Anthony has significant trial experience having secured acquittals for defendants charged with offences of violence, drug-related charges and sexual offences.
Anthony has had particular success in the area of road traffic offences where he is able to combine his keen eye for legal argument with his robust cross-examination skills. His attention to detail and meticulous case preparation have been instrumental in securing multiple acquittals in this area.
Anthony’s ability to cross-examine professional witnesses, from police officers to expert witnesses, has proved of further use in the areas of violence against police, public disorder and animal welfare.
Coupled with his trial advocacy experience, Anthony also has a very good track record when representing defendants at other stages of the criminal trial process. His client care skills and analytical ability allow him to spot and utilise the most persuasive points when applying for bail and also when mitigating on a client’s behalf.
Notable Crime cases
R v N (Kingston CC)
Anthony won a complex legal argument on reverse burdens of proof for an offence which has never before been dealt with in case law. The relevant statute required the defendant ‘to prove a reasonable excuse’. Anthony successfully argued that this express statutory exception should be read down under the Human Rights Act 1998 to impose only an evidential burden and therefore not contravene the defendant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR.
R v B  Maidstone CC
Secured a suspended sentence for a client charged multiple shoplifting offences and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, described by the judge as ‘at the highest level of ABH, on the cusp of GBH and wounding.’
R v B  Staines MC
Successful in renewing a previously refused application to extend a representation order to reflect the unusual difficulty in a case of harassment related to a protracted neighbour dispute.
R v H  City of London MC
Successful in a Newton Hearing to decide whether the client punched or pushed a police officer, the client’s having previously pleaded guilty to assaulting an emergency worker. The case turned on Anthony’s lengthy cross-examination of the officer in question.
R v S  Isleworth CC
Client received a sentence of 16 months’ custody for possession of a razor blade melted into a toothbrush in prison. The sentence was below the starting point for such an offence. The judge was persuaded to grant the client 20% credit for a guilty plea entered on the first day of trial as the client had not had the opportunity to view the CCTV prior to that date.
R v T  Wimbledon Youth Court
Secured a Youth Rehabilitation Order for a client convicted of 24 separate offences, including mutiple bladed articles and robberies, described by the court as an ‘horrendous catalogue of crimes’. By imposing this sentence, the court was persuaded to move outside of the sentencing guidelines.
R v C  Uxbridge MC
Anthony successfully excluded confessions made by his client per section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Despite the client’s failing to attend her trial, she was acquitted due to the lack of other prosecution evidence.
R v H  Kingston CC
Negotiated a basis of plea to one charge of cultivating cannabis which placed the client in lesser role on the sentencing guidelines. The client received a sentence which allowed his immediate release.
R v M  St Albans CC
Successfully argued that the client fell into lesser role on the guidelines for cultivating cannabis despite prosecuting counsel’s submissions to the contrary. Due to this categorisation, the sentence was capable of being suspended, which the judge was persuaded to do. In his remarks, the judge said that Anthony had represented his client ‘in an exemplary manner’.
R v H  Willesden MC
Successfully persuaded the court not to order the destruction of his client’s pitbull. The complex hearing involved the cross-examination of police officers and two canine experts. The client then received a fine for the offence despite significant injuries caused to both humans and dogs at the scene.
R v H  Chelmsford MC
Secured a suspended sentence for a client charged with owning a dog dangerously out of control and owning a dog of a prohibited breed. Injuries were caused to a member of the public and the client had previously failed to comply with interventions. The Court was also persuaded not to order the destruction of both dogs.
R v F  Isleworth CC
15 year old client was in breach of a Crown Court Youth Rehabilitation Order through the conviction of further offences since its imposition. The case was committed to the CC by the Youth Court and Crown Court judge was persuaded to allow the YRO to continue despite the client’s convictions for three further offences since its imposition.
R v L  Brighton MC
Client acquitted after trial of sending a false message by a public communications network as the court could not be sure that the video was a false message and that the client had the requisite intent. The trial involved the sensitive questioning of both the client’s ex-partner and the client himself who had significant mental health issues and vulnerabilities.
R v T  Westminster MC
Client charged with possession of an offensive weapon and trespassing into Buckingham Palace. Client had complex mental health issues including schizophrenia. He also had two previous convictions for bladed article offences, subjecting him to a mandatory minimum sentence. Anthony produced a lengthy sentencing note in addition to his oral submissions. Chief Magistrate Goldspring found that it would have been unjust in all the circumstances to impose the mandatory minimum, noting that he ‘could not fault’ Anthony’s approach to the relevant law. The client received a sentence which did not affect his release date.
R v Y  Stratford MC
Client acquitted of two breaches of a restraining order. The defence was one of reasonable excuse as a separate non-molestation order had expired by the time of the breaches. At the conclusion of the case, the client was found not guilty as he had made an ‘honest mistake’ due to the confusion regarding which orders were in place. The acquittal followed Anthony’s lengthy submissions on the confusion of all parties, including the prosecution, regarding the status of the order.
R v E  Isleworth CC
Client charged with possession of almost 200 Category A indecent images and a further 400 Category B and C images. On hearing the complex background to the offending, the judge remarked that he had not ‘come across a case for some time where there has been so much that has and could be said by way of mitigation’. The judge went outside of the guidelines and imposed a community order.
R v I  Ealing MC
Client charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle in a public place. Anthony spotted that there was an issue as to whether the car park where the client was stopped was a public place and the matter was adjourned for several months. In the intervening period, the Crown served further evidence on the issue. At the next trial listing, Anthony cross-examined the officer about the insufficiency of the further evidence he had obtained before being successful in a submission of no case to answer.
R v M  Highbury Corner MC
Secured acquittals for a client charged with taking a vehicle without consent, driving without insurance and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. Without the need to call his client to give evidence, Anthony made detailed submissions on the legal insufficiency of the Crown’s evidence, leading to the client’s acquittal for all three offences.
R v S  Uxbridge MC
In a case of driving with no insurance, Anthony argued that there were special reasons to not endorse his client’s licence on the basis of a genuine belief that the car was insured. The client was therefore not disqualified from driving.
The Chief Constable of Sussex Constabulary v Ors  Brighton MC
Represented the Chief Constable of Sussex Constabulary in breaches of Domestic Violence Protection Orders.
The Insolvency Service v R  Luton MC
Prosecuted a defendant charged with re-using a prohibited company name under section 216, Insolvency Act 1986.