Notable Cases

R v XM & Others

Instructed as Junior acting alone for the Defence to represent one defendant in a large alleged credit card cloning ring charged under the Fraud Act 2006.

R v SR

Successful applications to dismiss and ultimately a successful submission of no case in a series of alleged robberies of banks and bookmakers.

R v SR ex parte Snaresbrook Crown Court

Judicial review against a refusal to grant bail in respect of a severely epileptic man who had lost the benefits of the Custody Time Limits Regulations as he was awaiting a re-trial for many months due to listing problems at Court.

R v SM & Others

Junior for main defendant in attempted murder (drive-by shooting).

R v SJ

Successful appeal against sentence for a breach of trust case (theft from a charity) ranging into hundreds of thousands of pounds, reduced on appeal from 3 years to 18 months. Successful legal argument involving the effect of inflation on the sentencing guidelines in R v Barrick and R v Clark.

R v PF

Junior instructed alone for the Defence in a serious robbery involving Queens Evidence from a former co-defendant. Not guilty verdicts entered in respect of the robbery following Judges ruling on disclosure arguments

R v NM

Sentencing - a suspended sentence for a city secretary who stole £17,000 from her employer a large investment bank - successfully arguing the principles decided in R v SJ(CA) above.

R v LW & Others

Multi-handed conspiracy to kidnap and incitement to commit sex offences, filmed on a mobile phone (happy slapping), special measures for all civilian witnesses, video-link: Junior for the Crown

R v LJ

Instructed as Junior acting alone for the Defence in a historic prostitute rape case dating back 20 years. The Defendant had significant relevant "bad character" and the case involved difficult legal argument and complex and sensitive cross examination

R v LM & Others

Instructed as Junior acting alone for the Defence in an attempted armed robbery of a money exchange shop. Case involves complex legal argument in relation to identification as well as extensive cross-examination of expert witnesses.

R v Y

The dual handed murder trial of a father and his 16 year old son. Acted for the father who spoke no English. The father was acquitted and the son convicted. Given the nature of the relationship between the two defendants the case called for delicate and difficult judgements.

R v W & Others

Representing the second defendant in a multi-handed conspiracy to produce and supply counterfeit currency, namely £20 sterling notes and 50 Euro notes. Due to the scale and professionalism of the criminal enterprise, the operation was described as being one of the largest breaches of the UK's banking system to date and the value of the counterfeit notes recovered from circulation was such as to undermine the European Bank.

R v W & Others

A multi -handed large scale drugs conspiracy. The ring leaders received sentences in excess of 20 yrs.

R v W & Others

A multi -handed large scale drugs conspiracy. The ring leaders received sentences in excess of 20 yrs.

R v W

Representing a young male defendant on a charge of domestic murder. Proceeded to trial and ran defence of self-defence.

R v T

Representing a 50 year old Portuguese man of previous good character who was arrested and charged with the brutal murder of his three year old daughter and the attempted murder of his nine year old son.

R v T & Others

Multi handed conspiracy to facilitate the importation of illegal immigrants.

R v S-D & Others

Representing the first defendant on a three-handed indictment alleging money laundering of over £6 million of criminal monies believed to have its origins in drugs supply. The defendant was a 65 year old man of previous good character who was previously employed by the Iranian Government. The case involved the transfer of cash across international borders and the operation of an intricate "trust" banking system. Prosecuted by HM Revenue & Customs. Following a lengthy trial and at the close of the prosecution case, all three defendants were acquitted by direction of the Trial Judge.

R v R

An allegation of a multi-handed fire-bombing campaign in Bristol and Swindon, aimed at punishing an inter-faith marriage. The defendant who was the alleged ringleader had an unusual psychological deficit which led to a lengthy voire dire and expert evidence concerning the admissibility of extensive interviews without an appropriate adult.

R v P

Birmingham CC Multi handed murder case involving main prosecution witness in police protection.

R v O

Appeared for female pastor from Nigeria alleged to have entered the UK with a large consignment of cocaine.

R v O & Others

An 11-handed nationwide car-ringing conspiracy (VHCC)

R v N

Acting in a £20 million hawalha banking money-laundering conspiracy (VHCC). The case raised an interesting point in confiscation proceedings concerning the availability of unpaid criminal funds as an asset in the hands of the defendant.

R v L

Acting for the defendant in multiple knife-point rape of prostitutes; admissibility of unproven rape as bad character evidence; admissibility of previous ‘false' complaints.

R v K

Defending in a complicated confiscation hearing which involved legal argument on benefit and a contested hearing on the defendant's available amount. Questions of proprietary interests (resulting trusts) and tracing arose.

R v K

Representing a young mother prosecuted for the murder of her 12 year old severely autistic son after he consumed a cup of bleach and the defendant also attempted to take her own life. This was a case that reached the national news due to the nature and gravity of the allegation, as well as the suggestion that Social Services involvement in the family arrangements were to be called under investigation. The defendant pleaded not guilty to murder and was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

R v J

Large Money Laundering case based in the North of England. Multi-handed case involving huge sums of money and the hawala banking system. Defendant Mr Jamil was acquitted.

R v J

Representing male defendant charged with the murder of an Asian youth in the Beckton area following an alleged road rage incident. Prosecution alleged that it was a pre-planned revenge attack on a defenceless youth who was repeatedly stabbed in the street and left to die. The defendant denied participation in the killing albeit that he accepted presence at the scene. He ran a "cut-throat" defence against his co-defendant who was extradited from Jamaica during the course of the proceedings. Acquitted after trial.

R v H

Defendant charged with multiple deaths by dangerous driving.

R v G & Others

A multi- handed million pound tendering fraud committed during the construction of The Millenium Dome.

R v G & Others

A multi-handed people smuggling case involving the largest investigation into human trafficking ever conducted by the Metropolitan Police. In this case successful use of the "Goodyear" procedure. Having carefully considered the strength of the case, Garip pleaded guilty, on an agreed basis and having received an indication as to sentence. He received a sentence which was very much less the other defendants who contested the trial.

R v D & Others

A multi- handed fraud committed against the DWP. Prosecution case involved over 10,000 pages of material.

R v D

Acting for the defence in 5-handed cut-throat murder involving multiple issues of bad character.

R v D

Representing a young lady of previous good character charged with the double murder of her boyfriend and great-grandmother. It was apparent from the very early stages of the proceedings that the defendant was mentally unwell and was expeditiously transferred to Broadmoor Hospital. Following examination by eminent psychiatrists who declared the defendant to be "one of the most ill patients" they had ever examined and assessed, she was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.

R v D

A nine-handed gang kidnapping and prolonged rape involving a 14 year old defendant who was said to have led a group of youths on a revenge attack upon a former girlfriend of a similar age.

R v C & Others

Represented defendant on a 19 handed indictment alleging conspiracy to steal. The prosecution related to an organised crime syndicate responsible for targeting ATM cash machines around the country and stealing thousands of pounds after smashing open the machines with heavy duty machinery. Following negotiation with the Crown, the defendant pleaded guilty to one substantive allegation of theft and was sentenced by way of a non-custodial sentence.

R v B & Others

Representing the first defendant in a multi-handed conspiracy to supply class A drugs and firearms. The defendant was accused of being responsible for the widespread distribution of high purity and value cocaine across the Essex region and was believed to have run his operation from his secluded address in Essex. Investigated by undercover officers from the Essex Serious Crime Division who infiltrated the "gang network" and carried out over a year of covert surveillance on numerous defendants.

R v A & others

A substantial VAT ‘phoenix' fraud . Prosecution case involved over 10,000 pages of evidence.

R v A

Appeared for first defendant, a restaurateur, charged (along with five others) with kidnapping, false imprisonment & perverting the course of justice. Prosecution alleged he was ring leader in a plan to kidnap two of his waiting staff. Case involved very lengthy cross-examination of both complainants as to substantial discrepancies in their accounts of events as well as their involvement in a credit card skimming operation at the restaurant. Case also involved cross examination of "vehicle tracking" expert. Defendant acquitted of all charges following a 5-week trial

R v A

Defendant charged with multiple deaths by dangerous driving.

R v A

Assassination shooting of a rival gang member (see Appellate: R v Jones and others) Appellate

R v F & Others (2024)

Represented a client on a 5-hander conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life, concerning a shooting in Chelmsford. The Prosecution’s case was that the client was the shooter who had discharged a firearm into a house. Lauren instructed a firearms expert to complete a report addressing the weaknesses in the Prosecution case. Following this, the Prosecution accepted a plea deal to a lesser charge, reducing the client’s sentence from potentially life imprisonment to 3 years custody, the mandatory minimum, meaning that the Judge could not, by law, have given the client any lower of a sentence.

R v C (2024)

Involves multiple allegations of rape before the Snaresbrook Crown Court.

R v M (2021)

Allegations of robbery and manslaughter.

R v A (2025)

Appeal against sentence for sexual offences. The Court of Appeal accepted the sentencing Judge had failed to appropriately consider the “substantial mitigation in this case” which shows the importance of properly preparing mitigation and instructing third party specialists to complete expert reports was integral to “tip the balance” in securing a successful appeal.

R v MJ

Attempted Murder – Client found Not Guilty of Attempted Murder following complex mental health defence.

R v MM

Trespass at Buckingham Palace & Possession of Explosives – Fathers 4 Justice protest case clients dressed as superheroes – MM found Not Guilty.

R v AJT

Supply Class A Drugs – Multi-handed drugs case – Client found Not Guilty (Prosecution offered no evidence on second day of trial) based on Modern Slavery Defence.

R v PW

Dangerous Driving – Multi-vehicle pile-up on M25 resulting in serious injury. Case dismissed (Not Guilty verdict entered) by Judge at half-time during trial following technical legal argument.

R v MG

Rape – Client found Not Guilty following successful half-time submission on the collapsed credibility of the complainant.

R v AT

Firearms and Weapons Conspiracy – Multi-handed gang-related case – Forensic analysis of mobile phone data and WhatsApp messages. Client found Not Guilty at trial, eight others convicted for offences including Firearms and Attempted Murder.

R v G (2024)

Karley acted for the defendant who was charged with the murder of his 2-year-old adopted daughter. This case involved the instruction of multiple different medical experts.

R v L (2023)

Karley acted for the Defendant who faced multiple counts of rape on a vulnerable victim with autism.

R v F and others (2024)

Karley acted for one of a number of Defendants charged with being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. The Defendant was said to be part of a chain which was responsible for the supply of multiple kilos of cocaine. The case focused on Enchrochat following operation Vinetc where the authorities were able to infiltrate encrypted messages between members of Organised Crime Groups.

R v M (2024)

Karley acted for a 15-year-old charged with attempting to cause grievous bodily harm to a stranger. After the defence insisted that a suitably qualified expert looked at the complainant’s injuries, the Crown ultimately accepted a plea to a lesser offence.

R v B (2025)

Lauren represented a client facing charges of robbery and stalking from the police station stage through to the trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court. It was alleged that the client had robbed the complainant of money on the street and attended the complainant’s home address on several occasions. The client was acquitted after trial.

R v K (2025)

Lauren represented a client facing public order offences and assault charges before the Snaresbrook Crown Court and Thames Magistrates Court. Lauren liaised with mental health experts and the client’s treating psychiatrist to draft written representations that it was not in the public interest to proceed with the case noting the client’s vulnerabilities. These representations were successful and both cases were dismissed before trial.

R v O (2024)

Lauren represented a client facing an allegation of voyeurism whereby it was alleged that the client had taken hundreds of intimate photographs of the complainant without the complainant’s consent. Following numerous legal arguments including challenging the admissibility of Prosecution evidence and the complainant’s credibility, the Prosecution offered no evidence and the case was dismissed.

R v A & F

Lauren represented a husband and wife accused of possessing fraudulent identity documents with improper intent. Lauren represented both clients from the police station through to Court. The Crown discontinued the charges and the case was dismissed before trial.

R v A & A

Lauren represented one of two defendants who faced 27 charges including attempted murder, possession of firearms with intent to endanger life, possession with intent to supply class A & B drugs, money laundering and other violent offences. This was an extremely complex matter and Lauren made many legal applications including for a lead barrister and junior barrister to be assigned to the client’s case to ensure the client had a specialist and experienced legal team working around the clock on his case, assimilating large volumes of material and challenging the Prosecution case at every turn. The client was, sadly, convicted, however despite being on licence for possession of a firearm at the time, escaped a sentence of life imprisonment. We continue to represent the client in his appeal against the attempted murder conviction before the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the conviction was unsafe.

R v Ali & Others (2024)

Lauren represented a client who was one of three defendants charged with conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration to a member state. The Prosecution’s case was that the three defendants conspired with others unknown to affect the clandestine entry of non-UK nationals into France, facilitating the commission of breaches of French immigration law. The individuals were said to have been smuggled from the UK to France in the back of various types of goods vehicles. The Prosecution’s case alleged over 40 movements of people to France, involving more than 500 individuals. Lauren’s client was the only one to receive a ‘not guilty’ verdict following a two-week trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

R v C (2023)

Lauren represented a client who was accused of improper telecommunications network, namely calling 999 the most prolific caller in that she had called 999 on more. Lauren instructed an expert psychiatrist to complete a report and submitted written representations that it was not in the public interest noting the client’s mental health issues. The Crown offered no evidence before the trial at Stratford Magistrates Court.

R v W (2025)

Lauren represented the client from the police station stage through to his trial before Uxbridge Magistrates Court on allegations that he had assaulted his ex-partner and stolen her bank card. Lauren made several successful legal arguments before the Court highlighting that the case was beset with issues; including the complainant’s credibility due to inconsistencies in her evidence, that the police and Prosecution had failed in their duties to effectively pursue all lines of enquiry in their investigation, as well as failed to disclose crucially relevant material. This resulted in the Prosecution offering no evidence and dismissing the case on the day of the trial.

R v A (2025)

Lauren dealt with this client’s appeal against sentence for sexual offences. The Court of Appeal accepted that the sentencing Judge had failed to appropriately consider the “substantial mitigation in this case” which shows the importance of challenging Courts and holding Judges to the same standard in line with the rule of law, as well as properly preparing mitigation and instructing third party specialists to complete expert reports was integral to “tip the balance” in securing a successful appeal.

R v K (2023)

Isaak assisted in preparing the defence of a client facing a historic charge of rape before the Teesside Crown Court (Newcastle). Following thorough trial preparation, the client was acquitted.

R v L (2024)

Isaak assisted in preparing the defence of a client before Maidstone Crown Court charged with engaging in sexual activity with a vulnerable complainant suffering from a mental health disorder. The case drew considerable attention from prominent public service broadcasters.

R v M (Ongoing)

Isaak is assisting in the defence of a client charged with possession of a significant quantity of Class A drugs with intent to supply. The client awaits trial before the Maidstone Crown Court.

R v M (Ongoing)

Isaak is assisting in the defence of a client facing historic allegations of rape involving multiple complainants. The forthcoming trial before the Maidstone Crown Court is expected to generate substantial media interest.