Year of Call: 2005
- BA (Hons) Socio-Legal Studies and Criminology
- Graduate Diploma in Law
- Bar Vocational Course
- Crime (Defence and Prosecution)
Areas of Work:
Feryal has extensive experience in trial advocacy with a varied criminal practice for both the defence and the prosecution, which includes representation in firearms matters, sexual offences involving children and other sexual assault matters, offences of serious violence, high level fraud, and all types of dishonesty and drug offences.
Feryal has been instructed in matters as a Led Junior for both Defence and the Prosecution, and in addition to her Crown Court work, has successfully taken cases to the Court of Appeal and to the Administrative Court for Judicial Review where she has a particular expertise in Prison Law.
In a recent high profile case, Feryal was instructed as Counsel in a benefit fraud case, which was featured in the BBC Documentary ‘Britain on the Fiddle’.
Her busy practice further encompasses providing advisory and advocacy assistance in relation to Costs Judge matters.
In addition to her criminal practice Feryal also accepts instructions in Regulatory matters, including being instructed as a case presenter for the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Feryal is fully qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public under the Direct Public Access Rules in suitable matters including cases involving criminal offences at the Crown and the Magistrates Courts, Court of Appeal work as well as Regulatory matters.
R v DG & ors – Kingston Crown Court
Defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life. It was alleged that the defendant with 5 others were able to supply a Mac 10 submachine gun along the chain before being stopped by armed officers. The defendant was alleged to be a ‘broker’ and the only evidence against him was circumstantial evidence, namely telephone evidence. The trial lasted 5 weeks.
R v Anwar & ors – Snaresbrook Crown Court (Operation Bubonic)
Led Prosecution Junior in a firearm and live ammunition case involving 4 defendants. Prosecuted from trial to conviction. The allegation involved a revolver handgun, which had been concealed in a photographic equipment case. The police had initially failed to find the gun during their initial search of the property, but located the gun on their second search. During the initial trial, the photographic equipment case had been exhibited as a court exhibit. As the exhibit was being passed around the jurors for inspection, a juror known as juror 12 having looked under the foam padding in the case, found a concealed package. The trial was aborted for the package to be examined and forensically tested. The package contained 12 rounds of live ammunition. New charges were laid against the defendants. At the re-trial, the defence advanced on the behalf of the first and second defendants was that the police had ‘planted’ the ammunition as the exhibit had been in police storage for 18 months and no ammunition had been located prior to the juror’s discovery. An urgent application was made seeking permission from the Registrar of Criminal Appeals for the disclosure of the juror’s details. Permission was granted and having obtained contact details, juror 12 was contacted who provided a witness statement and gave evidence during the trial as to how the ammunition had been discovered.
R v WO– Inner London Crown Court
Appeared as Prosecution Counsel in case where defendant had pleaded guilty to being in possession of live ammunition and was to be sentenced. It became apparent at the committal for sentence that the sending of the case was erroneous and that the defendant was unaware that he was pleading guilty to an offence, which carried a minimum of 5 years imprisonment. The Judge was assisted to save time by convening as a District Judge, for no plea to be entered and for the case to be sent to the Crown Court by way of a section 51 transfer. This negated the need for any pleas to be vacated as the erroneous sending meant that the plea of guilty was deemed a nullity and the case was set down for a Preliminary Hearing.
R v P – Aylesbury Crown Court
Defendant was charged with unlawful wounding and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his partner. Defence advanced was that the allegations had been fabricated and the wounds self-inflicted as a result of the defendant refusing to purchase drugs for his partner as well as refusing to give his partner money for the purchasing of drugs. Defendant’s bad character for violence was adduced in the trial. After a four-day trial, the defendant was acquitted of both charges.
R v K & ors– Luton Crown Court
Defendant was charged with section 18 GBH, robbery, affray and theft. The offences took place with others in the early hours of the morning in the town centre whilst under the influence of alcohol. The offences were caught on CCTV. Although the Judge made a finding of ‘dangerousness’, it was successfully mitigated that the Judge should use his discretion and not impose an extended sentence. The defendant received a determinate sentence.
R v RR – Harrow Crown Court
Appeared for the Prosecution. Defendant aged 17 pleaded guilty to a section 18 wounding with intent. The defendant had 3 previous convictions for robbery and it was argued that the ‘dangerousness’ provisions applied. The Judge accepted the submissions and the defendant sentenced to an Extended Sentence.
R v K – Wood Green Crown Court
Successfully defended an allegation of unlawful wounding. Defendant is alleged to have used a kitchen knife to injure his partner. Defence advanced that the injuries were self-inflicted and allegations fabricated in order to have the defendant evicted from the family home. Jury unanimously acquitted in under 30 minutes of deliberations.
R v R – Wood Green Crown Court
Successfully defended allegations of threats to kill. Jury unanimously acquitted in just over an hour of deliberations. The complainant had previously made allegations of rape against the defendant who had been acquitted of those allegations at an earlier trial.
R v DS – Snaresbrook Crown Court
Successfully mitigated on behalf of defendant who was caught with almost a kilo of cocaine and £35,000 in cash.
R v Imielinski– Guildford Crown Court
Successfully mitigated on behalf of defendant caught with 22kg of cannabis. Defendant had previous similar conviction and had been deported but returned to the UK. Defendant was sentenced to 40 months
R v H & anor– Snaresbrook Crown Court
Successfully defended on count of production of 500 cannabis plants. Unanimously acquitted.
R v ID– Snaresbrook Crown Court
Successfully defended three separate allegations of sexual assault. It was alleged that the defendant sexually assaulted the estate agents young female employee while viewing property. Defence advanced was fabrication.
R v Hemphill – Chelmsford Crown Court
Appeared for the Prosecution. Defendant pleaded guilty to being in possession and distributing indecent images of children, extreme pornography, prohibited images of children and being in breach of a sexual prevention order. He received 3 years and placed indefinitely on the Sexual Offences Register
R v W– Wood Green Crown Court
Appeared as Prosecution Counsel. Defendant aged 83 was sentenced having pleaded guilty to 4 counts of historic sexual abuse on his step grand daughter. He received 4 and half years and placed indefinitely on the Sexual Offences Register.
Fraud & Dishonesty Offences
R v Z & anor – Southwark Crown Court
Defendant was charged with possessing criminal property, namely £60,000, which was found on his co-defendant’s person as well as in the car that the defendant was a passenger in. Following a 7-day trial, the defendant was unanimously acquitted.
R v S– Reading Crown Court
Defendant was charged with possessing criminal property, namely £149,000 cash at Heathrow Airport. He pleaded guilty on the first day of trial. Despite stating that an aggravating feature was that the offence had been committed across borders, the Judge imposed an 18-month custodial sentence.
R v Petkova & ors– Inner London Crown Court – (UKBA Operation Sakar)
Led Junior representing one of the alleged ‘fixers’ in one of the UK”s biggest sham marriages cases. Proceedings were stayed as an abuse of process on grounds of bad faith and serious misconduct. Only led junior for the defence to be acknowledged in the Judge’s ruling.
R v K – Snaresbrook Crown Court
Successfully mitigated for a suspended sentence following conviction after trial for fraudulent evasion of excise duty over £205,000.
R v W– Aylesbury Crown Court
Successfully defended five counts of handling stolen goods. Following a 3-day trial, the defendant was unanimously acquitted. The defendant was also charged with a separate indictment containing possession of Class B, however the Prosecution offered no evidence at the conclusion of the trial.
R v MC– Luton Crown Court
Successfully defended an allegation of dwelling burglary. The evidence was circumstantial evidence namely DNA found on a water bottle at the scene of crime. Although the jury heard that the defendant had numerous convictions for burglary and dishonesty, the defendant denied going to the property and advanced that the water bottle was a ‘moveable object’ and must have been left at the scene by someone else. The defendant was acquitted by a majority verdict.
Court of Appeal
R v EA– Instructed following conviction to consider whether there were any grounds for appeal against conviction. Appellant was serving a sentence for fraudulent evasion of a prohibition, having been stopped at Manchester Airport in possession of green tea containing raw opium. The matter was referred to and heard before the Full Court of the Court of Appeal with Sir Brian Leveson as the Presiding Judge.
R v SPC – The Appellant, a single mother with two children was sentenced for fraud and appealed on the basis that the custodial sentence was ‘manifestly excessive’. Following her imprisonment, her son’s school raised concerns that a once ‘bright student’ was now falling behind in his studies and being influenced by a negative peer group. The Full Court reduced her sentence as ‘an act of mercy’.
NMC v R:Application for an Interim Suspension Order. The Registrant was a mental health nurse who assaulted a vulnerable patient, namely a 16-year-old female self-harmer who was under his care in the psychiatric ward. He pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court and was dismissed from the NHS Trust. At the time of the application, he was employed by an agency and secured a position on the mental health ward at HMP Holloway. Submissions were made for an interim suspension order to be granted on the basis of public protection namely that there would be a risk of repetition as he was working in a highly charged and volatile environment. The Panel accepted the submissions and an Interim Suspension Order imposed for 12 months.
NMC v F: Presented a case for an Interim Review Order where the nurse had been subject to conditions of practice order. Following a clear refusal to engage with the investigation carried out by the NMC, submissions were made for the order to be replaced with a suspension order. The Panel agreed and the order was replaced with an interim suspension order for the remainder of the term of the order.
NMC v S: Presented a case for an Interim Order. Registrant lacked the basic and fundamental skills required for nurses and was alleged to have committed a series of serious breaches in her practice despite receiving training and supervision. Following the application, the Panel agreed with the submissions and imposed an interim suspension order for 18 months.
NMC v B: Presented a case for an Interim Review Order where the nurse had been subject to an interim suspension order. Recommendations regarding further training and language development had been recommended by the previous Panel. The Registrant had taken steps to address the recommendations and therefore NMC were content to recommend the order to be varied to a Conditions of Practice Order, which was adopted by the Panel.
High Court/Costs Cases
R v Souleiman – Senior Courts Costs Office – SCCO 174/13
Successfully argued that the litigator was entitled to be remunerated two claims submitted under the same case number on the basis that two counts on the Indictment had been severed to create two trials and therefore two fees. The Litigator was awarded a further £98,000.
The Queen (on the application of J) v The Parole Board
Administrative Court - Renewed application for permission for leave to judicial review Parole Board’s decision not to hold an oral hearing.
Prison Law Cases
Parole Board v H
Successfully represented prisoner at a Lifer Parole Hearing where the Panel released from closed conditions direct to secondary rehabilitation centre.
Parole Board v S
Successfully represented prisoner at Lifer Parole Hearing where the Panel directed a move to open conditions despite the prisoner having previously absconded twice from open conditions.
Parole Board v W
Prisoner had been subject to an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP), following convictions for serious offences of violence and firearms possession. Released following a full oral hearing before the Parole Board.
South Eastern Circuit
Criminal Bar Association
Association of Women Barristers
Cypriot Lawyers Society (Committee Member)
Feryal is Joint Secretary to Chambers Tenancy and Pupillage Committee.
Outside of work, Feryal qualified as a Zumba instructor and teaches her own classes
Miss Feryal Ertan is regulated by the Bar Standards Board, holds a current practising certificate and her details can be found on the BSB’s Barrister Register https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-barristers'-register/
Miss Feryal Ertan holds insurance cover for all legal services supplied through professional indemnity insurance with the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) The coverage is worldwide subject to their terms which are available on their website https://www.barmutual.co.uk/
Miss Feryal Ertan is registered with the Information Commissioners office under the Data Protection Act https://ico.org.uk/
If you are not satisfied with the service that Miss Shabeena Azhar provides you can make a complaint to Chambers. Information on Chambers Complaints Procedure is available on Chambers website www.9kbw.com/about-us/complaints-procedure
If you are not satisfied with the response you receive from Chambers you may complain to the Legal Ombudsman (This must be done within the time limits set out) The contact details can be found on the Legal Ombudsman’s website http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/