Callum has a busy criminal practice, appearing in the Crown Court, as well as magistrates’ and youth courts, on a daily basis. He has particular experience as a trial advocate and is often instructed to represent young clients or those with learning difficulties because of his expertise in dealing with vulnerable defendants.
Alongside his criminal work, Callum has developed a strong practice in regulatory law. He has significant experience conducting contested fitness to practise hearings on behalf of regulatory bodies and regularly appears as a case presenter for the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Dental Council. He has appeared successfully in contested regulatory proceedings in the High Court.
Callum also has a growing practice representing members of the Armed Services before Courts Martial and has appeared in contested cases at both the Bulford and Catterick Military Court Centres.
In addition to his advocacy, Callum is a sought-after junior for document review work, having been instructed as disclosure counsel by the Serious Fraud Office. He has also been instructed as part of the high-profile review by the Post Office of convictions involving the ‘Horizon’ computer system, reviewing documents for post-conviction disclosure, Legal Professional Privilege, and potential abuses of process.
Callum is Direct Access qualified. If you would like to instruct him on a Direct Access basis, please contact the clerks.
Callum is regularly instructed to prosecute trials on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and Probation Service, as well as local authorities and licensing bodies such as Transport for London and Essex County Council. He also has significant experience conducting appeals against sentence and conviction on behalf of prosecuting authorities.
In addition to his oral advocacy, Callum is regularly instructed by prosecuting bodies to provide written advices on charging, evidence, disclosure, and appeal.
Callum is an experienced defence advocate who regularly represents clients in trials in the Crown Court, as well as the magistrates’ and youth courts. His practice covers the whole range of serious criminal offences including sexual assault, grievous bodily harm with intent, robbery, burglary, fraud, domestic violence, and Public Order offences. He also has significant experience representing clients charged with carrying weapons (including bladed articles and firearms) and the supply of drugs, including ‘county lines’ drug dealing.
In addition to trials, Callum has a strong practice in contested appellate proceedings, having conducted a significant number of appeals against conviction and sentence. He also regularly represents clients in quasi-criminal matters including confiscation and other proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Alongside his oral advocacy, Callum is regularly instructed to provide written advices on evidence, sentence, and appeal to assist clients in navigating court proceedings, as well as in assessing the strengths of their case.
R v BF
Represented BF, who was acquitted after his trial at Cambridge Crown Court for an alleged domestic assault involving two kitchen knives, resulting in actual bodily harm.
R v TG
Represented TG at his trial at Cambridge Crown Court for threatening to bomb a police station and kill police officers. TG had severe mental health problems including vivid schizophrenic hallucinations.
R v DA
Represented DA, a Non-Commissioned Officer in the Royal Air Force, at his Court Martial for an allegation of drunkenly gouging the eye of a colleague.
R v VW
Represented VW, a teenager, who was acquitted of supplying Class A drugs after it emerged that he had been groomed by a ‘county lines’ drug dealing gang.
R v KC
Represented KC, who was deemed ‘unfit to plead’ by two expert psychiatrists, at her ‘trial of the act’ at Cambridge Crown Court.
R v AD
Represented AD, who was acquitted of burglary after his trial at Peterborough Crown Court despite being caught on CCTV driving the alleged victim’s car away from the scene using keys that had been taken from inside the property.
Callum regularly represents and advises clients charged with serious motoring offences such as dangerous driving, as well as driving whilst under the influence of drink and drugs. He is a specialist in cases where clients are at risk of being disqualified from driving, conducting ‘exceptional hardship’ and ‘special reasons’ hearings.
R v GJ
Represented GJ, who was acquitted after his trial for an allegation of speeding when it could not be established whether he had been the person driving at the relevant time.
R v BS and JE
Represented both BS and JE, who were acquitted after their trial for ‘racing,’ despite being videoed by an off-duty police officer driving at speeds in excess of 100mph in ‘laps’ around a stretch of dual carriageway.
R v PD
Represented PD, who was acquitted of using a mobile phone whilst driving before any evidence was called by the prosecution, following submissions on the law.
R v MT
Represented MT, a new driver who received a short discretionary disqualification of 14 days rather than having his licence revoked, despite having pleaded guilty to driving at more than double the speed limit.
Callum has represented a number of clients in confiscation proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as well as associated proceedings.
R v CJ
CJ had pleaded guilty to supplying Class A drugs and was being pursued in confiscation proceedings under POCA 2002. Callum was able to negotiate the ‘benefit figure’ down by over £125,000.
Callum has developed a strong practice in fitness to practise proceedings brought by professional regulatory bodies and is regularly instructed as a case presenter for the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Dental Council. He has experience conducting contested substantive proceedings involving sensitive and serious allegations of misconduct, including the disclosure of sexual images, theft of controlled drugs, and falsification of patient records.
Callum also deals with a high volume of interim regulatory proceedings, including the imposition and review of conditions of practice and orders for suspension.
NMC v MG
Presented the case against MG, who was struck off following allegations including the non- and mal-administration of medication to over 25 patients at a care home who lacked capacity.
GDC v NM
Presented the case against NM, who was alleged to have been defrauding the dental practice at which he worked out of thousands of pounds, as well as falsifying paid invoices for dental work provided.
NMC v CP
Presented the case against CP, who was found to have shared a sexually explicit image with a vulnerable patient who had learning difficulties.