Year of Call: 2012
- LLb (Hons) Law - University of Buckingham
- CLAS – Qualified Duty Solicitor Status
Areas of Work
Graeme has a mixed practice of prosecution and defence work and founds his practice on a simple principle of striving to do the very best for his client no matter what the circumstances. Graeme is a level 2 prosecutor on the CPS London and the South Eastern Advocates Panel.
Graeme specialises in drugs matters, serious violence, weapons, robbery, indecent images and sexual cases. Graeme has previously completed a secondment with the Serious Fraud Office and is also included in the prosecutors panel for the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Selection of Current Instructions
R. v. B (2016) - Instructed to defend one of two defendants charged with attempted murder. Defendant acquitted.
R. v. H (2016) – Instructed to defend a defendant charged with a single count of robbery of a G4S cash delivery to the Natwest bank.
R. v. Y (2016) – 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. C (2016) – 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. N (2016) – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a man charged with street robbery in a tube station.
R. v. B (2016) – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a man charged with two Counts of domestic assault.
Selection of Recent Instructions
R. v. M-F (2016) – 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. JDR (2016) – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a man charged with sexual assault on the tube system. Defendant unanimously convicted by the jury after trial.
R. v. W (2016) – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a defendant charged with multiple Counts of burglary. Unanimously convicted in his absence after trial.
R. v. K (2016) – Instructed by the CPS to prosecute a historic domestic violence case between a professional husband and wife, the defendant being represented by a silk.
R. v. D-G, G, & M (2016) – 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. O (2016) – 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. S (2015) - 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.
Prior to being called to The Bar Graeme practiced as a Solicitor and High Court Advocate for a firm of Solicitors specialising solely in criminal defence. Graeme has also been instructed in care proceedings and other family work.
Selection of 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 – This was a double jeopardy murder case where Graeme was led by Mr. Andrew Jefferies QC. 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.’
Before embarking on his legal career Graeme was employed by the Department for Work and Pensions for 18 years. For 10 of those years Graeme was 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.
Graeme is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and the South Eastern Circuit.