.
  • R v MM & Others [2014]: Prosecuted by Senior and Junior Treasury Counsel in a multi-handed incident involving allegations of large scale violence resulting in one of the defendants being charged with the manslaughter of his friend. Reported in the media. Sole Junior.
  • R v DM & Others [2013]: Dean was instructed for the main defendant in the armed robbery (gun and sword) of the wife of the owner of Costcutters in which 3 masked men entered her home and stole over £200,000 of jewellery. Reported in the medial. Sole Junior.
  • R v A & 4 Others [2013]: Dean was instructed in a case which lasted 2 ½ months for the main defendant (said to be the gunman) in which a number of males entered a sports shop, kidnapped two workers before keeping them tied and bound for a number of days while blackmailing the older brother of one of those taken and starving the victims. Sole Junior.
  • R v F & Another [2012]: Cash in transit robbery where the evidence relied upon against F and the co-accused was the same. The co-accused pleaded guilty to the count. F was ac-quitted after trial. Sole Junior.
  • R v I & 3 Others [2011]: Cash in transit robbery where I was the only accused acquitted of the robbery. Sole Junior.
  • R v W [2011]: Acquittal of a farmer alleged to have pulled a loaded shotgun on a father and two children who had trespassed on his land, before assaulting one of the children and sub-sequently shooting at a passer-by who came to their assistance. Attracted media attention. Sole Junior.
  • R v G & Others [2011]: Conspiracy to rob and robberies. Multiple armed robberies of Mobile Phone shops across London and Hertfordshire. Sole Junior.
  • R v L & Others [2010]: Alleged conspiracy to rob of a jewellers in Oxford Street in broad day light. Sole Junior.
  • R v MB & Others [2010]: Multi-handed conspiracy to burgle various addresses in South London and the surrounding area. Mr MB was not found guilty of any burglary offences nor of conspiring to burgle.
  • R v W [2009]: What the local and national media titled: “Croydon Litter Riot”. An incident which started because of a young school girl dropping litter which she was asked to pick up by police, which soon turned into a public disorder involving numerous people in Croydon Town Centre in which it was eventually conceded during the course of the proceedings that the police unlawfully assaulted the accused, “W” (a school girl).
  • R v T & 9 Others [2008]: Believed to be one of the largest cases ever prosecuted at the time in respect of a conspiracy to commit criminal damage by graffiti (believed to exceed a million pounds) which was placed within various locations in the UK, on the EastEnders film set and a substantial number of locations outside the UK. The case was widely reported in the local and National Media. Sole Junior.
  • R v X [A Youth] and 11 others [2008]: Successful legal argument in which the accused was acquitted of gang related violence in which there had been a series of attacks resulting in the culmination of a group (said to include A) breaking down the door of another robbing the oc-cupants therein while being armed with weapons and causing a serious wounding of one of the occupants. 8 of the other accused were convicted. Sole Junior.
  • R v Mr X [2008]: Dean was, again, instructed on behalf of a musician he had successfully represented in 2006. As in 2006 the Prosecution case rested solely on the evidence of a number of police officers, and again Mr X was acquitted at half-time. Sole Junior.
  • R v M [2007]: Mr Millwood was found in a bedroom in which a large amount of class A drugs was found. He allegedly made full admissions at the scene to possessing the drugs, was said to have signed a search book confirming the possession of the drugs and paraphernalia and when interviewed subsequently admitted possessing the drugs and supplying them. A substantial voir dire was held in which various officers (largely from the drug and firearm unit) were cross-examined as to the falsity of the recording of Mr Millwood’s alleged oral admissions, the forgery of Mr Millwood’s signatures on the search book and officers’ coercion to get Mr Millwood to make full admissions in interview on tape. Towards the end of the voir dire the Crown were granted an adjournment which they requested owing to the potential adverse consequences that the officers were to find themselves under following cross-examination. The Crown subsequently offered no evidence. Sole Junior.
  • R v Smith [2007]: Appeared at the Central Criminal Court on behalf of Mr Smith in serious allegations of kidnap, false imprisonment and blackmail where three other accused had previously been tried but Mr Smith had not been apprehended until a third Crimewatch Appeal for information as to his whereabouts led to his arrest. Sole Junior.
  • R v Cooney & Rozza [2006]: Acquittal of Mr Cooney in the ‘black jelly baby’ case which attracted local and national media attention, including making the front page of The Sun.
  • R v Chambers [2006]: Described as a 21 hour rooftop siege in which Mr Chambers was provided with a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken and a bottle of Pepsi. Attracted large scale local and national media attention.

Murder & Manslaughter


Dean is ranked in the 2015 edition of Chambers and Partners in crime. A large part of his practice involves representing those accused in murders and attempted murders. He is currently instructed in 6 different murder cases (instructed by 5 different solicitors) [correct as at the beginning of 2015].

He regularly appears at the Old Bailey and as well as being sought after for his paperwork is often asked to undertake (when being led) the advocacy on difficult issues of law and to cross-examine witnesses.

Cases

  • R v JO & Others [2015] Central Criminal Court Acquittal of Mr JO who was jointly charged with others of being involved in a mass gang incident resulting in the stabbing of a rival member. The Prosecution primarily relied upon Low Copy Number DNA evidence which suggested JO’s DNA matched that found on the murder weapon. Complex legal arguments were raised regarding the validity of the DNA evidence, the level of picogrammes used as the DNA sample and whether the sample was below the stochastic threshold to allow for a proper comparison. Mr JO was acquitted following a successful submission of no case to answer. Led Junior.
  • R v E7 [2015] Central Criminal CourtAcquittal of E7, a specialist firearms officer, who was charged with murdering Azelle Rodney while police were carrying out an intercept of a vehicle in which Mr Rodney and others were travelling. One of only a few police officers in England who have been charged with carrying out a murder in the course of their duty. Led Junior.
  • R v AC and JC [2015] Central Criminal CourtAcquittal of AC (a music artist) who had been jointly charged with JC (his younger brother) of stabbing to death a male in broad daylight in Hackney; which was captured on CCTV footage and was said to have been witnessed by numerous residents and passer-bys. JC, who was represented by separate advocates, was convicted of manslaughter. Led Junior.
  • R v AC & JC [2015]: Acquittal of AC (a music artist) who had been jointly charged with JC (his younger brother) of stabbing to death a male in broad daylight in Hackney; which was captured on CCTV footage and was said to have been witnessed by numerous residents and passer-by’s. JC, who was represented by separate advocates, was convicted of manslaughter. Led Junior.
  • R v S & Others [2015]: Acquittal of Mr S (the lead defendant) who was alleged to have arranged for two men to find and locate a man who had been into his home and stolen his car keys and “criminal property”. This resulted in one of the men shooting the complainant in the stomach with a shotgun at close range and then seeking to shoot the complainant in the head while stating that he was going to kill him. The co-defendant who pleaded guilty to shooting the complainant was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. Sole Junior.
  • R v FI [2014]: Successful submission of no case to answer leading to the acquittal of FI on a count of murder in which it is alleged that he lured out the deceased from his flat while another stabbed him to death. It was alleged that the background to the case had its origins in the failed purchase of a firearm. The Crown’s case relied upon telephone evidence, text messages, CCTV footage, eyewitness accounts and alleged suspicious behaviour by FI following the incident. Dean had successfully obtained bail for FI and undertook a significant amount of the preparation and cross-examination (including the cross-examination of the officer-in-the case in which the telephone evidence was contextualised; the Defence having prepared their own schedule of messages and calls spanning the months prior to the incident rather than just the period which the Crown alleged to be relevant). The Crown unsuccessfully sought to appeal the ruling (not even obtaining leave to appeal following an oral hearing). Led Junior.
  • R v N & Another [2014]: Acquittal of N who had been accused of a triple attempted murder, an offence of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life and other related offences. The case involved an allegation that N, his co-accused and others had been involved in the attempted murder of Albanian car wash attendants following a dispute between them and those said to be from the travelling community. The co-accused was convicted of a lesser offence. Led Junior.
  • R v FD [2013]: Acquittal of Mr FD of a murder in which he was seen on CCTV footage to have a one-on-one knife fight with the deceased having gone home earlier to collect a knife following a previous argument. He was said to have struck the deceased, at least, 9 times with significant force. Alternative verdict of manslaughter reached. Led Junior.
  • R v T [2013]: High Profile murder, attempted murder, firearms and other related charges in which the intended victim was said to be a leading UK urban artist. Led Junior.
  • R v I [2012]: High profile murder case which received media attention. Led Junior.
  • R v A & Others [2012]: Allegation of attempted murder, GBH (section 18) and violent disorder by 9 persons in which a person was unfortunately seriously brain damaged before being urinated on. Dean successfully argued for the attempted murder to be dismissed and Mr A was acquitted of the GBH. Sole Junior.
  • R v M & Others [2012]: High profile attempted murder case in Stockwell in which a 5 year old girl was dancing in the aisle of a shop and was shot by one of three men on bicycles pursuing a rival gang member. The 5 year old girl had, unfortunately, been left paralysed. A man unconnected to the alleged gang member was shot through the face. The case featured regularly in all forms of media nationally and internationally. Led Junior.
  • R v K [2012]: Allegation of attempted murder by a man in his late 50s (a former accountant) who stabbed his long term civil partner (having been in a relationship with him for 38 years) in the abdomen and repeatedly attempted to stab him elsewhere. This is said to have followed various mental breakdowns suffered by K and involved complicated issues regarding the issue of intent, non-insane automatism and insanity with experts being relied upon by both parties. The Prosecution eventually accepted a plea to a lesser matter. Sole Junior.
  • R v L [2012]: Alleged murder outside a public house in Islington in front of a crowd gathered to watch the Tottenham Hotspurs v Arsenal football match. The case involved an unusual set of circumstances in which it was suggested that the defendant and the deceased agreed to have a “straightener” owing to some previous issues. During the “straightener” L picked up a golf club that had been lying on the ground and struck it against the deceased so hard that it broke leaving a jagged sharpened edge which was subsequently plunged into the deceased’s abdominal region causing the deceased’s death. L was acquitted of murder following his plea to manslaughter. Determinative 6 year custodial sentence passed. Led Junior.
  • R v R [2012]: Murder in South London between alleged drug dealers (reported in the media). Led Junior.
  • R v M [2011]: Dean acted alone on behalf of M in a case being prosecuted by Treasury Counsel and Junior and where the co-defendants were represented by QCs and Juniors. Dean successfully argued (undertaking the lead argument having identified and raised the matter) that transferred malice could not apply to attempted murder counts. There was no English or Welsh precedent considering this issue. Sole Junior.
  • R v A [2011]: The alleged attempted murder by a 17 year old boy with Autism on a girl with learning difficulties arising from a game of “Mercy” being played during the course of a date on Valentine’s Day 2009. During the course of the ‘game’ of Mercy “A” repeatedly hit the complainant over the head with a claw hammer causing a hole in her head and other injuries before taking her home and asking her not to tell anyone. The case involved complicated issues arising out of the mental state of “A” and his Autism and how that affected his subsequent actions undertaken during the course of what started out as a game of Mercy. Issues of self-defence and lack of intent were considered which has involved the employment of leading experts in the fields of Autism and Asperger’s. A was acquitted of attempted murder following his plea to GBH. The case attracted media attention with one headline reading: “Valentine’s date turns to claw hammer horror”. Led Junior.
  • R v B & Others [2010]: Acquittal of B in a high profile murder in which it was alleged that 5 persons on mopeds in seeking to undertake a revenge attack for a shooting that took place on one of their gang members earlier in the day rode along the busy Camberwell Road, London SE5 at 9.30pm where at least two of those on the bikes opened fire in the direction of two opposing gang members but instead shot a passer-by who was seeking to clamber into a Costcutter to get away from the shooting. The case attracted media attention. Led Junior.
  • R v ELT & Others [2010]: Acquittal of ELT in a high profile murder case in which ELT was said to have perverted the course of justice by attending prison with a view to seeking to silence a co-defendant accused of the murder who had named the other defendants as being suspects in the murder. Led Junior.
  • R v J & Another [2010]: Acquittal of J in a high profile murder case said to have involved a close range shooting by J (aka ‘Hitman’) and another. Led Junior.
  • R v M [2010]: Murder which attracted media attention in which a man walked into a police station to confess to killing and robbing a shop keeper 23 years’ earlier. M was indicted on counts of murder and robbery. The case involved extremely complex psychiatric, psychological and mental health issues. M acquitted of murder after his plea to manslaughter. Led Junior.
  • R v MSJ and 9 Others [2009]: Acquittal of MSJ who was said to have been involved in the shooting of a rival gang member in an area known as “Dead Man’s Alley”.
  • R v O & Others [2009]: Represented the lead defendant on a charge of murder and attempted murder involving a gang allegedly using knives to kill one person and one of them thrusting a sword through another. Led Junior.
  • R v H & Another [2009]: Acquittal of H who was alleged to have been involved in a triple attempted murder, robbery and possession of firearms (high profile shooting inside and outside a nightclub). Led Junior.
  • R v Shosanya [2008]: Murder of a foreign student outside a nightclub in Central London. Led Junior.
  • R v P [2008]: Attempted murder reduced to an attempted GBH. Sole Junior.

Serious Sexual Offences


Cases

  • R v C & Another: Crown Court at Blackfriars. Successful dismissal of charges on behalf of C (who was charged with his brother) on charges of conspiracy to rape and substantive counts of rape on a grandmother. The co-accused was convicted. Legal arguments prevented the Crown from proceeding against C. Sole Junior.
  • R v G: Successful acquittal of a man charged with seven counts of sexual activity upon his step-granddaughter. Sole Junior.

Appeals


Dean is regularly instructed to undertake appeals where the original trial/sentence was undertaken by a different Advocate. He is often instructed by virtue of his knowledge of the law, his drafting skills and because he thoroughly reviews all cases which are so referred to him; meaning he can identify issues that are sometimes missed on even a first or second review of the case. He is careful to ensure that only meritorious points are taken and considers carefully which points from a tactical point of view ought to be pursued on any such appeal.

Cases

  • R v FI [2015] EWCA Crim 212: Successful resistance on behalf of FI of a Prosecution appeal against a High Court’s judge’s ruling that FI had no case to answer on a count of murder following the close of the Prosecution case (Dean had represented FI in the proceedings below). Dean had successfully obtained bail for FI at the start of the proceedings and undertook a substantial amount of work prior to the instruction and after the instruction of Queen’s Counsel. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court Judge’s decision. A trial against a number of others will be recommenced (they being involved in the original proceedings and not having made / not been successful in any submission of no case to answer. Led Junior.
  • R v X [2014]: Successful application for leave to appeal against convictions for murder and attempted murder. Led Junior.
  • R v W [2013 / 2014]: Successful application for leave to appeal against a conviction for a conspiracy to import drugs for one of the persons said to be at the organiser of the importation of drugs from the Caribbean. Led Junior.
  • R v M [2013 / 2014]: Appeal on behalf of a person said to be the organiser of a large scale drug dealing operation. Dean was not instructed in the original proceedings. Having reviewed the matter grounds were drafted regarding the impropriety of the disclosure process, and failure to give various legal directions. The matter has been referred for full hearing with the Prosecution being ordered to respond in full. Led Junior.
  • R v M & Others [2013]: Appeal against conviction in respect of a high profile attempted murder case involving the shooting of a 5 year old girl causing her paralysis. Led Junior.
  • R v I & Another [2012 / 2013]: Appeal against a conviction for murder. Led Junior.
  • R v C [2013] EWCA Crim 959: Successful appeal against sentence in a serious assault case. The sentence was reduced from 8 ½ years to 7 years. Dean had not been instructed at the original sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeal paid “tribute” [see the judgment] to Dean’s submissions indicating that they had reduced the sentence further than the tribunal had envisaged it would when they first entered Court. Sole Junior.
  • R v D [2013]: Appeal against sentence for the chief organiser of a large scale drug conspiracy in various locations in the UK. Sole Junior.
  • R v T [2013]: Successful application for leave to appeal substantially out of time against sentence in a high profile shooting of a UK grime artist. Dean was not instructed in the original proceedings but managed to obtain leave despite the original advice by senior Counsel contending that there were no grounds for appeal. The Court granted the application for leave to appeal out of time on the basis that there was merit in contending that the original advice was wrong. Sole Junior.
  • R v Olu & Others [2010] All ER (D) 264 (Dec); [2010] EWCA Crim 2975; (2011) 175 JP 1, LTL 22/12/2010: Leading judgment on the ability of a defendant to challenge a police caution, the rules to be followed where it is intended to do so, the form of the direction that the judge is to give regarding the challenging of the caution and / or a conviction and any resulting full good character direction that ought to be given where the jury accept that the caution / conviction is not valid (and the other conditions for giving a direction are fulfilled), or a partial good character direction where the caution is accepted as being valid. The appeal also addressed important disclosure points concerning the importance of the Crown following the disclosure regime in particular the need for a the Crown Prosecutor to identify the issues in the case (whether or not a defence statement has been served) and to direct the disclosure officer to ensure that he or she approaches the matter through the exercise of judgment and not simply as a schedule completing exercise and provides disclosure having regards to the identified issues; and to ensure that the police officer who was not trained in that skill to act under the guidance of the CPS. Substantial criticisms were made of the disclosure regime and the Thames Valley Police’s disclosure regime was overhauled as a result of the case.
  • R v NW [2010] EWCA Crim 404; [2010] 2 Cr App R 54; [2010] WLR (D) 62; (2010) Times, 29 April, [2010] All ER (D) 34 Mar: Leading case on the meaning of “present together” for the purpose of violent disorder. Question certified for the Supreme Court. Sole Junior.
  • R v CPS Campbell; McInerney v Financial Services Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency v Carlton [2009] EWCA Crim 997; (2010) 1 WLR 650 : Times, June 16, 2009 LTL 26/5/2009: Acted alone for Ms Campbell in her appeal by the Crown against the stay of her confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court owing to her inability to obtain legal representation by virtue of insufficient funding requirements being in place. Two other applications raising distinct but linked points were conjoined to Ms Campbell’s appeal.
  • Queen’s Counsel and Junior Counsel was instructed on behalf of a Appellant in one of the related proceedings and Advocates had been instructed to make representations by the Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Services Commission, Law Society and Bar Council who all had an interest in the appeal. Dean had prepared lengthy and detailed legal submissions involving the consideration of / reference to sections of the Human Rights Act, reference to European cases and detailed analysis of domestic cases which were not all entirely consistent with one another. The Prosecution withdrew their appeal against Ms Campbell during the course of the hearing. The stay on the confiscation proceedings, therefore, remains. The case also raised issues about the interpretation of section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act and whether living expenses allowed under a restraint order can include the payment of legal expenses. Sole Junior.
  • R v Ekpulobi [2009] EWCA Crim 95: Successful appeal against sentence in which the Applicant had been bailed pending the application for leave to appeal. One of the grounds advanced on Mr Ekpulobi’s behalf focused on the defective procedure adopted by the sentencing Judge (particularly in regards to his refusal to allow the Defence to call factual witnesses in support of the basis of plea advanced by Mr Ekpulobi) leading to the Appeal Court taking the most unusual step of holding its own Newton Hearing to determine the correct factual basis on which Mr Ekpulobi was to be sentenced. Sole Junior.
  • R v Reynolds, Honore & Others [2007] EWCA Crim 538; [2007] 4 All ER 368; [2007] WLR (D) 65, Crim LR 493; The Times, March 23, 2007: Appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Dean did not conduct the Crown Court hearing). Leading case on “dangerous offenders”; the ability of a Crown Court to adjourn proceedings following its rescission of a sentence under the slip rule; and the acceptance of the Court of Appeal that it had no power to increase sentence on appeal by an Appellant having regard to section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Sole Junior.
  • R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239; [2007] All ER (D) 413 (May) [2007] WLR (D) 151; [2007] EWCA 4 All ER (D) 301; [2007] 2 Cr App R 23, [2007] 6 Archbold News 1; (2007) 171 JP 621; The Times, July 2, 2007: Appeal against conviction on behalf of the Appellant. Led Junior. Leading case on bad character, the meaning of “to do with” in section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the need for a clear and proper direction to the jury and the applicability of section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to the proposed admission of bad character. A leading recent authority on when a Brown [see Brown (Kevin) (1983) 79 Cr App R 115) direction is required regarding the need for unanimity of a jury’s decision as to a particular ingredient of an offence. The Appeal further dealt with the correct procedure to be followed where an offence is alleged to have been committed between a period covered by two different Acts.
  • R v G & W [2009] EWCA Crim 943: Appeared on behalf of the Applicant in a successful renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence in respect of a large scale drug case. Sentence reduced. Sole Junior.
  • R v Zarzycki [2007] All ER (D) 12 (Nov): Appeared on behalf of the Appellant in his successful appeal against sentence for an ABH where the cutting of a substantial portion of hair was the main basis for the charge. Sole Junior.
  • R v Harrison [2007]EWCA Crim: Appeared on behalf of the Appellant in his successful appeal against sentence for two offences of wounding, contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Sole Junior.
  • R v Baker [2004] EWCA Crim 1874: Successful appeal against sentence. The case also dealt with the need for there to be good reason to depart from a recommendation in a pre-sentence report for a drug treatment and testing order (which have now been replaced with drug rehabilitation requirement orders). Sole Junior.

Confiscation


Dean is particularly adept at undertaking large scale confiscation proceedings. He holds a joint 1st Class Law and Accountancy degree. He is able to cross-refer large volumes of material against figures relied upon by the Prosecution often identifying issues such as double-counting, misidentification/misapplication of the evidential burden as against the statutory assumptions and erroneous application of the law.

Judicial Review


Dean is asked to advise on judicial review in criminal, quasi-criminal and other related areas of law. He has good knowledge of the civil regime (previously working for a firm of civil solicitors and keeps up-to-date with the relevant civil authorities and matters related to judicial reviews).

Cases

  • R v X [2013 – 2014]: Highly sensitive case regarding a judicial review against the MOJ.
  • R (on the application of NB) v Central Criminal Court [2010] EWHC 667 Admin; CO /2308/2010; (2010) Crim LR 715; LTL 22/4/2010 High Court / Divisional Court [Admin Division]: Successful judicial review of the Judge’s decision to refuse bail in a high profile murder case. Bail was subsequently granted. Sole Junior.
  • R (on the application of Simon Jones) v Beverley Magistrates’ Court [2008]: Specifically drafted in to prepare a judicial review in relation to a driving conviction (Dean had not acted at first instance). The grounds resulted in the Respondent filing a Defence before the Administrative Court conceding that it had acted unlawfully and outside its powers. Sole Junior.
  • R (on the application of Johnson) v (1) Crown Court at Luton; (2) Chief Constable of Bedfordshire [2007]: Judicial Review application on behalf of Ms Johnson concerning the imposition of an ASBO, and the procedure to be adopted in the criminal courts in view of the civil nature of ASBOs. Led Junior.
  • R (on the application of Ahmet) v the Crown Court sitting at the Middlesex Guildhall [2005]: Successful judicial review on behalf of Mr Ahmet against the Crown Court’s decision to refuse bail in a £34,000,000 money laundering case. Mr Ahmet was subsequently granted bail.

Environmental


Dean has represented a number of organisations/persons accused of environmental breaches (including those relating to waste product, destruction of bat habitat and other such matters).

Military Law


Dean represented LCpl Cooley in the case involving soldiers allegedly forcing nationals to undertake compromising sex acts at Camp Breadbasket and other compromising positions (described as Britain’s Abu Ghraib equivalent). He has undertaken a wide variety of Courts-Martial cases both in the UK and Germany.

Directory Quotes


“A brilliant advocate with a flair for jury trials. He has great judgement and is a brilliant tactician.” Chambers & Partners 2015

“He’ll defend clients to the hilt.” Chambers & Partners

“Destined for greatness.” Legal 500

Memberships


  • Amnesty International
  • Liberty & Criminal Bar Association