Dean George QC

Year of Call: 2002  Silk: 2019  


Dean has a first class degree (with Honours) in Law & Accountancy.  His announcement as Queen’s Counsel was in just his 16th year of practice (appointment due on 11th March 2019).

He is consistently ranked in the legal directories (see below) in both crime and fraud.  He was nominated as criminal junior counsel of the year in the Legal 500 (2018).  He is ranked in tier 1 for crime in the 2019 edition of the Legal 500. He has been quoted in the directories this year as: “a class advocate”, “a mastermind”, “a superb advocate who fights tenaciously for his clients”, and as having “an impeccable knowledge of the law”.

He has extensive knowledge and experience in crime, fraud, confiscation, quasi-criminal cases, judicial reviews, cyber-crime, and road traffic law (quoted in the Art of the Loophole, written by Nick Freeman).  He has been sought after for specialist advice in quasi-criminal cases by virtue of his knowledge of the law, tactical skills and being adept in both the criminal and civil spheres.  He has advised cross-jurisdictionally including being asked last year to advise and assist in a multi-million dollar contractual and potential insolvency dispute (involving insolvency practitioners, the Official Receiver, commercial firms of solicitors).

Dean 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 has specialist knowledge in cyber-crime having undertaken some of the largest scale hacking and computer misuse type offences, with an in depth knowledge of server processes, the black web, white hacking, bitcoin and other cyber currency usage and transfer processes.

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.

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.

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.

In his quasi-criminal work, Dean advised a premiership footballer in his action against the police (leading to a pay out by the police and an admission of wrongdoing).  He has been instructed in substantial judicial review cases which have included reviews of bail refusal, unlawful search warrants, unlawful seizures, wrongful arrests and a decision by the MOJ.  He was instructed in an application for a judicial review against the police and magistrates’ court for issuing search warrants at the owners’ premises to seize their dog and thereafter retain her. The case resulted in the police returning the dog without conditions following the issuing of the application.  The police indicated that this was the first case in which they had ever had to return a dog prior to a criminal case being concluded.

Dean advised a Solicitor regarding his unlawful stop and search by a police officer whom he had a disagreement with previously at a police station when representing a client and has been involved in advising a money exchange bureau in a judicial review against search warrants executed at their premises in which significant material was seized.



Dean 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 first class degree in Law & Accountancy provides an additional foundation for cross-examining, preparing, and dissecting such cases.

Always completely prepared and on top of his case”: (Legal 500, 2019 – Fraud).  His foresight and tactical approach means he is always many steps ahead of co-defendants”: (Legal 500 Fraud 2017)

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).


  • R-v-K [2016 to 2020] Central Criminal Court.   Said to be one of the largest UK cyber hacking cases involving the hacking, fraud, unauthorised access to computers and servers and blackmails both nationally and globally (hacking / fraud / blackmail relating to the UK, America, Canada, Australia amongst other places).K was said to have gained unauthorised access to computers and servers of various institutes or servers, overloading of servers, theft of material from the servers / computers, use of files and information obtained in hacks, fraudulent use of items, blackmails said to have occurred to company directors etc, transfers of bitcoins obtained by those blackmails.  The case involved access to Bitcoin  accounts and wallets, and the obtaining of bitcoins.To put the case into context just one of the counts involved the notorious BT / Talk Talk hack, said to have cost the company over £77 million pounds.K had been undiagnosed with Asperger’s until the instruction of his legal team.  He was acquitted of various of the counts he was indicted with but pleaded guilty to others.  Various experts were instructed and substantial mitigation being put forward (with a bundle of sentencing material totalling over 500 pages).  He was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment with the Judge indicating that it would have been 10 years but for the mitigation.The case was reported globally and locally in various media outlets.
  • R-v-P [2018].  Crown Court at Harrow.  Acquittal of Mr P in a complicated money laundering case in which it was alleged that Mr P attended a pub car park with an intention to hand over a large bag / quantity of money to a money launderer with connections to the middle east.  The defence demonstrated how Mr P had built up a multi-million pound business and savings from the early 1980s until present, to establish that the money recovered from him was legitimate and not illicit proceeds.  This required historic analysis of the sale of properties (some of which there were no formal records for), leasing and selling of cars, borrowing and lending of money, investments in jewellery and transfers and movements of money between bank accounts.
  • R-v-Davies [2018].  Central Criminal Court.  Confiscation proceedings in respect of a bribery allegation by a company of which Mr Davies was the accountant and the co-defendant was the director, to “win” a £3.7 bomb disposal contract by in the US.  There was a concurrent FBI investigation. There were cut-throat instructions as between the defendants with Mr Davies being successful on the issues he advanced where there was a conflict.
  • R-v-C and 10 others [2017 to 2018].  Fuel evasion fraud (half a million pounds in evaded duty but fuel worth significantly more) in which Mr C is said to have been at the head of the organisation.  It is alleged that he and the others obtained agricultural fuel which has lower taxable duty payable on it and then arranged for its delivery to various petrol stations in the UK to be sold as non-agricultural fuel. Complicated investigation involving surveillance, fuel/tanker testing, cell site/phone analysis and other financial aspects.
  • R-v-D and Others [2017] Crown Court at Aylesbury. Allegation that Mr D was at the head of an organisation which arranged for the importation [from Eastern Europe] and onward supply of almost 3 million cigarettes (Gold Classic Cigarettes) on which no duty had been paid or was to be paid, nor for which any of the parties had permission to bring into the UK/sell onwards.  Leading Counsel.  Acquittal of Mr D at a second attempt at the trial resulting from disclosure issues raised while Dean had been instructed.
  • R-v-V and two others [2017].  Crown Court at Inner London.  £2.5 million conspiracy to defraud those in the entertainment industry by through a File Transfer Protocol server and a Leaseweb site based in the Netherlands, in which restricted and paid access could be obtained by numerous persons on the internet to obtain various films, books and other material and for which subscriptions were obtained.   Complicated computer/financial evidence.  Contesting the matter up to trial resulted in the Crown accepting a plea to Mr V only benefitting in the sum of just over £30,000 and resulting in him obtaining a suspended sentence.
  • R-v-D & Another [2017].   Central Criminal Court.  Successful reduction in a claim for confiscation (where Mr D had significant assets which would have outweighed any benefit claim) in respect of a bribery allegation by a company of which Mr D was the accountant, and the co-defendant was the director, bribery to “win” multi-million pound contracts from the US.  There was a concurrent FBI investigation.
  • 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.
  • R v E & Others [2015] Crown Court at Norwich. Successful 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.
  • R v S & Another [2014] Central Criminal Court. Representing 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.
  • R v L [2014] Crown Court at Wood Green. Written 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.
  • R v JV & Others [Dec 2013] Crown Court at Kingston. Dean 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.
  • R v RS [2013] Crown Court at Winchester. RS 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.
  • R v K & 9 Others [2012] Crown Court at Croydon. Represented 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.
  • R v H & Others [2012] Crown Courts at Kingston & Bristol. Acted 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 Bristol. Successful 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.
  • R v B & Others [2011] Crown Court at Kingston. Successful 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 Kingston. Acquittal of the lead defendant in allegations concerning him orchestrating/being involved in large scale conspiracies to import cocaine.
  • 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).
  • R v G & Another [2008] Crown Court at Chelmsford. Importation 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.
  • 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.


Dean is ranked as a leading practitioner in the area of crime in the 2019 edition of the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.  As well as undertaking numerous murders, large scale frauds and drug cases (see separate headings) he has been 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.


  • R-v-M [2019] Crown Court at Croydon.   Privately instructed to represent M who was indicted but acquitted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life.  M was employed within a school where he resided.  It was alleged that he pulled out a gun (imitation) on two delivery men who were being blamed for fitting a faulty washing machine / defrauding him by supplying the wrong washing machine deliberately.  The case involved allegations that the delivery men were involved in the fraud and more heavily involved in the shop where the washing machine was delivered from than they were prepared to declare, and allegations that they were lying.   Half-way through the cross-examination of the first delivery man, with the jury laughing at parts of his evidence, he decided he could no longer understand English and required an interpreter (despite having given his evidence-in-chief in English and part of his cross-examination in English).   The trial had to be aborted and re-tried at which point the second delivery driver needed to go abroad.  The prosecution decided in view of the way the evidence had gone in the first trial it could not proceed leading to M being acquitted.  Large scale media coverage.
  • R-v-D and 13 others [2018] Crown Court at Kingston.  Instructed as leading Counsel in what appears to be one of the largest scale, sophisticated class A drugs operations.  The quantities of cocaine said to be involved in the conspiracy is over one tonne (over a 1000 kg).  The wholesale value of the drugs would exceed £30,000,000.There were hugely complicated issues including a suggestion of potential impropriety of solicitors who had been involved in representing those in the investigations including the alleged payment of a large quantity of cash to one solicitor by D, complicated issues of legal privilege, issues regarding the propriety of identification evidence (which was excluded), and potential police impropriety by virtue of the police tampering with exhibits in the case.  The nature of the suggestions, in fact, caused an issue whereby the main officer being accused at one stage collapsed (although it cannot be said to be linked in any formal way) and both Prosecution Counsel had to withdraw from the case because of them becoming conflicted by virtue of the officer’s evidence, as did two co-defendant counsel.  The trial accordingly had to be aborted after 4 weeks.
  • R-v-D [2018] Crown Court at Kingston.  Bulgarian arms dealing case in which shipments of guns, machine guns, ammunition and other firearms were shipped / distributed across Europe and into the UK for which D was said to part of the be the UK connect / distributor.  Crown contended that this was one of the largest arms dealing cases in recent times.Case involving approximately 30,000 pages of material, telephone and surveillance evidence, voice intercepts, international intercepts and surveillance, in a case involving conspiracy to import, and conspiracy to supply firearms (including machine guns) on a commercial scale.
  • R v M [2018].  Involving the importation of very large quantities of cannabis resin into the United Kingdom from Spain and the distribution and intended distribution of it in this country.  On one of the seizures 844 kilogrammes of cannabis resin was found which was said, at that time (2006), to have a value of between £2,530,000 and £4,218,000.  He had, however, absconded before his trial was due to start and, therefore, had been “on the run” for over 10 years.  There had been failed attempts to extradite him beforehand.  He was eventually extradited when he visited a different country.
  • R v S and others [2018].  S was acquitted of a robbery following representations and submissions made at the start of the trial which the Crown conceded had to result in them offering no evidence.  The complainant, who is said to be linked to a well-known TV personality, alleged that she was robbed in her own home by three men as a result of an argument which emanated from a property development dispute.
  • R v T [2017] Crown Court at Chelmsford.  Acquittal of T who was alleged to have been involved in the supply of over 80kg of drugs.
  • R-v-K.  Crown Court at Woolwich [2017].  Acquittal of Mr K of attempted section 18 GBH in circumstances where he is said to have pursued a moped driver in his car along a number of roads before colliding into the rear of the moped, across the path of oncoming traffic, on the Old Kent Road before squashing the driver into the side of a coach (Mr K’s case was that he was acting in self-defence).  Link to news article and video here .
  • R-v-D and Others [2015] before Mr Justice Dingemans.  Crown Court at Bristol [‘the Becky Watts’ murder].  Acquittal of D who was accused of assisting an offender by storing the body parts of Becky Watts after her step-brother killed and dismembered her.  Mr D’s twin brother and his partner had pleaded guilty to assisting an offender.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • R v I & 3 Others [2011]: Cash in transit robbery where I was the only accused acquitted of the robbery.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 2019 editions of Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 in crime. A large part of his practice involves representing those accused in murders and attempted murders.

He regularly appears at the Old Bailey and throughout the country;

“..highlighted as a “class advocate” who has extensive expertise of handling serious criminal matters, such as murder…”: Chambers and Partners, 2019

“…thoroughly sharp-witted and has an impeccable knowledge of the law..”: Chambers and Partners, 2019

“A superb advocate who fights tenaciously for his clients”: Legal 500, 2019

“his ability with clients and his abilities on technical legal points make him the total package”: Chambers and Partners, 2018


  • R-v-MF and another [2020] Crown Court at Bristol.   Acquittal of MF who was indicted, with his co-accused, of murdering a male whom they both knew by repeatedly stamping and kicking his head on the landing of his own premises.  The accused and deceased were said to be alcoholics who often lived on the street.  There was a substantial cut-throat advanced by MF against the co-accused, with the case involving complex issues of blood spatter evidence (which the prosecution sought to suggest showed MF was an assailant), issues of causation of death, intoxication, substantial and complex medical evidence (involving brain and eye injury, bone and tissue damage, the issue of the administration of medicine, gait evidence) and psychological issues.  Following the service of defence evidence and the advancing of a cut-throat defence the co-accused pleaded guilty to murder.  MF was acquitted.
  • R-v-KA [2019] Central Criminal Court.  Acquittal of KA who was indicted with murdering his sister in a truly tragic case.   KA was a gay, Asian male, formerly a member of KPMG, who suffered great prejudice, ostracization from his family and social circles and an eventual mental breakdown.   He began hearing voices which involved them telling him to kill his sister.  Following the instruction of expert evidence and undertaking various investigations the prosecution accepted a plea to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.  He was sentenced to a hospital order.   Wide ranging media coverage.
  • R-v-RD and another [2019] Crown Court at Sheffield.  Acquittal of RD (first on the indictment) who was indicted with murder.   RD was alleged to have had a long standing dispute with a male and was said to have used a knife to stab him to death outside a cinema complex.  The case involved substantial cross-examination of the deceased’s group about their activities and in establishing that it was the deceased who had brought the knife to the scene that was ultimately used to inflict the fatal wound, and the lies they had told.
  • R-v-K [2019] Central Criminal Court.   K was indicted with murdering a woman he knew in her flat, by strangling her with a phone charger cord after smoking “spice”.   K had made full admissions in interview and continued to make full admissions during all hearings expressing
    remorse for which he was given a substantial discount from his ultimate sentence.
  • R-v-OC and another [2019] Crown Court at Exeter.  Acquittal of OC (first on the indictment) who was indicted with murdering a drug dealer who was said to have been running a county lines drug operation back and forwards from London and in which OC was said to be involved.   The prosecution alleged that OC and the co-defendant plotted to steal the deceased’s money / drugs and killed him in executing that plan by stabbing him to death.  The case involved a substantial cut-throat defence with the co-accused, issues of abuse of process, CCTV analysis and police impropriety.  Following cross-examination, OC was acquitted following the close of the prosecution case.   Such was the damage that was caused to the co-accused in the process that the prosecution conceded that the co-accused could not have a fair trial once OC was acquitted and needed a fresh re-trial.
  • R-v-D and 8 others [2019] Central Criminal Court.  Multi-handed murder case in which DG was first on the indictment with substantial cut-throat defences advanced against him and in which it was alleged that his phone records proved that he was involved.    Wide ranging media coverage owing to nearly all of the defendants being family members, and the motive for the killing said to be in revenge for the deceased starting a relationship with D’s former partner.  The weapons used were said to have included knives, an axe, knuckle dusters, baseball bat/s, and pieces of wood.
  • R-v-AP and others [2018] Crown Court at Basildon.  Acquittal of AP of murder who, along with one other, was indicted with stabbing to death a student regarding the alleged disrespect of one of the female members they were with.  The case involved conflicting positions with the co-accused who, ultimately, was convicted of murder.
  • R v X [2017] Central Criminal Court.  Acted for a man charged with his 3-month old son’s murder. The child was subject to sustained and catastrophic injuries over months (despite his young age) motivated by his having a hand deformity. Injuries included bone breakages (historic and recent), squeezing, forces equivalent to being dropped from the first floor of a block of flats / a car crash, internal eye injuries / brain bleeds from squeezing/swinging. There were leading experts in a range of medical fields relied upon/instructed including Ophthalmologists, Histopathologists, Cardiac arrest specialists, paediatricians, neurosurgeons, pathologists and other medical personnel.
  • R-v-O and Others [2016] Central Criminal Court.  Acquittal of O who had been accused of being part of a gang led murder carried out in revenge for a previous attack.  The case involved cut-throat defences being advanced with the first four defendants being referred to as the “four killers”.  Such was the nature of the cut-throat defence that additional security and police had to be procured.  Four co-accused were convicted of the murder, Mr O and two others were acquitted.
  • R v D and Others [2016] before Mr Justice Oppenshaw.   Acquittal of D of a murder and attempted murder in which he along with 5 others were accused of being part of a notorious gang in Bristol. The killing occurred after a club event where a local person from Gloucester punched one of their number and a huge altercation developed, resulting in sustained violence to a number of persons and one fatality.
  • R v B and Three Others [2016] Crown Court at Stafford.  Acquittal of B who was said to have been involved in a group murder carried out in the middle of the street in the early hours of the morning while people were on their way to work. The attackers were said to have used DIY equipment to attack and hack at the victim. Said to be a revenge stabbing by a drugs gang.  B was acquitted. All of the co-accused were convicted of homicide offences.
  • R v D [2016] Crown Court at Harrow.  Acquittal of D at the close of the Prosecution case of an offence of attempted murder. It was alleged that D had attended an All White Party held by the music group WSTRN and following an altercation he witnessed, produced a gun firing into a crowd and hitting someone with a bullet.  The Crown’s case centred on identification and forensic evidence.
  • 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 and killing 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.
  • R v E7 [2015] Central Criminal Court. Acquittal 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.
  • R v AC and JC [2015] Central Criminal Court. 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-bys. JC, who was represented by separate advocates, was convicted of manslaughter.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • R v I [2012]: High profile murder case which received media attention.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • R v R [2012]: Murder in South London between alleged drug dealers (reported in the media).
  • 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.
  • 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”.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • R v Shosanya [2008]: Murder of a foreign student outside a nightclub in Central London.
  • R v P [2008]: Attempted murder reduced to an attempted GBH.

Serious Sexual Offences

Dean George is “…praised by the market for his intellectual acumen and advocacy skills. George is highlighted as a “class advocate” who has extensive expertise of handling serious criminal matters, such as murder, assault and historical sexual abuse.”  “”He is thoroughly sharp-witted and has an impeccable knowledge of the law.” “A mastermind.”: Chambers and Partners 2019


  • R-v-A [2019] Crown Court at Inner London.   Representation of a teenager who was alleged to have committed a series of stranger rapes, attempted rapes and other sexual offences on women who walked back alone from nights out from a train station in south London.   There were numerous legal arguments, DNA evidence, identification evidence, CCTV evidence and phone evidence.
  • R-v-A [2019] Crown Court at Inner London.  Representation of a teenager who was alleged to have committed a series of stranger rapes, attempted rapes and other sexual offences on women who walked back alone from nights out from a train station in south London.   There were numerous legal arguments, DNA evidence, identification evidence, CCTV evidence and phone evidence.
  • R v C: Crown Court at Chelmsford.  Acquittal of Mr C who was charged with sexual assault on his daughter’s friend.
  • 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.
  • R v G: Acquittal of a man charged with seven counts of sexual activity upon his step-granddaughter.


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.


  • R v KC [2018].  Successful appeal against sentence in a red diesel fuel fraud offence.
  • R v S [2018].  Appeal against conviction in an attempted murder case in which the complainant had been sliced across the throat and suffered other serious injuries.
  • 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.
  • R v X [2014]: Successful application for leave to appeal against convictions for murder and attempted murder.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • R v I & Another [2012 / 2013]: Appeal against a conviction for murder.
  • 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.
  • R v D [2013]: Appeal against sentence for the chief organiser of a large scale drug conspiracy in various locations in the UK.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).


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).


  • 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.


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

  • “Absolutely brilliant..” Chambers and Partners 2020
    “An outstanding advocate..” Legal 500, 2020 – fraud
    “Tactically astute and a master in cross-examination” Legal 500, 2020 – crime
    “…his attention to detail is very strong” Chambers and Partners 2020
  • “A superb advocate who fights tenaciously for his clients, but doesn’t take stupid points”:  Legal 500, 2019 (tier 1 – crime).  “Always completely prepared and on top of his case”: (Legal 500 – fraud)
  • “…praised by the market for his intellectual acumen and advocacy skills. George is highlighted as a “class advocate” who has extensive expertise of handling serious criminal matters, such as murder, assault and historical sexual abuse.”  “”He is thoroughly sharp-witted and has an impeccable knowledge of the law.” “A mastermind.”: Chambers and Partners 2019
  • Legal 500 2018 shortlist for Junior of the Year
  • “One of the best juniors at the Bar, his work ethic, his ability with clients and his abilities on technical legal points make him the total package.” “He is canny and charming.” Chambers and Partners 2018
  •  “Notable criminal junior praised by the market for his intellectual acumen and advocacy skills. He is a “tough advocate” with expertise in the handling of serious criminal matters, such as murder and firearms cases.” Chambers and Partners 2018
  • “His foresight and tactical approach means he is always many steps ahead of co-defendants” Legal 500 Fraud 2017
  • “He is unquestionably one of the hardest-working junior barristers.”  Legal 500 Crime 2017
  • “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


  • Amnesty International
  • Liberty & Criminal Bar Association


• First Class Hons in Law and Accountancy
• Arden Scholarship (Gray’s Inn)