Mountford Chambers delivers a nationwide and international service to clients, who are assured quality advice, advocacy and representation at all levels.
Mountford Chambers delivers a nationwide and international service to clients, who are assured quality advice, advocacy and representation at all levels.
Silas has represented clients accused of fraud, serious violence, supply of drugs and serious sexual allegations. He has particular expertise in the representation of clients with complex mental health and neurological issues. Silas has been instructed in an array of cases involving challenges to expert evidence, as well as in cases involving complex disclosure and investigation issues including making applications of abuse of process.
R v H (2024) Inner London Crown Court.
Representing defendant acquitted of assaulting and robbing an 82-year old woman in her own home. Defendant, in his 30s, gave evidence claiming the parties were in a romantic relationship and the complainant had given him money willingly. Unanimous acquittal.
R v WG (2023) Croydon Crown Court.
Being concerned in class A supply. Defendant convicted by jury. Court persuaded to pass a suspended sentence following substantial mitigation, notwithstanding a lack of credit.
R v T (2023) Southwark Crown Court.
Defending in trial of the fact for a defendant found not fit to plead because of serious schizophrenia. Allegations of stalking with fear of violence.
R v IA (ongoing) Birmingham Crown Court.
Defence of a police officer accused of corruption.
R v M (2023) Isleworth Crown Court.
Defendant acquitted of possession of criminal property, £1390, in circumstances where he was found with eight types of controlled drug. Given a suspended sentence with no punitive requirement for eight counts of possession with intent to supply class A, B and C drugs.
R v K (2023) Isleworth Crown Court.
Prosecution offered no evidence in a case involving an alleged assault on a police officer captured on CCTV. The trial was adjourned to allow the CPS to consider representations about the defendant’s mental health, following which the case against him was dropped.
R v T (2022) Woolwich Crown Court.
Defendant was a youth upon arrest for having a bladed article in her possession in public. There was then an unexplained delay of around 11 months, leading her to be dealt with as an adult in the Crown Court. Upon service of a skeleton argument addressing abuse of process, the Crown offered no evidence.
R v C (2022) Kingston Crown Court.
Eight-month sentence suspended for 18 months for a defendant convicted of seven counts of indecent/prohibited images of a child, including of category A.
R v AC (2022) Croydon Crown Court.
44-month sentence for defendant convicted of indecent images counts (circa 1,000 Class A moving images of children from 2-4 years old) and multiple breaches of an SHPO. Defendant had previous for indecent images and child sexual abuse and had received prior sentences of immediate imprisonment.
Silas has represented clients charged with fraud and money laundering, as well as in POCA proceedings following conviction. He is a member of the chambers fraud team and has worked with leading counsel in the preparation of legal argument in the Court of Appeal on the law of private prosecutions and abuse of process.
Silas has previously been instructed by public inquiries and bodies responding to inquiries. He has years of experience in the investigation and preparation of cases against both public bodies and private organisations.
Silas has considerable expertise in cases involving Data Protection, Misconduct in Public Officer and other areas of criminal regulatory and compliance work. He accepts instructs from organisational and individual clients and is available to provide advice at any stage, including in respect of policies, compliance and once proceedings have commenced.
Silas has a busy regulatory practice and accepts instructions from both professionals and regulators. He spent six months seconded to the NMC bringing serious and complex cases against nurses and midwives. He has particular expertise in the cross-over between criminal and regulatory cases, having represented professionals in the Crown Court charged with serious offences.
Silas has been instructed on behalf of a whole range of professionals, including medical practitioners, social workers and police officers.
NMC v BC (2024)
Represented a nurse described by a consultant as “without doubt, the most knowledgeable nurse that I have ever come across” in her field. The nurse was accused of serious misconduct in her management of junior colleagues, including racially motivated bullying and discrimination. While most charges were found not proved, an element of intimidating and harassing behaviour was proved. Nevertheless, in light of very substantial reflection and insight, as well as outstanding references from senior professionals, the panel were persuaded that the registrant was not impaired and no sanction was therefore ordered against her.
SCW v M (2024)
Represented a social care worker who accepted bringing a knife onto shifts and producing it around vulnerable children over an extended period. Following substantial evidence and submissions on the context in the home, the panel ordered a written warning.
NMC v D (2024)
Represented a nurse at Substantive Order Review who had previously been found by a FtPC to have been dishonest by misleading colleagues as well as serious mistakes in administering patient care. While practicing under COPO, similar concerns of clinical misconduct and dishonesty were raised at a subsequent employer. The concerns were dealt with in the SOR process rather than as a new referral. All charges found not proved, bar one minor matter, and the registrant was readmitted to practice with only minor amendments to her COPO.
HCPC v J (2024)
Represented a physiotherapist with decades of experience in muscular skeletal and women’s health, accused of poor assessment and treatment of patients.
NMC v BB (2024)
Represented a nurse accused of sexualized behaviour with a colleague. While some facts were proved, the panel were persuaded that there was no sexual motivation. The NMC made submissions in favour of strike off. Nurse given 12 month COPO.
NMC v BA (2024)
Represented a midwife in a case involving allegations of serious failures to monitor and care for a 5 patients and then failing to declare a warning and live action plan to a subsequent employer. Just two of twelve subcharges proved (one by admission). Allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity found not proved. Midwife received a caution order for one year.
NMC v B (2024)
Presented case for regulatory involving abuse of position as a mental health nurse by inviting a mentally unwell patient to live with them, followed by allegations of sexual assault and racial abuse. Main NMC witness had disengaged leading to hearsay application. Registrant unrepresented. Registrant ultimately struck off from the register.
NMC v M (2023)
Allegations of sexual assault against an experienced surgical nurse. Three week hearing involving complex legal argument.
NMC v X (ongoing)
Instructed by the NMC in a case of rape and sexual assault by a nurse against a colleague.
NMC v XA (2022)
Allegations of sexual misconduct and assault found proved against a nurse in respect of several patients, including a mother and child together.
NMC v XB (2022)
Allegations of violence upheld against a nurse responsible for a vulnerable mentally ill patient.
The King’s Speech delivered on 17 July 2024 set out the new Government’s legislative agenda for the years to come….
Silas Lee, instructed by David Holmes of Dalton Holmes Gray Solicitors, represented a licenced professional “elite boxer” accused of robbing…
