Rhys practises in Criminal and Regulatory law, he specialises in both Motoring Law and proceedings brought pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act. As a trial advocate, Rhys has been instructed in many serious offences in the Crown Court such as Fraud, Armed Robbery and People Trafficking. Furthermore, Rhys deals with serious matters in the Youth Court such as Section 18 GBH and Blackmail, he is well versed in dealing with youth clients and guiding them through the trial process.
Rhys is regularly instructed to represent famous Sportsmen, such as Premier League footballers, and well-known celebrities for driving offences. As a result of having conducted these complex matters, Rhys has developed the ability to present robust legal arguments in the face of challenges from District Judges.
In a non-criminal setting, Rhys is experienced in dealing with inquests which consider fatalities as a result of road traffic collisions. Rhys is regularly instructed in a variety of regulatory hearings, acting for both regulators and registrants which enables him to present persuasive arguments. Rhys has particularly extensive experience acting in proceedings brought by the NMC, HCPC and the SRA.
Prior to joining Chambers, Rhys worked in Portfolio Management at the Royal Bank of Scotland managing a debt book of in excess of £440m. This experience equips Rhys to deal with Fraud and Financial Crime cases due to the financial analysis skills gained in that previous career.
Rhys is regularly instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct trials in the Crown Court, in addition to prosecuting serious matters in the Youth Court. In particular, Rhys has been instructed to prosecute offences of Dishonesty, Breaches of Court Orders and Public Order.
As a result of his experience in motoring law, Rhys was instructed as the prosecution junior in proceedings against a well-known Premiership footballer who was charged with Dangerous Driving.
Rhys is well versed in the disclosure requirements associated with both public and private prosecutions. He has compiled Schedules of Unused Material as required by the CPIA and assisted those instructing with disclosure issues where they arise.
Rhys has a varied defence practice acting on behalf of individuals charged with a range of offences including violence, drugs, dishonesty and sexual offences. Rhys has conducted a number of Crown Court Trials in relation to Serious Drug Offences (Supply of Class A), Armed Robbery and People Trafficking.
Recently, Rhys represented AR who faced a charge of Knife Point Robbery. Having cross-examined the two young witnesses, AR was acquitted of the charge and was able to take up his place at University. Rhys has acted in grave and serious crimes in the Youth Court. In the case of CPS v LT (Basildon Youth Court), LT was charged with Section 18 GBH; Rhys secured LT a Referral Order, avoiding a custodial sentence.
Having acted on behalf of various celebrities and sportsmen, Rhys has developed a particular specialism in motoring law. He is regularly instructed by leading motoring solicitors dealing with offences such as Drink Driving and Speeding. Rhys is experienced in handling complex legal arguments before District Judges. In addition, Rhys is experienced in dealing with sentencing hearings where disqualifications are either avoided or substantially reduced.
Having conducted in excess of 500 summary trials, Rhys is regularly instructed on a private basis in the Magistrates Court.
Cases (General Crime):
R v MG (2019): MG pleaded guilty to an isolated incident of Duty Evasion. This was not accepted by the Prosecution but following representations from Rhys, the Prosecution offered no evidence on all remaining charges. MG received a sentence of 2 years 8 months when the original starting point, had the Prosecution proceeded, would have been one of 7 years.
R v CG (2018): CG was convicted after trial of PWITS and Possession of an Imitation Firearm. These offences, due to CG’s previous convictions, had a starting point on the guidelines of 11 years. Following extensive submissions as to sentence, CG received a total sentence of 7 years custody.
R v MD (2018): MD was jointly charged with her husband with an offence of Money Laundering. Following careful cross-examination of Police Officers and Financial Investigators, MD was acquitted of the charge whilst her husband was convicted.
R v AR (2018): AR was jointly charged with committing a knife point robbery. After cross-examination of the complainant and independent witness, in addition to complex legal argument, AR was acquitted of the charge whilst his co-Defendant was convicted.
R v DJ (2018): DJ was acquitted after trial of racially aggravated harassment despite the evidence of two live witnesses.
R v LH (2018): LH was acquitted of burgling her ex-partner’s address as well as stealing a phone from his car.
R v CW (2018): CW pleaded Guilty on the day of trial to £1000 of drug dealing. Despite the sentencing guidelines having a 4 ½ year starting point, CW received a sentence of 3 years custody.
CPS v TW (2019): TW was charged with a single offence of using a mobile phone whilst driving, TW already had 6 points on his licence so would have been disqualified for 6 months if convicted. The Prosecution rested on the evidence of a Police Constable who said he had seen TW using the phone, following cross-examination and submissions the Court ruled there was no evidence of an offence being committed.
CPS v NP (2019): NP was a self-employed architect and builder who relied on his licence to support his business and his family. Having instructed Rhys on a direct access basis, Rhys successfully argued that disqualifying NP from driving would cause him exceptional hardship and so NP kept his driving licence.
CPS v NI (2019): NI faced two charges of allowing another to use his motor vehicle without insurance. Rhys made various legal arguments and left the Prosecution in a position where they had no evidence that was admissible before the Court and so NI was acquitted of both charges.
R v AS (2018): AS was before Snaresbrook Crown Court for an allegation of Dangerous Driving, this offence was alleged to have been committed whilst on licence so AS had been recalled so was a serving prisoner. Rhys outlined the evidential difficulties in the prosecution case and persuaded the CPS to accept a plea to Careless Driving. AS received a financial penalty having faced a custodial sentence had he been convicted of Dangerous Driving.
CPS v CL (2019): CL relied on her driving licence in order to care for her disabled son. She was charged with an offence of speeding to which she entered a guilty plea on the day of trial. After extensive submissions Rhys persuaded the Court to impose a 14 day disqualification rather than penalty points which would have resulted in a 6 month driving ban.
Rhys has conducted a number of Appeals in the Crown Court where the Defendants have been convicted in the Magistrates Court. His extensive experience of conducting trials in the Magistrates Court leaves him well-placed to advise as to the merits of any appeal against conviction or sentence.
Rhys is also available to provide written advices following conviction in either the Magistrates Court or Crown Court. As part of his practice, Rhys regularly works alongside QCs in providing initial advice on appeal and drafting advice relating to both appeal and conviction.
R v TF: TF was a man of good character who had been convicted in the Magistrates Court. Rhys successfully argued that the continued Prosecution was an Abuse of Process and the Appeal was allowed.
R v AT: AT had been convicted of Common Assault in the Magistrates Court after hearing evidence from his ex-girlfriend. After the admission of previous false allegations made by the alleged victim, AT’s appeal against conviction was allowed.
Rhys has prosecuted and defended in Cash Forfeiture proceedings in the Magistrates Court as well as contested Proceeds of Crime proceedings in the Crown Court. His financial analysis has often led to inaccuracies being identified in documents prepared by financial advisers.
Rhys is well versed in the Proceeds of Crime Act and the drafting of witness statements in relation to confiscation proceedings. Furthermore, he is regularly instructed to consider applications to reconsider available amounts and Section 22 applications where the Defendant has obtained further assets since the order was put in place.
In addition to this, Rhys is regularly instructed to act on behalf of individuals appearing in the Magistrates Court for enforcement proceedings. These proceedings can be extremely serious as they can result in the imposition of a custodial sentence for non-payment.
HMRC v JN: Rhys drafted various skeleton arguments in relation to the admissibility of evidence and settled the case for a sum which was appropriate on the basis of the evidence.
CPS v SA: Despite the case having been adjourned several times, Rhys was able to obtain a number of further adjournments to ensure SA kept her liberty and was able to make appropriate repayments.
Rhys conducts hearings before a variety of disciplinary panels and in civil proceedings, such as licensing appeals. Having been instructed by both the regulator and the registrant, Rhys is able to adapt to present arguments informed by his experience of acting for both sides.
In particular, Rhys is regularly instructed before the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health Care Professionals Committee, in cases that include complex substantive hearings with substantial number of witnesses and matters of law which require submissions.
As well as dealing with disciplinary proceedings, Rhys represents those who are being pursued in the criminal courts by regulators such as the Law Society and SRA. Rhys has dealt with complex legal arguments relating to the meaning of conducting litigation and the relevant exemptions as set out in the Legal Services Act. During his pupillage, Rhys worked with a Tier 1 white collar crime firm dealing with Health & Safety Executive, General Medical Council and Financial Conduct Authority proceedings.
NMC v ME (2019): ME was a nurse who had made an incorrect entry on the register when seeking re-admission. Whilst the entry was found to be fraudulent, the panel’s findings were such that ME’s application to re-join the register would be seen contextually, rather than with dishonesty alone.
HCPC v ML (2018): ML was a paramedic who had serious allegations of wrongdoing made against him which was captured by CCTV. Rhys was able to manage the evidence in the case in such a way that the panel felt that ML was not impaired and, despite the CCTV evidence, could continue to practise without restrictions.