Year of Call: 2012
- LLb (Hons) Law - University of Buckingham
- CLAS – Qualified Duty Solicitor Status
Areas of Work
Graeme joined Chambers in 2014. Prior to joining 9 King’s Bench Walk Graeme worked for a large criminal defence firm where over a number of years, previously as a Solicitor-Advocate, he has accrued a wealth of experience in all manner of crimes from the most serious to the least serious.
Graeme’s practise is exclusively in criminal law and has a mixed practice of defence and prosecution work and founds his practice on a simple principle of striving to do the very best for his client no matter what the circumstances. He is experienced in all areas of crime, including serious violence, sexual offences, firearms, drug importation and supply and white collar crime.
Graeme is thorough and meticulous in his preparation, and quickly grasps issues in cases and has developed particular expertise in his cross-examination techniques.
Graeme appears on the CPS London and the South Eastern Advocates Panel.
Graeme has been involved in the criminal justice system for almost 30 years. Before embarking on his legal career Graeme was employed by the Department for Work and Pensions as a fully accredited Counter Fraud Officer authorised to conduct proceedings on behalf of the Department. Graeme’s role as a Counter Fraud Officer was to investigate allegations of fraud by benefit claimants and ‘collusive’ employers (employers who encourage benefit claimants to continue claiming benefits whilst paying cash-in-hand) which included financial investigations, PACE interviewing, covert surveillance, evidence gathering, case preparation and Court attendances.
Violent Crime and Murder
R. v. C - This was a double jeopardy murder case where Graeme was led by Mr. Andrew Jefferies QC. The appellant had previously been convicted of section 18 GBH having stabbed the complainant in the temple with a screw driver. Ten years later the complainant passed away. The defendant was charged with murder. The prosecution successfully sought to admit the previous conviction for GBH and the defendant argued self-defence as he had done so at the original trial. The complication related to the admission of the previous conviction, which placed a burden on the defence to show the verdict of the original jury in relation to the GBH was incorrect.
R. v. B - Instructed to defend one of two defendants charged with attempted murder. Defendant acquitted.
R. v. S - Defendant charged with affray and possession of an offensive weapon. The defendant is said to have had an altercation outside a house early one evening. He latterly attended the address armed with a machete with a group of other males who were equally armed and threatened serious harm to the occupants. Following a 3 day trial where four witnesses supported the Crown’s case the defendant was unanimously acquitted by the jury in less than an hour.
R. v. M-F – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a Portuguese national charged with GBH; a road rage incident. Defendant convicted unanimously by the jury after trial.
R. v. JW – Instructed to prosecute a man charged with stabbing his girlfriend outside of her flat.
Serious Organised Crime
R. v. BU et al – Instructed to defend a man charged, along with 18 others, with Conspiracy to supply a class A drug. This was an organized crime group operating both nationally and internationally supplying uncut cocaine through a huge network across the country.
R. v. MN et al – Instructed to defend a man charged with being involved with an international conspiracy to import class A drugs as part of an organized crime group. Successfully opposed the imposition of a Criminal Behaviour Order at the conclusion of the matter.
R. v. GE – Instructed as a led junior by the CPS International Justice and Organised Crime Division to prosecute a man charged with creating an encryption software that could be used to introduce viruses to third party computers.
R. v. H – Instructed to defend a defendant charged with a single count of robbery of a G4S cash delivery to the Natwest bank. Secured a suspended sentence order for the defendant.
R. v. MS, AR, & JI – Instructed to prosecute three men for robbing an off duty police officer. Defendants convicted after trial.
R. v. FS – Instructed to prosecute a man charged, along with another, of adducing a man to come to a secluded station where he was robbed with a metal iron bar that was also used to beat him severely. Defendant pleaded during the course of the trial.
R. v. TB – Instructed to defend a defendant who was charged with four Counts of marital rape over a 20 year period and sexual assault. Acquitted of one Count.
R. v. SH – Instructed to defend a defendant charged with rape of a child under 13, Incitement of a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, abduction. The incitement charged was withdrawn at half-time and the jury acquitted the defendant of both remaining Counts.
R. v. JDR – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute an ex-headmaster of Stowe school who was charged with sexual assault of a child on the tube system. Defendant unanimously convicted by the jury after trial.
R. v. AB – Instructed to defend a man who was in possession of a firearm where the minimum sentence provisions applied. Successfully argued ‘exceptional circumstances’ and persuaded the Court to depart from the minimum sentence.
R. v. BC – Instructed to defend a man who robbed the complainant in his own home stealing cash before which the complainant was threatened with a firearm.
R. v. D-G, G, & M – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a trial of three young men of historic armed robberies. Originally the case was dropped against the defendants until cell-site evidence secured some years later.
R. v. KM – Instructed to defend a man charged with a number of others with fraud and possessing criminal property where corporate bank accounts had been accessed via a scam and the use of a corrupt bank manager.
R. v. C – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a defendant who was extradited from the Ukraine to face charges of fraud where he has assumed the identity of his friend to secure access to a pension lump sum, redundancy settlement, and other financial benefits.
R. v. Y – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a lady charged with fraud. It is said she used her elderly and sick father’s bank cards and accessed his bank accounts whilst he was out of the country.
R. v. AS – Instructed to defend a man charged with possessing class A drugs with intent to supply. The only evidence related to a bag full of drugs found in a car shared with other people.
R. v. CG – Instructed to prosecute a man charged with being knowingly concerned in offering to supply a Class A drug. An interesting point as the drugs were fake drugs that he was found with.
R. v. LN – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a man charged with Production of cannabis – a gardener at a cannabis farm. An interesting point as the defendant argued a defence pursuant to the Modern Slavery Act although the competent authority had deemed him as a person who had not been trafficked into the UK.
Theft and Burglary
R. v. O – Instructed to represent a defendant charged with burglary on the back of DNA evidence of the defendant being found at the point of entry. The defendant was convicted after trial having advanced a unique defence of being at the property as a voyeur thus explaining his DNA on the patio doors.
R. v. CB et al – Instructed to defend one of a number of defendants charged with a number of dwelling and non-dwelling burglaries over a short period of time.
R. v. W – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a defendant charged with multiple Counts of burglary. Unanimously convicted in his absence after trial.
High Court Matters
R v Francis  All ER (D) 47 (Jun) - Reported – The appellant was convicted after trial of dangerous driving. He had driven a Range Rover erratically at speed over a distance of some two-and-half miles, swerving from side to side having consumed some alcohol. Following conviction the appellant was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment. The 16 months sentence was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 12 months.
R v Clift  EWCA Crim 2750 –The appellant was convicted of murder having 10 years previously been convicted of section 18 GBH. The trial Judge had admitted in to evidence the original section 18 conviction pursuant to section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was argued that this was wrong in law as the original conviction was not ‘to do with the facts of the original case’ but was ‘the facts of the original case’. The argument was founded on the proposition that once the conviction was admitted the burden of proof shifted from the Crown to the appellant and that therefore the conviction in consequence was unsafe. Furthermore, even if the conviction was admissible, the Judge should have exercised his discretion pursuant to s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude the evidence. The Court of Appeal having considered both written and oral submissions dismissed the appeal.
R. (on the application of Ukaegbu) v Northampton Crown Court (2013) QBD (Admin) (Turner J) 04/09/2013 Reported – The short issue was whether a Judge was correct in revoking bail following the defendant’s recall on licence. The court held: “[I have] difficulty in understanding conceptually how the revocation of the claimant's licence made a difference in terms of whether or not his bail should be withdrawn in a subsequent decision. The revocation of his licence was effectively a decision not made by a court and not one that was based on any additional features which are relevant to the other matters characteristic to the context of a bail application, such as likelihood to commit offences whilst on bail and the other well-known issues.
R. v. Buckle  EWCA Crim 229 Court of Appeal – The appellant having pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to an offence of causing serious harm through dangerous driving was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment the maximum penalty being 60 months. The sentencing Recorder placed the case at the top end of the statutory maximum. This appeal was of some importance as this was a new offence for which there were no sentencing guidelines. The Court of Appeal addressed the question of guidelines and held that ‘...in each case, the Court is entitled to determine, on the individual facts of that case, whether a starting point at – or very close to – the maximum level is warranted.’
Graeme has a passion for football and running. He enjoys reading, and exploring new places including places of historical interest. Graeme enjoys to cook and experience different foods from around the world. He enjoys spending time with his family, watching movies and historic documentaries.
Graeme is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and the South Eastern Circuit.
Mr Graeme Molloy is regulated by the Bar Standards Board, holds a current practising certificate and his details can be found on the BSB’s Barrister Register https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-barristers'-register/
Mr Graeme Molloy 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/
Mr Graeme Molloy 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 Mr Graeme Molloy 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/