Ned Sproston
Call: 2014
Ned Sproston
MPhys (Master of Physics)
PGCE (Secondary Education)
GDL (Distinction)
BPTC (Very Competent)
Lincoln’s Inn
Legal Aid Supplier Number 02FEJ
Contact
T: 01274 722 560 or 0113 246 2600
Ned is a Family and Civil practitioner, predominantly practising in the field of Private Children. He receives a significant volume of instructions in contested hearings such as Finding of Fact Hearings and Final Hearings. In addition to this, Ned’s practice also covers Ancillary Relief, Schedule 1 Children Act cases and, TOLATA. In the civil sphere, Ned takes on Road Traffic Accident cases and other Personal Injury claims. Ned does not generally practice in Public Children cases but will remain with a client under circumstances where a Private case enters the Public Law arena part way through..
Ned is a qualified civil and commercial mediator and is available for instruction in that capacity. Please enquire about this with our clerks if this is a service you might consider.
Reputation
“Never one to shy away from knotty issues, Ned’s forensic and calm approach to complex private law cases is reassuring to clients and practitioners alike. He is always approachable and on-hand to discuss any issue of the case no matter how small. A pleasure to work with" (Partner at Local Firm)
Expertise
Family
Private Children - Over 80% of Ned’s workload covers Private Children matters covering the spectrum of issues. Ned has a reputation as an advocate who is able to quickly get to grips with a trial bundle and separate “the wheat from the chaff”. As a former secondary school teacher, Ned is experienced working with young and/or vulnerable people and is good at helping lay clients consider (and hopefully accept) what can sometimes be difficult truths, in a sensitive manner.
Ancillary Relief, Schedule 1 Children Act, and TOLATA – A significant minority of Ned’s workload covers these areas of the law and he is happy to accept appropriate instruction accordingly. Ned is very ethically minded and aware of the importance of trying to reach a fair settlement at an early stage if possible.
Civil
Personal Injury – Ned regularly accepts instructions in this area and has found that his background in Physics sometimes comes in handy when trying to analyse and argue the mechanics of a road traffic collision when causation is in dispute.
Ancillary Relief, Schedule 1 Children Act, and TOLATA – A significant minority of Ned’s workload covers these areas of the law and he is happy to accept appropriate instruction accordingly. Ned is very ethically minded and aware of the importance of trying to reach a fair settlement at an early stage if possible.
Clerks
Lydia Pearce
Call: 2017
Lydia Pearce
Bradford University BA Hons
ULaw York GDL
BPP Leeds BPTC
Middle Temple Harmsworth Scholar GDL
Middle Temple Harmsworth Scholar BPTC
Blackstones Entrance Exhibition Award
Legal Aid Supplier Number 02FXD
Grade 3 Prosecutor
Contact
T: 01274 722 560 or 0113 246 2600
Lydia Pearce has been a tenant of Broadway House Chambers since completing pupillage in 2018 and now works exclusively in Criminal Law.
With previous experience in family and civil law, Lydia is able to appreciate the ways in which these other areas of law can impact criminal cases.
Before coming to the Bar Lydia worked for West Yorkshire Police as a Detention Officer whilst studying law part time over 6 years. Before pupillage Lydia was seconded to work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the pre-charge bail provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. Lydia’s arguments were successfully used to make changes to the bill prior to royal assent. Lydia’s guidance document to implementation was disseminated to UK police forces and used by BBC reports on the impact of pre-charge bail.
Reputation
Legal 500 – Tier 3 (2025): “the ‘tenacious’ Lydia Pearce is well-versed in advising on cases of serious sexual offences, drugs conspiracies and serious violence.” - "Lydia has an incisive attention to detail, communicates important points in an easy-to-understand way, and has a personable style which clients and juries enjoy."
Legal 500 – Rising Star (2023 & 2024): 'A robust junior and a fantastic barrister’.
Client Feedback:
‘Lydia has made an outstanding entrance to the bar with a seemingly unparalleled zeal and dynamism. Lydia commands a solid presence in court and has strong, dependable advocacy skills. A down to earth approach coupled with meticulous attention to detail almost certainly assure Lydia a very illustrious future. I would certainly tip Lydia as a star who will rise very quickly.’
‘Lydia has excellent client care skills. Lydia is a diligent barrister who is skilled at empathising and reassuring vulnerable clients whilst remaining dedicated to achieving a fair and just outcome.’
‘Both myself and the social work team were very happy with Lydia’s representation. It was clear Lydia was fully prepared and on top of the brief. I am sure we will work together again’
‘I was very impressed with Lydia's grasp of the case, at short notice, and the way Lydia dealt with the hearing, for which both I and my client are grateful.’
Expertise
Criminal
Lydia appears in the Crown Court to both defend and prosecute in a range of matters including assault, sexual offences, weapons, dishonesty matters and drugs. She is known for thorough preparation and being able to respond quickly to changing instructions.
Defence
Lydia has been briefed on a range of criminal defence cases and is particularly skilled in working with vulnerable or juvenile clients.Lydia defends cases from Magistrates' Court to Crown Court maintaining involvement (where possible) across the lifetime of matters including PTPHs, preliminary hearings including S28 pre-recorded evidence and trials. Lydia works closely with instructing solicitors and is happy to have conferences in advance of hearings to ensure readiness. Lydia is equally happy to take last minute instructions where required.
Prosecution
Lydia is instructed in a range of prosecution cases and regularly works for the CPS, Probation Service, SIA and local authorities.Lydia prosecutes cases from Magistrates' Court to Crown Court maintaining involvement (where possible) across the lifetime of matters including PTPHs, preliminary hearings including S28 pre-recorded evidence and trials. Lydia will regularly draft documents and advise on matters outside of court hearings.
Other:
Vunerable Witness Training Completed
CPD Webinars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNB2sT7ERuI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmWESNMg3Ek
Notable Cases
Defence
R v T (2024): Instructed as Junior Counsel for the defence, led by Abigail Langford. Ms Pearce was instructed as junior counsel in a case of child sexual offences. The indictment has 27 counts covering offending over 20+ years and 5 complainants. Ms Pearce dealt with client care, unused material, disclosure requests and cross examined a vulnerable witness.
R v P (2024): Instructed as Junior Counsel for the defence, led by Jayne Beckett for defendant 1 of 5 in a historic grooming trial. Ms Pearce handled the voluminous unused material, ongoing disclosure, crystalising all salient material for defence cross examination into a bundle for the court and agreed facts.
R v P (2024): Defence robbery, sexual and physical assault and stalking. Ms Pearce was able to obtain phone downloads from the prosecution on Day 1 of trial. Adjournment was applied for but not granted so whilst the trial was ongoing, Ms Pearce worked with the defence phone expert to compile specific relevant extracts in a short form report. Those extracts were served on the prosecution after the complainant had completed their evidence. The extracts put enough doubt on the credibility of the complainant to force the prosecution to apply to discharge the jury and carry out further investigations which lead to some charges being dropped. Ms Pearce made a full bail application, supported with evidence obtained by solicitors which lead to the defendant being granted bail after being held on remand for over 6 months.
R v X (2023): Reduction of sentence on appeal to the Court of Appeal, sentence was reduced from 12 months immediate custody to 6 months suspended.
R v X (2023): Securing a not guilty verdict for client accused of producing of methamphetamine due to a successful submission to dismiss the case.
R v O (2023): Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle taking, drug driving, failing to attend court bail and being in breach of a suspended sentence order. Prior to these offences the defendant had received a suspended sentence order (24m suspended for 24M) in July 2020 for possession with intent to supply cocaine and heroin. Following mitigation advanced by Ms Pearce, the defendant was sentenced to a community order and the suspended sentence was not activated.
R v M (2023): Ms Pearce was instructed to represent defendant who was charged with Handling Stolen Goods value £10,000+. Lydia carefully researched the defence, collated a bundle of defence evidence and secured agreed facts which undermined the prosecution case. The defendant was acquitted by the jury in less than an hour. .
R v X: Acquittal for a juvenile client on a count of burglary dwelling prior to the client attending court by making successful submissions under S78 of PACE and the overriding objective.
R v X: Mitigated a sentence for a drink driver who provided a sample 3 times over the legal limit after having stopped the car on a moving motorway during a rainstorm, very nearly causing a pile up. Sentenced to community order and driving ban.
Prosecution
R v S & B(2023): Ms Pearce prosecuted 2 separate matters arising from the same incident, a fight. B was charged with S18 assault. The jury convicted him in less than 2 hours and he was sentenced to 5 years immediate custody.
R v D (2023): Defendant pleaded not guilty in the supply of class A drugs. In his evidence he claimed not to be the person on incriminating video footage, relying on his prominent left hand tattoo which was not on his left hand in the video. By inspection of the logo on his top in the video, Ms Pearce was able to prove that the video had been inverted and that the hand in the video was his non-tattooed right hand. He was convicted by the jury.
Lydia was instructed by Leeds City Council in their first ever prosecution of a landlord under Section 1(2) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She successfully secured a conviction and a custodial sentence against the defendant.
Prosecuted an appeal against sentence on behalf of Bradford City Council under animal welfare law, the appellant appealed his original sentence of 20 weeks immediate custody, but this was upheld by the Crown Court.
Instructed to prosecute on behalf of Bradford Council under public health legislation a property landlord for waste left in the curtilage of his rental property, the defendant was blind and therefore unable to check if the waste had been collected or not, he was also unrepresented at trial. Lydia worked with the Council sanitation workers, Council legal officers, a trusted and accredited waste removal company and the defendant collaboratively to solve the public health issue and not pursue the matter through the courts.
Clerks
Harry Wiltshire
Call: 2015
Harry Wiltshire
Bath University, BA Hons Business Administration
GDL and BPTC, BPP Leeds
Middle Temple, Harmsworth Scholar
Legal Aid Supplier Number 02GCI
Contact
T: 01274 722 560 or 0113 246 2600
Harry is experienced in representing both Claimants and Respondents in the employment tribunal, he regularly appears in cases dealing with unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions, discrimination, whistle blowing and employment status.
Harry accepts instructions in private law children matters. He regularly deals with contested final hearings and multi day finding of fact hearings, including issues such as domestic violence and relocation.
Harry is developing a growing matrimonial finance practice, he is regularly instructed to undertake Financial Dispute Resolution Appointments and Final Hearings.
Harry is registered with the Bar Council to undertake direct access work.
Harry is a member of Broadway House Chambers Business, Property and Probate Team. Prior to Pupillage Harry ran his own business, he has a strong understanding of the pressures involved in the management of a SME and is comfortable dealing with commercial disputes.
Prior to pupillage Harry competed as a professional athlete. Harry is Deputy Head of Sports, Media and Entertainment Team. He has gained experience of contractual disputes and disciplinary proceedings in the sporting arena. He has also been involved in the representation of athletes in anti-doping and disciplinary proceedings before governing bodies, Sports Resolution UK and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Reputation
Expertise
Employment
Harry regularly represents both Claimants and Respondents in the Employment Tribunal. He accepts instructions to advise, undertake drafting and attend hearings. Harry deals with a wide range of issues, including: employment status, unfair dismissal, discrimination (including disability and sex), whistleblowing detriment and holiday pay.
Sport
Prior to pupillage Harry spent 15 years competing as a professional athlete regularly representing Great Britain at international level. Harry’s experience as an athlete gives him a huge advantage when approaching sport cases and makes him a very appealing choice for lay clients in the sports arena.
Harry has experience of sports contract disputes and disciplinary proceedings. He has been involved in the representation of athletes in anti-doping and disciplinary proceedings before governing bodies, Sports Resolution UK and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Harry is on the panel of regional Rugby Football Union prosecutors.
Harry works closely with Adam Willoughby, Head of the Sports Law Team. Harry has assisted him in dealing with contractual matters on behalf of Rugby Football League Teams and the preparation of anti-doping cases on behalf of athletes who have returned adverse analytical findings.
Harry’s Sports Law practice is complimented by his special interest in employment and contractual law.
Family Law
Harry practices in private children law and financial remedy.
Notable Cases
Mr AY Ali v Salix Homes and Michael Page International Recruitment Limited Case No. 2404266/2018
Successfully represented a recruitment agency over a four day hearing securing a finding that they could not have dismissed an agency worker on the grounds of a protected disclosure, when they had no knowledge of the disclosure at the time of dismissal. The case also raised a breach of contract, direct discrimination and worker/ employee status.
Mrs C Tantrum -v- Ashville College and others 180078/2018
Successfully argued at a three day hearing that the Claimant was an employee rather than a self employed sports teacher working at a private school. The finding meant that the matter settled following a judicial mediation. The case raised issues of protected disclosures, an unfair dismissal, holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages
Smith -v- Bradford District Care NHS
Representing the Claimant at a three day hearing dealing with claims of indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability, as well as harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Mr J Bassey -v- HMRC
Junior Counsel representing the respondent at a three week tribunal dealing with 88 allegations of harassment and racial discrimination.
Ms KJ Badon -v- The Secretary of Health & Social Care
Junior Counsel representing the Respondent at a two week hearing, where the Claimant alleged she was subjected to a detriment to deter, punish or prevent trade union activity.
Mr A Poznaski -v- Exceed Logistics Limited 2600570/2018
Represented the Claimant who asserted that he had been unfairly dismissed following an allegation of fuel theft. Secured a finding for the Claimant in relation to an unlawful deduction from wages.
Daniel Alden -v- Skinnergate Cycles Stockton Limited 2501655/2018
Successfully represented the Respondent securing the dismissal of the claim as out of time and through failure to comply with Court Orders. Disability also considered.
Clerks
Anna Sutcliffe
Call - 2015
Anna Sutcliffe
BPP University; BPTC; Outstanding
University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam College, BA (Hons) Law; 2.1
Qualified Family Mediator
Family Law Bar Association
Resolution
Honourable Society of Middle Temple (Astbury Scholarship – 2014)
Contact
T: 01274 722 560 or 0113 246 2600
Anna is a specialist family law barrister who has maintained a deliberately mixed practice encompassing matrimonial finance and both private and public law children work. This enables her to advise clients on all aspects of their family law case, particularly where different areas of family law overlap. Anna spent the first 9 years of her practice at a leading family law set in London and she has experience appearing at all levels up to and including representing clients in the High Court. She is equally happy appearing in her own right or being led as junior counsel.
Anna also conducts private FDR hearings (with experience as both counsel and pFDR “judge”), and is a qualified mediator for both children and finance matters.
Reputation
“Unfailingly well prepared and excellent with clients” – Chambers & Partners 2025
“Anna is efficient and approachable to work with. She provides highly technical advice and great client care” – Chambers & Partners 2025
“Anna takes difficult cases in her stride and is always calm, reassuring and to the point – judges love her.” – Chambers & Partners 2024
“Anna is a tremendous fighter. She is compassionate with vulnerable clients” – Legal 500, 2025
“Anna is a confident advocate who combines excellent knowledge of the law with a compelling style. She knows when to fight and when to negotiate and is incredibly calm under pressure.” – Legal 500, 2025
Family Law Awards: Shortlisted for Young Barrister of the Year (2019)
Expertise
Children Act
Anna regularly acts in applications for Child Arrangements Orders, Prohibited Steps Order and Specific Issue Orders (including disputes over issues such as schooling, holidays and name changes). She has a particular interest in domestic and international relocation proceedings. Anna conducts multi-day fact-finding hearings within Children Act proceedings, often involving serious allegations of abuse, and has acted in a number of cases involving the appointment of a Children’s Guardian. She regularly represents vulnerable clients.
Care
Anna acts in public law children proceedings on behalf of Local Authorities, parents, guardians and extended family members and has experience representing vulnerable clients (including those assisted by an intermediary).
Finance
Anna acts in all aspects of family finance proceedings, including financial remedies and Schedule 1 of the Children Act. She has experience dealing with cases involving high-net-worth individuals, third party interventions, pre/post nuptial agreements, and jurisdictional disputes. Anna also acts and advises in enforcement and variation proceedings.
Private FDR
Anna is available to conduct private FDRs.
Mediation
Anna is qualified to mediate in both financial and children disputes.
Notable Cases
F v Q (2025): Jurisdiction dispute in respect of financial remedy proceedings, with parallel proceedings currently ongoing in competing jurisdictions.
S v F (2025): Anna acts for a mother in private law proceedings with the appointment of a r.16.4 Guardian. Serious allegations of abuse and intractable opposition to contact.
S v S (2023): Junior counsel in HNW financial remedy proceedings heard in the High Court. Instructed by the Official Solicitor. Achieved favourable FDR indication leading to settlement.
T v T (2023): Representing a wife/mother in parallel children and finance proceedings, which culminated in a combined arbitration of both issues. Oral evidence required from both parents and an ISW. Outcome obtained in favour of Anna’s client on both issues, alongside a costs order.
B v C (2023): Application for a freezing injunction over c£2.5m from sale of foreign shares
M v B (2023): Anna acted for a father throughout high-conflict private law proceedings involving serious allegations of abuse. No findings were made against the father and the mother’s application to relocate with the children was successfully resisted. Findings were made in respect of the mother’s influence over the children and a shared care arrangement was implemented.
A v A (2023): Anna acted for a father throughout long running and highly acrimonious proceedings which involved, at various stages, applications by the mother to relocate overseas and internally withing the UK both of which were successfully resisted, with a shared care arrangement being implemented instead as sought by Anna’s client. The case involved particular sensitivities arising out of differing level of religious adherence between households.
Clerks
Paul Dormand
Call: 2013
Paul Dormand
BPP Manchester – GDL
Manchester Metropolitan University – BPTC
BPP Cohen Scholar
Middle Temple Harmsworth Scholar
Contact
T: 01274 722 560 or 0113 246 2600
Paul Dormand is a member of the Family Law Team at Broadway House Chambers.
“I am using Paul on a tricky Private Law Children matter and I am very impressed with his teamwork approach. We are a small practice and it is very good to have Counsel who engage with their instructing solicitor throughout the life of the case” – Solicitor
"Paul Dormand is excellent at what he does and also an amazing person. He is very thorough, understanding, honest, trustworthy and his ability to relate to and empathise with others is remarkable. I highly recommend Paul for he is an excellent barrister and truly a genuine person. Paul has been so patient with me in this difficult time. He took the time to hear all of my concerns and clearly, concisely outlined all the different courses of action including the positives and negatives with each choice. Working with Paul was incredibly easy. He listened attentively and made me feel at ease. I could not have asked for better representation. Thank you" Client Feedback
Before coming to the Bar, Paul worked as a professional musician and teacher, performing with orchestras and ensembles all over the world.
Reputation
“*I am using Paul on a tricky Private Law Children matter and I am very impressed with his teamwork approach. We are a small practice and it is very good to have Counsel who engage with their instructing solicitor throughout the life of the case*” – Solicitor
Paul regularly presents webinar on behalf of Chambers’ Family and Employment Law Team.
Expertise
Family
Paul accepts instructions in all areas of family law, including children and finance work. Paul also accepts instructions in Court of Protection and Forced Marriage cases.
Private Children: Paul is regularly instructed to represent in private children matters, including contested applications and complex, multi day findings of fact and final hearings, often involving extremely vulnerable clients and litigants in person.
Public: Paul is instructed by Local Authorities, parents, and children in care proceedings at District and Circuit level, including case management, contested interim, and final hearings.
Financial Remedy: Paul also accepts instructions for applicants and respondents at all stages of financial remedy proceedings and is available to advise in writing or conference.
Clerks
Jenna Chaplin
Call: 2015
Jenna Chaplin
University of Sheffield, LLB Hons 2:1
University of Law, BPTC Very Competent
Middle Temple
Contact
T: 01274 722 560 or 0113 246 2600
Jenna specialises in Private Children cases and Financial Remedy. Jenna is known for her sensitive client care, her tactful negotiation skills and her robust approach in court. Jenna prides herself on her hard-working nature, thorough preparation and attention to detail.
Jenna has a busy private children practice and has a strong track record for achieving excellent results for parents and wider family members. Jenna is regularly instructed to represent clients in complex private children cases involving serious allegations of child abuse, domestic violence and parental alienation. Jenna appears in disputes regarding domestic and international relocation.
Jenna has a broad range of experience representing both Applicants and Respondents at all stages of financial remedy proceedings including final hearings. Jenna has experience in dealing with cases involving intervenors, wanton dissipation and hidden assets. Jenna is happy to advise in conference and in writing.
Jenna also accepts instructions in regulatory law, having previous experience whilst on secondment with a solicitors firm and subsequently in chambers.
Jenna joined chambers following successful completion of her pupillage under the supervision of Peter Hampton and Matthew Rudd. Prior to completing her pupillage, Jenna worked at a prestigious law firm in London.
Reputation
Jenna has conducted seminars for chambers including recently with Dornier Whittaker on alcohol testing and section 91(14) orders and Semaab Shaikh on guidance for remote hearings.
Expertise
Family
Jenna is a specialist family practitioner, undertaking cases involving private disputes regarding children and financial remedy.Jenna regularly appears in front of both District and Circuit Judges alike.
Jenna’s caseload routinely involves the following areas of private children:
• Applications for shared care/live with orders
• Applications for relocation of the children both domestically and internationally
• Applications for orders preventing the removal of a child from the jurisdiction
• Finding of Fact Hearings involving allegations of child abuse, domestic violence and parental alienation
• Applications for orders determining the child’s schooling
Jenna is regularly instructed at all stages of financial remedy proceedings.
Regulatory
Jenna accepts instructions in regulatory law. Jenna has represented Social Work England at both interim and substantive hearings whilst on secondment with a local solicitor’s firm and subsequently in chambers. Jenna has experience in drafting documents for the Panel’s consideration and advising on the merits of complex cases.
Notable Cases
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/221.html
H v W (2024): Jenna represented the Wife at a Final Hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The Court was persuaded to transfer the family home to the Wife’s name for a payment to the Husband of just £5,000 – with the Wife retaining the entirety of her NHS pension.
R v E (2024): Jenna was instructed to represent the Mother in proceedings concerning international relocation. Findings were made against the Father involving physical assaults, threatening behaviour including with weapons and controlling and coercive behaviour. These findings led to the Father not actively opposing the Mother’s proposed move abroad, which had been endorsed by Cafcass.
N v H (2024): Jenna is instructed to represent the Father in ongoing proceedings relating to his 1 year old son. Serious allegations of sexual violence throughout the relationship were made against the Father in addition to controlling and coercive behaviour. All of the findings sought against the Father were dismissed.
W v H (2023): Jenna was instructed to represent the Mother at a FHDRA. Jenna successfully opposed an application for psychiatric assessment of the Mother, who had been seeing the child on a supervised basis. Jenna successfully applied for unsupervised contact. The proceedings concluded at this hearing with equal shared care.
B v H (2023): Jenna represented the Mother at a Finding of Fact hearing. The Court made multiple findings of rape, after the Father accepted that he had lied on key issues during cross-examination. Jenna made submissions that in light of the facts of the case, the principles in Re H-N & Others [2021] EWCA Civ 448 applied and invited the Court to make a finding that the Father’s rape of the Mother amounted to controlling and coercive behaviour. The Court agreed and made this finding.
N v P (2022): Jenna represented the Father at a 3 day Finding of Fact hearing. Allegations were made against the Father of rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and threatening behaviour in the presence of the child. Further allegations were made that during the course of proceedings the Father had been violent towards the child and had engaged in threatening behaviour towards the child. All findings against the Father of abusive behaviour were dismissed.
S v B (2021): Jenna represented a mother at a Final Hearing in a case where the child lived with his paternal aunt. The Social Worker did not recommend progressing contact. The mother sought for contact to be progressed to include overnight stays. After cross-examination of the Social Worker, the Judge indicated that she would order overnight stays, due to the responses provided by the Social Worker. The parties agreed a stepped order to include overnight stays.
P v S (2021): Jenna represented a mother at a Final Hearing, having represented the mother for over 2 years during lengthy court proceedings. The Social Worker had initially recommended overnight stays for the mother. By the time of the Final Hearing, the recommendation for overnight contact had been revoked due to a change in social worker. Furthermore, in evidence at the Final Hearing the Social Worker said that she was no longer opposing an SGO for maternal grandparents. After contested evidence, the Magistrates concluded that overnight contact was in the child’s best interests and implemented alternative weekend overnight contact in addition to extended periods of school holiday contact. The Magistrates refused to grant the application for a SGO.
Clerks
Keith Allen
Call: 2017 (Solicitor 2004)
Keith Allen
Deputy District Judge
Mental Health Tribunal Judge
Contact
T: 01274 722 560 / 0113 246 2600
Keith was called to the Bar in 2017 having qualified as a solicitor in 2004 and then a solicitor advocate in 2011. Keith has appeared on behalf of defendants at the Crown Court since 2011 and since being called to the Bar accepts instructions as either prosecution or defence advocate.
Reputation
Expertise
Crime
Keith has experience in dealing with cases where significant parts of the evidence are recovered from computer equipment or the internet using forensic techniques.
Keith is also experienced in dealing with defendants with mental health difficulties where assistance is required to properly communicate with clients or where disposals such as section 37/41 are being considered under the Mental Health Act.
Keith has successfully represented clients at the Court of Criminal Appeal and before the Administrative Court.
Notable Cases
Crime
CW-v-DVSA
Administrative Court – Acted as an advocate for the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency on an appeal by Case Stated in which the appellant was arguing that the continuing professional competence provisions were ultra vires and should be struck out. DVSA was successful in defending the claim
R-v-TH
Bradford CC – Acted for the defendant alleged to have stolen over £75,000 in cash from a gentleman that she cared for. The defendant was acquitted after trial.
R-v-DB
Leeds CC – Defence advocate for the lead singer of Black Lace. His confiscation order was agreed at a £1 available amount.
R-v-M
Leeds CC – Defence advocate for a man accused of making indecent images of children. Initially, the allegation was that there were over 3000 indecent images, but following defence submissions, this was reduced to around 800. At trial, Keith acted in defence of the accused who was found not guilty.
R-v-N
Leeds CC – Defended a man charged with armed robbery. A case in which the section 28 protocol applied Keith secured an acquittal after trial despite claims the man was identified as being present by eyewitnesses and forensic evidence.
R-V-P
Hull CC- Advocate for a male accused of several sexual offences against a young child. The defendant was ruled not fit to stand trial, and a finding of fact hearing took place. The jury failed to deliver a verdict on one of the four counts alleged and the defendant was sentenced to a section 37/41 hospital order.
R-v-W
Leeds CC – Acting as an advocate for a man accused of making over 150 indecent images of children. The case was listed for trial, but following representations made to the Crown by Keith the Crown reviewed the case and offered no evidence. The evidence in the case included admissions by the defendant that he had used chat rooms to contact persons over the age of 16. At early hearings, the Court had tried to claim that the defendant did not have a defence to the charge at law.
R-v-K
Leeds CC – Defence of a man accused of Section 18 assault by kicking. Despite accounts from independent witnesses and CCTV of the defendant demonstrating air kicks shortly after the incident Keith secured an acquittal after trial for the defendant who required an interpreter throughout proceedings.
Magistrates’ Court
R-v-BR
Harrogate MC – Acted for a man accused of multiple offences of criminal damage. The alleged tyre slasher was identified from CCTV by one of the victims. During the trial, Keith made several submissions to the Court on the admissibility of evidence and was ultimately able to argue that it would be unsafe for the Court to rely upon the content of the CCTV and the identifications made as a result of it. In part, these arguments were based on significant failings of the police investigation. The case attracted considerable press interest in nearly all national newspapers.
R-v-JM
Leeds MC – Acted in defence of a lady accused of neglect of her son. Following submissions made by Keith, the case was dismissed by the Court after the prosecution closed its case. Keith was instructed on this case after another firm of solicitors advised the defendant, incorrectly, to merely accept the allegation.
R-v-SW
Harrogate MC – Acted as defence solicitor for a man accused of assaulting his daughter. Keith made representations to the Crown that they should drop the case. However, the Crown reviewed the case and indicated that they would proceed despite the representations. Following cross-examination of the complainant, it was accepted that the complainant was the aggressor. Keith made submissions of no case to answer, and a not guilty verdict returned without any evidence called on behalf of the defence.
R-v-D
Leeds YC – Keith appeared before the Youth Court and argued successfully that the prosecution should be halted as an abuse of process on the basis of delay and manipulation by the CPS of the charging decision.
R- v-TM
Central Criminal Court – Provided advice and representation at the police station through to trial to Thomas Mair the man convicted of the killing of Jo Cox MP. Acted as defence solicitor throughout the trial which was allocated to the terrorism lists at the Central Criminal Court.
Clerks
Paul Canfield
Call: 2019
Paul Canfield
Master of Laws, University of Law, Birmingham (2017-2018)
Bar Professional Training Course, University of Law, Birmingham (2017-2018): VC
Graduate Diploma in Law, University of Law, London (2015-2017): Commendation
Member of The Free Speech Union
North Eastern Circuit
Master of Science, Security and Risk Management, University of Leicester (2014)
Legal Aid Number: 02HCX
Contact
T: 01274 722 560 / 01274 722560
Paul is a Grade 2 prosecutor and practices in crime.
He appears regularly in the Crown Court for both the prosecution and defence, and has recently appeared in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, to represent a client in an Attorney General’s Reference in 2024.
Reputation
Expertise
Criminal
Crime Paul completed his pupillage with the Crown Prosecution Service in 2019, where he spent a period of secondment with the Attorney General’s Office reviewing unduly lenient sentences. Prior to that, he worked as a police officer for over a decade specialising in operations.In the past, Paul led research into the police response to gang-related violence and future security threats as part of his Master’s degree. The findings were later published by Springer Publishing. Paul also attended Harvard Law School where he studied the principles of negotiation, and the University of St Andrews where he undertook studies in terrorism theories and practice.
During his time studying for the Bar Professional Training Course at the University of Law he received awards that culminated in the highest mark in Plea in Mitigation and the Master of Laws prize for the pro bono element of his studies. Paul also volunteered with the Personal Support Unit at the Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre.
Paul’s prior involvement in police operations, coupled with his experience with the Crown Prosecution Service, not only make him an effective prosecutor but ensures that when defending he is able to bring an invaluable insight into the prosecution case. In addition, he has acquired the critical analytical skills required to effectively evaluate complex disclosure and procedure.
Notable Cases
R V KY and Ors (2024): Paul, being led by Mr Hendron, successfully prosecuted 19 defendants of 24 defendants for separate conspiracies to Pervert the Course of Justice. The cases involved the first defendant, KY, running a Notice of Intended Prosecution or ‘NIP farm’ by advertising a scheme to members of the public to evade penalty points. The remaining defendants were customers of the scheme. https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24770310.11-people-sentenced-speeding-fine-avoidance-scam/ .
R v H (2024) (Court of Appeal - Attorney General’s Reference): Represented a client whose sentence had been referred by the Attorney General in order for a sentence imposed by the Crown Court to be reviewed.
R v R (2024): Paul was instructed to represent a client with learning difficulties in a four day trial that involved the pre-recorded evidence of a child complainant, where a series of sexual acts allegedly had been committed upon her by her brother. Paul was able to undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case, resulting in acquittals for his client.
R v K (2024): Paul represented a client accused of a number of offences including rape, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, strangulation and coercive and controlling behaviour within a marital relationship. Preparing for trial involved an expert being instructed to review the client’s phone once it had been released by the police in order to undermine the credibility of the allegations. The client was acquitted on all nine counts.
R v R and R (2024): Secured acquittals for the second defendant following a trial that involved an allegation of administering cannabis or spice in order to rape the complainant.
R v B (2023): Paul represented a client accused of Witness Intimidation and other matters. Following a successful Application to Exclude the pre-recorded evidence of one witness under S78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and cross-examination of the remaining witness, after a half-time finding by the judge his lay client was acquitted of all allegations.
R v M (2023): Instructed by Mr Chowdhury from Highgate Solicitors, Paul represented a client who faced a seven count indictment covering historic sexual offences, which included three counts of rape, Paul was able to secure acquittals on four of the seven counts. Two acquittals were secured following a successful half-time submission that followed careful cross-examination of the complainant. The submission of no case to answer covered the relevant law at the time and the presumptions based on the age of the defendant when the allegations took place. Also, doli incapax was a live issue and properly placed before the court as a subsidiary argument which avoided the indictment being amended.
R v B (2023) - Paul successfully secures acquittals after trial for his client who faced two historic allegations of Engaging in Sexual Activity in the Presence of a Child.
R v N and P (2023): Paul secured convictions for producing cannabis after a five day trial involving two defendants. Both defendants were found in a cannabis farm with an estimated value of cannabis of up to £475,000.
R v I (2023): Paul successfully secured an acquittal for his client accused of rape following a half-time submission.
R v B (2023): Paul, having been instructed by Michelle Wood of Blackwells Solicitors secured an acquittal on 3 January 2023 for a 80 year old client that had been accused of strangling his neighbour after several inconsistencies with the prosecution’s case were highlighted.
R v N (2022): While represting a client accused of burglary, Paul raised several issues with potential breaches of Code D of PACE and that the enhanced images provided by the Prosecution further supported the defence expert’s findings, that his client hadn’t committed the offence. The Prosecution offered no evidence on day 2 of the trial.
R v M (2022): Client accused of Threatening Another with a Bladed Article where three witnesses had alleged that the client had threatened another person with a knife — Instructed by Alex White of Alastair Bateman Solicitors. Paul and those that instructed him were able to establish and follow lines of enquiry that the police had neglected to pursue, including further witnesses and CCTV evidence that hadn’t been seized. Once this undermining evidence was provided to the Crown no evidence was offered after review.
R v H (2022) : Successfully opposed a pre-trial hearsay application under section 116(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, resulting in the Crown offering no evidence on a single count of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm against the client’s ex-partner. The relevant circumstances of how the hearsay evidence had been adduced affected the fairness of the trial.
R v B (2022) : Successfully opposed a pre-trial hearsay application under section 116(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by the Crown to adduce several pieces of hearsay evidence including disclosures, made to third-parties, captured on police Body Worn Cameras and within 999 calls. This resulted in the Crown offering no evidence on six counts alleging Assault and Making Threats to Kill against the client.
R v M (2022): A defendant had been charged with driving offences along with possession of a bladed article. Through robust cross-examination of the arresting officer and the use of expert evidence, Paul secured acquittals on the driving offences for the client.
R v Ajmal (2022): On an appeal against sentence of 29 weeks’ immediate imprisonment for Possession of a Bladed Article and multiple counts of drugs’ possession, Paul demonstrated to the appeal court that the sentence had been manifestly excessive. It was reduced to a 12-month Community Order with requirements.
R v Geddes (2021): Paul secured a conviction for Wounding with Intent against a defendant. This required numerous disclosure requests having to be addressed during the trial process after the defendant decided to represent himself. https://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/crime/rastrick-thug-jailed-for-10-years-after-causing-life-threatening-injuries-to-woman-trapped-in-debt-3367321
R v Butt (2021): Prosecution junior (led by Stephen Wood QC) prosecuted the defendant for Murder and two matters of Attempted Wounding with Intent. The case involved numerous witnesses who all saw the events unfold as the defendant used a motor car to run over his victim. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56860006
R v Gedge (2021): Conviction secured against a defendant who threatened to kill his uncle as he robbed him at knifepoint in his own home. https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/crime/violent-criminal-locked-up-for-ten-years-for-knifepoint-robbery-of-his-uncle-at-his-home-in-leeds-3453435
Clerks
Nicola Hoskins
Call: 2019 (Solicitor 2004)
Nicola Hoskins
North Eastern Circuit
Vulnerable Witness Trained
Gray’s Inn
CPS Grade 3
Nottingham Law School – LL.B (Hons) 2.1
Guildhall University, London – Legal Practice Course, commendation
Admitted as a solicitor February 2004
Contact
T: 0113 246 2600
Nicola is a member of the criminal team and prosecutes and defends in the Crown Court in all areas of crime.
Nicola is a Grade 3 prosecutor.
Before coming to the Bar, Nicola was a solicitor and was admitted in 2004.
Reputation
GDPR and Criminal Litigation
Sentencing Guidelines Update
Previously Nicola was a freelance trainer and delivered seminars for CLT and GC Legal on topics such as youth justice and licensing.
Expertise
Grade 3 Crown Prosecutor. Regularly prosecutes and defends in the Crown Court in matters involving serious violence, weapons, drugs, road traffic, robbery, burglary, handling stolen goods, fraud, perverting the course of justice, sexual allegations and domestic violence including controlling/coercive behaviour. Nicola also prosecutes on behalf of local authorities in matters such as animal welfare and food labelling regulations.
Nicola qualified as a solicitor in 2004, acting as a regulatory prosecutor in matters including planning, licensing, Trading Standards, Environmental Health and food safety. She went on to advise banks and others on regulatory and compliance issues. She is described as having a reassuring presence together with a personable and practical approach.
Notable Cases
R v H (2024): Bradford Crown Court. Nicola Hoskins and Fen Greatley-Hirsch secured suspended sentences for father and son clients who were charged with intent to pervert the course of justice. ttps://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24427369.lying-father-sons-story-fell-apart-police-dug-deeper/
R v S and S (2024): Bradford Crown Court. Successful prosecution of two siblings who produced a fraudulent codicil to their father’s will, which had the effect of excluding two other siblings from a share in the estate. Both received custodial sentences.
R v K (2024): York Crown Court. Prosecution of a fraudster who had created a scam claiming refunds from LNER whilst selling on the ‘refunded’ ticket for profit. In the course of the proceedings he produced a document purporting to be from a doctor at the LGI with the aim of reducing his sentence, which was investigated and charged as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/24235323.paul-king-jailed-defrauding-lner-rail-tickets/
R v F (2024): Newcastle Crown Court. Led in complex rape trial by Peter Makepeace KC, in which the complainant had passed away prior to the trial. The defence put up many technical obstacles to prevent the case proceeding before a jury, including objecting to hearsay evidence and arguing abuse of process, but these were defeated by detailed and carefully researched submissions on nuanced legal points.
R v M (2024): Bradford Crown Court. Represented a client facing a third conviction for supplying Class A drugs, and hence the minimum term of seven years’ custody. The judge was persuaded to depart from the guidelines and imposed a term of four years instead.
R v K (2023): Bradford Crown Court. Represented one of two defendants prosecuted for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply. Client acquitted whilst the other defendant received an immediate custodial sentence.
R v S (2023): Bradford Crown Court. Successful prosecution of breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order where the defence was one of reasonable excuse following a technical issue with the wording of the original order. Jury convicted and an immediate sentence of custody was imposed.
R v H (2023): Client facing a custodial term of around five years for child sexual offences; the court was persuaded to depart from the sentencing guidelines and imposed a community order instead.
R v G (2023): Secured an acquittal for a taxi driver accused of sexually assaulting a young female passenger.
EA v A (2023): Secured a suspended sentence for sustained breaches of environmental regulations, together with a much reduced contribution to the prosecution’s costs.
R v G and others (2023): Successful application to dismiss in respect of client charged with affray at a football match.
R v S (2023): Obtained a suspended sentence in a case of discharging a firearm in public.
R v H and N (2022): Successful prosecution of two individuals for inflicting grievous bodily harm where the issue was identification.
R v S (2022): Acquittal of client on a rape charge within 30 minutes of jury retiring.
R v S (2022): Acquittal of client on a charge of taking a car without consent following a successful exclusion application under s78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
R v L (2022): Prosecution for obstruction of bailiff in the course of his duty and common assault; also assault of two police officers who came to assist the bailiff. Defendant acquitted of all charges when it was proved that the bailiff did not comply with his codes of practice, and accordingly the police officers were not acting in accordance with PACE.
R v F (2022): Prosecution for incurring 6 speeding offences in 10 days, potentially facing a total of 18 points. Court was successfully persuaded that the sentencing guidelines could be set aside and a short discretionary disqualification was imposed instead of points, which meant the client avoided ‘totting up’ and any points at all.
Clerks
Fen Greatley-Hirsch
Call: 2018
Fen Greatley-Hirsch
LLM Legal Practice (Barristers) – BPP Law School
Adv. LLM Public International Law – Leiden University
LLB Law with French Law – University of Warwick
ADM-ODR International Qualified Civil Commercial Mediator
Baron Dr ver Heyden de Lancey Prize (Middle Temple)
The Queen Mother Scholarship (Middle Temple)
White Rose (WRoCAH) Doctoral Scholarship (Arts and Humanities Research Council)
Grade 3 Prosecutor
Contact
T: 0113 246 2600
Fen joined Chambers in December 2020 after completing a common law pupillage under the supervision of Giles Bridge and Paul Smith.
He accepts instructions in family and criminal cases and is available for consultation in conference or written advice.
Fen’s practice is shaped by his experiences in academia and working in client-facing roles with a several national and international charitable organisations, including Citizens Advice Bureau, the Free Representation Unit, and Nightline.
This work put him in regular contact with individuals from all walks of life and particularly vulnerable populations, young people, persons with disabilities and mental health conditions, and non-native English speakers. As a result, Fen understands and responds to a wide range of client needs. He approaches all matters with the utmost commitment to client care and is often praised for taking the time to ensure clients’ questions and concerns are addressed and that they feel fully represented.
Fen’s academic research focuses on issues of mental and legal capacity in criminal law using vulnerability theory. He has served on the editorial board of academic journals, worked as a research assistant for an NGO conducting strategic human rights litigation, and delivered papers at academic conferences around the world. As such, he is is able to build and present complex information and arguments in a clear and accessible way.
Reputation
Expertise
Family
Fen accepts instructions in private and public Children Act proceedings at all stages, from first hearings to final hearings. A well-rounded practice sees him represent parents, Local Authorities and intervenors alike.
He has a real strength in client care and is often commended for ensuring his clients fully understand the developments in and prospects of their case and leave hearings feeling heard and fully represented.
Fen has gained particular expertise in contested and fact-finding hearings, assisted by a keen eye for detail and a forensic approach honed through criminal practice.
He regularly deals with cases involving allegations of a very serious nature – such as domestic violence, non-accidental injuries, and sexual harm – and does so with sensitivity and tact.
Fen has considerable experience representing vulnerable clients, including young persons, persons with disabilities, those with mental health issues, and those who do not speak English. He welcomes instructions in cases involving non-traditional families and those with international or intercultural elements.
Crime
Fen both prosecutes and defends at all stages – pre-trial, trial, sentence, and appeal.
He regularly appears in courts across the North Eastern and Northern Circuits in relation to the following types of offences:
- Assaults (up to and including s18);
- Road traffic;
- Public order (affrays);
- Dishonesty (handling stolen goods; burglary; robbery);
- Drugs offences (possession with intent to supply; production);
- Sexual offences (sexual assault; indecent images)
Fen is a member of the CPS General Crime Panel at Grade 3.
For the last couple of years he has been building his Crown Court trial practice and welcomes defence instructions.
He has completed the vulnerable witness training and, particularly given his experience dealing with similar matters in the family courts, is well-equipped to defend in rape, sexual assault and other such sensitive matters.
More generally, Fen’s background in academia has equipped him with the ability to quickly process and familiarise himself with large volumes of documents, as well as to make complex information accessible to a lay audience. It has also given him the research skills to locate useful case law that sometimes makes all the difference.
He has been praised by solicitors, benches and clients themselves for his skilled and sensitive witness handling and an ability to resonate with juries.
Fen builds rapports with clients easily, which quickly allows him to elicit the information needed both to build the strongest case and to address the opposing one effectively.
He has a keen eye for detail and in evidential hearings is particularly adept at witness handling, cross-examining with a forensic approach honed through criminal practice.
Fen has considerable experience representing vulnerable clients, including young persons, persons with disabilities, those with mental health issues, and those who do not speak English.
Notable Cases
R v X - Leeds Crown Court (Defence 2025)
Fen Greatley-Hirsch secured acquittal. Client at trial charged with multiple counts of voyeurism (s67 Sexual Offences Act 2003) over a 3-year period. Significant issues relating to the admissibility of several key aspects of the Crown’s case - including a video recorded interview and forensic downloads – in the context of adherence to ABE guidance, chain of custody, and principles of character evidence.
R v H - Bradford Crown Court (Defence 2024)
Fen and Nicola Hoskins secured a suspended sentence for father and son clients who were charged with intent to pervert the course of justice.
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24427369.lying-father-sons-story-fell-apart-police-dug-deeper/
R v Shaw - Leeds Crown Court (Prosecution 2023)
Prosecuted 'professional burglar' who was sentenced to 32 months imprisonment. https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/crime/career-criminal-rammed-police-car-as-he-drove-professional-burglary-team-around-leeds-4422603
R v Ndokajwas - Bradford Crown Court (Prosecution 2023)
Prosecuted man after cannabis farm worth £670k found. Marsel Ndokajwas was sentenced to two years imprisonment for the production of cannabis. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-67571625
R v X - Youth Court (Defence 2023)
Fen defended in the Youth Court in a serious sexual assault trial.The trial involved child witnesses and implementing the s28 procedure. Fen made a successful submission of no case to answer, which prevented the need for the defendant to give evidence. https://www.broadwayhouse.co.uk/news/fen-greatley-hirsch-youth-court-2023
R v X - Leeds Crown Court (Defence 2023)
Fen Greatley-Hirsch Secures Suspended Sentence for his Client in a Serious Three-handed Affray. https://www.broadwayhouse.co.uk/news/fen-greatley-hirsch-secures-suspended-sentence
Clerks