James Manning

2008

James is a specialist criminal barrister. He has been instructed to defend in the full range of criminal cases from murder and terrorism to intellectual property and environmental offences. He has frequently appeared before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) including as a led junior and as a leading junior.

James also accepts instructions in civil matters, usually now arising from criminal cases, such as applications for writs of habeas corpus and civil actions against the police or public authorities.

Mr Manning’s persuasive and effective advocacy has been noted by judges, solicitors, and defendants. For example, in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Mr Justice William Davis (as he then was) complimented Mr Manning’s “manful arguments”, Lord Justice Simon remarked upon Mr Manning’s “excellent presentation”, Mr Justice Gilbart noted that “the grounds of appeal had been argued vigorously by Mr. Manning”, and Lady Justice Carr commented on Mr Manning’s “robust submissions, as we would expect”.

 

 

Professional experience

Although now practising almost entirely in criminal defence, James has been instructed to prosecute both by the Crown Prosecution Service and occasionally in private prosecutions.

Having initially practised from mixed common law chambers, James has experience of civil practice and has appeared before a wide range of tribunals including: the Chancery Division of the High Court (including the Companies Court and Bankruptcy Court); the King’s Bench Division of the High Court; the Employment Tribunal; and the County Court. This breadth of experience has stood James in very good stead as an adaptable and experienced advocate.

 

 

Education

 

James studied Law as an undergraduate at the University of Cambridge followed by an MPhil in Criminology (also at the University of Cambridge). He wrote his post-graduate thesis on the early release scheme for paramilitary prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement.

Having been called to the Bar in 2008, James undertook a mixed common law pupillage at 4 King’s Bench Walk. As a tenant at 4KBW, James gained a broad experience of practice areas before moving to Nexus Chambers in 2011 to focus on criminal defence.

 

Qualifications

MA, University of Cambridge, 2010

MPhil (Criminology), University of Cambridge, 2009

BVC, Inns of Court School of Law (City University), 2008

BA (Law), University of Cambridge, 2007

 

Professional Memberships

South Eastern Circuit

Criminal Bar Association (CBA)

Constitutional & Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA)

Lincoln’s Inn (ad eundem 2012)

Middle Temple (called 2008)

 

Publications

Private Prosecutor’s Costs – not on the nod [Arch. Rev. 2022, 4, 4-6]

In May 2022 an article written by Mr Manning was published in Archbold Review (2022 issue 4). The article, entitled ‘Private Prosecutor’s Costs – not on the nod’, considers the judgment of Holroyde LJ & Cutts J in R. (on the application of TM Eye Ltd) and The Crown Court at Southampton [2021] EWHC 2624 (Admin); [2022] 1 W.L.R. 1114; [2021] 9 WLUK 332 (DC) – an application for judicial review of a court’s refusal to award costs out of central funds following a prosecution for unauthorised trade mark use. The article, which is available on Westlaw, also contains a discussion of some of the recent recommendations of the Justice Select Committee relating to private prosecutions.

 

Additional information

Mr Manning is accredited by the Bar Standards Board to accept public access instructions and to conduct litigation.

Since 2013 Mr Manning has been a qualified and accredited Police Station Representative. Consequently, he is sometimes instructed to advise and represent suspects at a pre-charge stage.

James is a pupil supervisor (accredited 2016) and has supervised ten of chambers’ first six pupils.

In 2015 James was accredited by Lincoln’s Inn as an advocacy trainer: he now regularly teaches advocacy and professional ethics to pupils and new practitioners.

Mr Manning sat on Nexus Chambers’ management Committee between 2015 and 2021. He has been chambers’ Equality & Diversity Officer since May 2015. Between 2017 and 2021 James was chambers’ Head of Pupillage.

James has sat on Lincoln’s Inn’s Bar Representation Committee since 2017. He has recently been re-elected for a further four-year term (2023-2026) and represents Hall on the Library Committee, the Chattels Committee, and the Gardens Committee.

NOTABLE CASES

Murder

 

 

R v MM & Others in the Crown Court at Manchester [T20227290/1] (Operation Rabaul)

 

Mr Manning, led by Anesta Weekes KC, represented the second defendant of three, all charged with murder. Mr Manning’s client was 16 at the time of the killing and 17 at trial. The trial involved cut-throat defences plus extensive legal argument about the admissibility of alleged confessions in the form of “drill rap” lyrics found on the defendants’ phones. The first defendant was convicted of murder but Mr Manning’s client was found not guilty of murder after a nine-week trial from September to November 2022.

 

 

R v AA & Others in the Crown Court at Isleworth –trial & retrial [T20217114/2] (Operation Tambov)

 

Mr Manning, led by John Femi-Ola KC, represented the first defendant of three who was 17 at the time of the killing; he admitted stabbing the deceased once in the heart, causing the fatal injury, but said that he had done so in self-defence. This killing occurred on Ackmar Road, Parsons Green. The first defendant, represented by Mr Femi-Ola KC and Mr Manning, was found not guilty of murder following a nine-week trial from November 2021 – January 2022. The jury were hung in respect of the manslaughter alternative which was then re-tried in a three-week trial in November – December 2022 (Mr Manning again representing).

 

 

R v AT & Others at the Central Criminal Court [T20200065] (Operation Seftonpark)

 

Mr Manning, instructed as junior alone, defended the fourth defendant of five at trial. The first defendant (‘AT’) only was charged murder; the other four defendants were charged with violent disorder. The deceased was the brother of Mr. Manning’s client. The case involved cut-throat defences and the trial used two court rooms to separate the defendants. The first defendant pleaded guilty to murder on day five of the trial. An eight-week trial of the violent disorder count followed.

 

 

R v MR at the Central Criminal Court [T20197005] (Operation Racharia)

 

Mr Manning, led by Michael Mansfield KC, represented the defendant at trial relating to the murder of the defendant’s ex-girlfriend who had died as a result of a single stab wound to the back in the early hours of New Year’s Day 2019.

 

 

Fresh counsel murder appeal

 

 

R v Zakaria LAHRAR in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2022] EWCA Crim 1342, on appeal from the Crown Court at Basildon [20177200] (Operation Boxy)

 

Mr Manning, led by Sam Stein KC, was instructed privately in this fresh counsel appeal against a murder conviction and sentence, the defendant having dispensed with the services of his trial representatives. The appellant is a vulnerable defendant with low IQ and high levels of suggestibility and yet no application for an intermediary had been made by the trial representatives. The applicant waived privilege. Complex Court of Appeal formalities were complied with (Achogbuo, McCook, McGill & Others, Singh etc.). The hearing took place in September 2022 before Simler LJ, Peperall and Griffiths JJ. Giving the judgment of the Court, Simler LJ refused leave to appeal the conviction and the appeal against sentence was dismissed, “notwithstanding the comprehensive and forceful submissions made on the appellant’s behalf”.

 

 

Attempted Murder

R v AJ & four others at the Inner London Crown Court [T20237191].

Mr Manning is instructed (junior alone) to defend the fourth defendant who is 18 years of age, who is charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent. One of the co-defendants is charged with attempted murder. This matter is set down for trial in June 2024.

 

 

R v SK & Another at the Central Criminal Court (sitting at Winchester Crown Court) [T20207277]

 

Mr Manning was instructed (junior alone) defending the first defendant of two at this attempted murder trial. Mr Manning’s client, who was sixteen years old at the material time, was alleged to have stabbed a girl (unknown to him) multiple times in the head, face, and neck outside a McDonald’s in Bexleyheath. Mr Manning’s client has autism, learning disability, and has also been found to be a victim of modern slavery. He was held on remand in a medium-secure psychiatric hospital for children and an issue was raised about his fitness to plead and/or stand trial. The adult co-defendant also had low IQ. Both defendants were assisted by intermediaries throughout the trial. The six-week trial involved cut-throat defences. Expert psychiatric evidence was called at trial, both on a voir dire and before the jury.

 

 

R v FG & Others at the Central Criminal Court [T20207123] (Operation Kedgwick)

 

Mr Manning was instructed (junior alone) representing the fourth defendant of five, all of whom were charged with attempted murder (amongst other counts). The case involved an alleged joint enterprise attempted murder with a firearm. It was alleged by the prosecution that an attempt had been made to shoot the complainant in the head at point-blank range, the attempted murder having failed only because the hand gun repeatedly mis-fired. Mr Manning made an application to dismiss the case arguing that the evidence was unreliable because the complainant was under the influence of a combination of strong prescription medication and drugs of abuse, plus he suffers from PTSD. In November 2021, on the eve of the trial, the prosecution offered no evidence as a result of issues coming to light regarding the credibility of the complainant.

 

 

Manslaughter

 

R v CD & Another in the Crown Court at Lewes [T20170730] (Operation Manta)

 

Mr. Manning was instructed (junior alone) to defend the second defendant of two (who was charged with burglary and dangerous driving). The co-defendant was charged with manslaughter (gross negligence) arising from an episode of extremely dangerous driving, following a burglary, leading to the death of a motorist.

R v Zakaria LAHRAR [2022] EWCA Crim 1342

 

Simler LJ, Peperall J, Griffiths J. Mr Manning was privately instructed as a led junior (led by Sam Stein KC). This was fresh counsel appeal against a murder conviction and sentence. See above (murder) for more details.

 

 

R v Alex SMITH [2022] EWCA Crim 50

 

Mr Manning appeared as leading junior (leading Hamish McCallum) and was instructed via Advocate, acting pro bono throughout. The CA(CD) comprised Carr LJ, Picken and Wall JJ. This was a renewed application for leave to appeal the applicant’s convictions (following guilty pleas) to two counts of currency counterfeiting, contrary to section 15(2) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. The convictions dated back to 1999. The applicant worked in the 1990s as a circus performer, stage magician and television presenter. In 1998 the applicant was stung by Mazher Mahmood (a.k.a. “the Fake Sheikh”), who was working at the time as an investigative journalist at the News of the World newspaper. The application for leave to appeal was brought many years out of time after the CPS disclosed concerns about Mazher Mahmood following the collapse of the singer Tulisa Contostavlos.

 

 

R v Mustafa Kemal MUSTAFA [2020] EWCA Crim 1723

 

Mr Manning represented the appellant in this successful appeal against conviction. The appellant had been convicted, at the Crown Court at Woolwich, of an offence of failing to comply with an Enforcement Notice contrary to s.179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The ground of appeal was that the conviction was unsafe because the conduct of the trial judge amounted to unfair judicial treatment and undermined the fairness of the trial – the Judge had “entered the arena” and descended into the fray. The Judgment was given by Stuart-Smith LJ, quashing the conviction. This judgment was then cited by HHJ Martin Picton in the introduction to the August 2021 edition of the Crown Court Compendium (Part I). The appeal has also attracted academic comment in Criminal Law Week – see case note by Dr Roderick Munday [CLW/21/05/1].

 

 

R v Aron Lee PASK & Others [2019] EWCA Crim 2472

 

Mr Manning represented the fifth appellant in this appeal against sentence. The appellants were amongst 12 defendants sentenced together for conspiracies to steal, burgle, and rob. The Court comprised Bean LJ, Garnham J, and HHJ Katz QC.

 

 

R v Syam HUSSAIN and Muhammed Mohon TALUKDAR [2019] EWCA Crim 1525

 

Successful appeal against sentence. Mr Manning represented the second appellant, who had been convicted of one count of money laundering, arising from a complex courier fraud, and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. The Court comprised the Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (Hallett LJ), Garnham and May JJ. Mr Manning argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive; the Court agreed and substituted a community order with unpaid work.

 

 

R v Lance MORRIS [2019] EWCA Crim 147

 

Partially successful appeal against conviction. The appellant had been convicted on a four-count indictment relating to offences contrary to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In a judgment given by Simon LJ, the Court quashed the appellant’s conviction on count 4.

 

 

R v Daniel DOHERTY & Others [2018] EWCA Crim 1924 (AG’s Ref)

 

Mr. Manning appeared on behalf of the fourth offender, as he had done at the Court below. Mr. Manning’s client had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation (relating to the sale of dogs) and a summary offence relating to the welfare of animals; he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years. HM’s Attorney General considered the sentence to be unduly lenient. The Solicitor General (Mr Robert Buckland QC MP) appeared in person on behalf of the Attorney General. Despite extensive mitigation, the Court accepted the Attorney General’s submissions. In a ruling given by Holroyde LJ, the suspended sentence was quashed as unduly lenient and a sentence of four years eight months’ imprisonment was substituted.

 

 

R v Lee BARTON [2018] EWCA Crim 1354

 

Mr Manning appeared on behalf of the applicant in this renewed application for leave to appeal sentence. The applicant had pleaded guilty to breaching a restraining order and arson being reckless as to whether life is endangered. An extended sentence of 10 years imprisonment was imposed. The Court comprised Simon LJ, Turner and Garnham JJ.

 

 

R v Conner MARISCOTTI [2018] EWCA Crim 962

 

Mr Manning represented the appellant in this appeal against a sentence arising from a conviction for possession with intent to supply class A. Edis J gave judgment rejecting the appeal.

 

 

R v Harvey FRANKS [2017] EWCA Crim 768

 

Mr Manning appeared on behalf of the applicant who had been convicted of non-recent sexual offences against children, including the rape of a 15-year-old boy in the 1990s. The Court comprised Flaux LJ, Haddon-Cave and Cheema-Grub JJ. Applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence refused.

 

 

R v Sorun RASUL & Others [2017] EWCA Crim 695

 

Mr Manning represented the fifth applicant of seven, and was instructed as fresh counsel, the applicant having dispensed with the services of his trial representatives. The fifth applicant sought leave to appeal conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal comprised Simon LJ, Holroyde and Soole JJ. The case related to: a conspiracy to facilitate breach of immigration control in the European Union, contrary to section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971; false imprisonment; and possession of criminal property. Mr. Manning’s client had received a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment. The appeals were dismissed.

 

 

R v H [2017] EWCA Crim 679

 

Mr Manning appeared on behalf of the appellant in this interlocutory appeal against various legal rulings made on a preparatory hearing in a terrorism case. Amongst other things, the Judge at first instance had refused an application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process based on alleged entrapment. The Court of Appeal comprised The President of the Queen’s Bench Division (Sir Brian Leveson), William Davis LJ, and Mitting J.

 

 

R v Majdeline BANKACEM [2017] EWCA Crim

 

Mr Manning appeared on behalf of the appellant, who had been sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment for possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition. Mr Manning had appeared at the lower court as well, where he had argued that there were exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the mandatory minimum sentence. This submission was rejected by the sentencing so Mr Manning renewed it on appeal, with leave was granted by Teare J. The Court comprised Thirlwall LJ, Carr and Gilbart JJ. In giving the judgment of the court, despite refusing the appeal, Gilbart J commented that “the grounds of appeal were argued vigorously by Mr. Manning”.

 

 

R v John Kojo REMI [2017] EWCA Crim 65

 

Mr Manning appeared on behalf of the applicant who had been convicted after trial of an offence contrary to section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging the sale or transfer of a firearm). Three grounds of appeal against conviction were advanced. The Court consisted of McCombe LJ, William Davis J, and Sir David Maddison. William Davis J (as he then was) gave the judgment refused leave to appeal but commented on “Mr Manning’s manful arguments”.

 

 

R v Kevin John PITCHFORD [2016] EWCA Crim 1640

 

Mr Manning appeared on behalf of the appellant in this appeal against sentence. The Court comprised Sharp LJ, Haddon-Cave and Laing JJ. Appeal partially allowed.

 

 

R v Antonio MEGIA-GRANDE [2015] EWCA Crim 1205

 

Mr Manning appeared on behalf of the appellant in this successful appeal against sentence. The appellant, a man of good character, had been sentenced to concurrent sentences of six months’ imprisonment for two offences of theft (shoplifting aftershave from John Lewis). The Court comprised Laws LJ, Blair and Holroyde JJ. The sentences were quashed and substituted with concurrent sentences of two months’ imprisonment.

 

 

R v Joanne BERRY [2014] EWCA Crim 505

 

The Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd), Royce and Griffith Williams JJ heard this interlocutory appeal against a ruling at a preparatory hearing. Mr Manning represented the appellant, who faced charges including committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence (contrary to section 62(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) and attempting to cause a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent. This highly unusual case received widespread national media coverage upon the conclusion of the trial, including in the BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28701619

R v HY in the Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames [T20160459] (Operation Fains)

 

Mr Manning was instructed to defend as junior alone. The defendant (‘HY’) was charged on a five-count indictment:

 

  • one count of collecting or making a record of terrorist information, contrary to section 58(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000;

 

  • two counts of encouraging terrorism, contrary to section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act 2006, and

 

  • two counts of Dissemination of a terrorist publication, contrary to section 2(1) and 2(2)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2006.

 

The prosecution alleged that the defendant (aged 21 at trial) was an Islamic State propagandist. His offending was alleged to have begun with the sharing of ISIS propaganda videos (showing martyrdom, beheadings etc.) which amounted to a direct or indirect encouragement to the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism. The defendant was also alleged to have collected or made a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, namely he posted electronic images of a spreadsheet purporting to contain the personal details of United States military personnel on Facebook. The prosecution case was that this created a danger of terrorist reprisals.

 

Following a ten-day trial in September 2017, He was found guilty (by majority verdict) of counts 1 (10/2 majority) and 2 (10/2 majority) and 5 (11/1 majority). He was found not guilty of counts 3 and 4.

 

At the conclusion of the trial the case received widespread national media coverage including in The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Mirror, the Evening Standard, and the Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/afghan-child-refugee-fostered-in-oxford-jailed-for-terrorism-x50k67j7c)

 

 

R v H [2017] EWCA Crim 679 in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

 

Mr Manning was instructed (as junior alone) to represent the appellant in this interlocutory appeal against a ruling at a preparatory hearing in a terrorism case. See above (cases before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) for full details.

 

 

HY v Ministry of Justice in the High Court of Justice (Admin) [CO/4059/2017]

 

Mr Manning was instructed to apply for a writ of habeas corpus due to repeated delays in bringing this terrorism case on for trial. The application was considered initially on an out of hours ex parte basis which resulted in an order for a hearing. At the hearing before before Sir Ross Cranston sitting as a Judge of the High Court, an order made pursuant to CPR r.87.5(d) that the application should continue as an application for permission to apply for judicial review.

 

 

HY v The Security Service & Others before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT/17/52/CH)

 

Mr Manning was instructed on behalf of the claimant / complainant in this matter before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The claim and complaint related to alleged entrapment and breaches of the suspect’s human rights during a counter-terrorism investigation. The claim and complaint were resisted by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. A novel legal point arose about IPT proceedings conducted in parallel to a criminal trial. Mr Manning advanced several rounds of written submissions on legal issues at the direction of the Tribunal.

 

 

R v JAAK in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2022]

 

Mr Manning was instructed to attend Southwark Police Station custody suite to represent the detainee and oppose the police’s application for a warrant of further detention (to hold the suspect for a week without charge) in an investigation into alleged commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of Terrorism.

 

 

R v SI in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2017]

 

Mr Manning was instructed to attend Southwark Police Station custody suite to represent the detainee and oppose the police’s application for a warrant of further detention (to hold the suspect for a week without charge) in an investigation into alleged commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of Terrorism. The application was heard by Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot (as she then was). The detainee was suspected of assisting Khuram Butt and others in conducting the London Bridge and Borough Market terror attack.

 

 

R v MAH & Others in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [T20227722]

 

Mr Manning was instructed to defend the fifth defendant of five who were charged with conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration, contrary to section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977. This was an alleged conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom, as per s.5 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism & Conspiracy) Act 1998. The investigation was conducted by the National Crime Agency. The prosecution collapsed after Mr. Manning put forward a motion to quash the indictment on the basis that the prosecution had failed to obtain the consent of the Attorney General to the institution of these charges.

 

 

Pro bono advice for Reprieve UK

 

Mr Manning was instructed in 2019, leading Omran Belhadi, to advise Reprieve UK (pro bono) on the implications of the new Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 for the organisation’s work. Reprieve is a human rights organisation focusing on the death penalty and abuse of counter-terrorism powers.

R v SJB & Others in the Crown Court at Caernarfon [T20227290 / T20227291]

 

Mr Manning was instructed to defend the second defendant of four. The defendants, who are all protestors, were charged with conspiracy to damage property arising out of a protest at a factory that made printed circuit boards for various applications including radar. The defendants were said to have caused damage valued at more than £1m to the factory in North Wales. The trial took place in May 2023 and received media attention: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck7kd30zv04o

 

 

R v CF in the Crown Court at Southwark [T20210053]

 

Mr. Manning was representing the defendant, a man of good character, who was accused of two counts of assaulting an emergency working at an anti-lockdown protest in Trafalgar Square. The jury were hung (the defendant was acquitted of all charges at the re-trial, by which time it had become clear that the protest took place on the same day as a party in Downing Street, which was a few hundred yards away).

R (TM Eye Ltd) v MA & Others in the Crown Court at Southwark [T20190201]

 

Mr Manning was led by Matthew Ryder KC (of Matrix Chambers) in these “composite” proceedings. Five similar cases relating to alleged trade mark offences contrary to s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (all private prosecutions brought by TM Eye Limited) were joined for a composite legal argument before HHJ D. Taylor, the then-resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court. [NB This is the case referred to as R v Abdullah and mentioned at §§ 21 & 43 of the High Court judgment in R (on the application of TM EYE LIMITED) and The Crown Court at Southampton [2021] EWHC 2624 (Admin)].

 

 

R (TM Eye Ltd) v CG in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20210154]

 

Mr Manning represented a young defendant of good character. She was accused of selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods via Instagram, contrary to s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on all four counts she faced.

 

 

R (TM Eye Ltd) v AM in the Crown Court at St Albans [20190105]

 

Mr Manning represents the defendant accused of selling (and possessing) counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods contrary to s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Trial due September 2023.

 

 

R (TM Eye Ltd) v RM in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [20190928]

 

Mr Manning represents the defendant accused of selling (and possessing) counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods contrary to s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

 

 

R (TM Eye Ltd) v TK in the Crown Court at Isleworth [T20200043]

 

Mr Manning represents the defendant accused of selling (and possessing) counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods contrary to s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a community order.

 

 

R (TM Eye Ltd) v AA in the Ealing Magistrates’ Court and, on appeal, to the Crown Court at Isleworth [A20200084]

 

The defendant was accused of selling (and possessing) counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods contrary to s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. He was convicted in the magistrates’ court at a trial where he was not represented by Mr Manning. Mr Manning was instructed post-conviction. He represented the defendant at sentence and in a number of hearings before Deputy District Judge (MC) Adrian Turner where the private prosecutor’s application for costs from central funds (pursuant to s.17 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985) was extensively litigated. Mr Manning then represented the defendant / appellant in relation to an appeal against his conviction to the Crown Court at Isleworth. When it transpired that the private prosecutor had lost some of the exhibits between conviction and appeal Mr Manning made an application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process. The private prosecutor subsequently withdrew its opposition to the appeal and the defendant’s conviction was overturned: not guilty verdicts were entered on all counts.

 

 

R (TM Eye Ltd) v AA in the Crown Court at Isleworth [T20210892]

 

Mr Manning represents the defendant accused of selling (and possessing) counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods contrary to s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Trial due September 2023.

 

 

R (TM Eye Ltd) v MA in the Crown Court at Wood Green [T20220288]

 

Mr Manning represents the defendant accused of selling (and possessing) counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods contrary to s.92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

R v MO in the Crown Court at Inner London [T20227198]

 

Allegation of attempted GBH with intent and threats to kill (domestic allegation). Defendant found not guilty after trial in December 2022.

 

 

R v BB in the Crown court at Chelmsford [T20217156]

 

Alleged attempted grievous bodily harm with intent. Private instruction. Trial forthcoming 2023.

 

 

R v MH in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [T20217434]

 

Alleged wounding with intent (s.18). Defendant of good character acquitted of all charges after trial in August 2023.

 

 

R v CR in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20200584]

 

GBH (s.20). Guilty plea, Newton hearing. Suspended sentence order imposed in March 2021.

 

 

R v JM in the Crown Court at Blackfriars [T20170086].

 

Unlawful wounding (s.20). Female defendant glassed a man in the face in a bar. Convicted at trial. Suspended sentence imposed.

 

 

R v SB in the Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames [T20167149]

 

The defendant faced a three-count indictment: inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20; assaulting occasioning actual bodily harm; and criminal damage. The defendant, who is of good character, was acquitted following a five-day trial. This trial involved substantial legal argument regarding hostile witnesses and the admissibility res gestae hearsay evidence.

 

 

R v JS & Another in the Crown Court at Inner London [2016]

 

The defendant faced a three-count indictment: having an offensive weapon, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953; assault by beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998; and criminal damage, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act. The jury was discharged on day two of the trial following defects in disclosure coming to light. The prosecution was then stayed after an abuse of process submission arising from non-disclosure was accepted.

 

 

R v AP in the Crown Court at Croydon [2016]

 

The defendant faced an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and criminal damage. The defendant has profound mental health difficulties including drug-induced psychosis. The issue of the defendant’s fitness to plead was raised. The Judge entered not guilty verdicts after the Crown offered no evidence.

 

 

R v JF in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [2016]

 

The defendant faced a four-count indictment: attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent; threatening another with a bladed article; having a bladed article; and criminal damage. The Crown accepted pleas to two of the lesser offences, with the GBH with intent left to lie on the file. A suspended sentence was imposed.

 

 

R v EM in the Crown Court at Aylesbury [20150069]

 

Allegation of causing actual bodily harm by beating girlfriend with dog chain. Complainant has borderline personality disorder. Careful cross-examination demonstrated that she was lying about numerous matters including having had cancer. Defendant acquitted at trial.

 

 

R v JS in the Crown Court at Lewes [2015]

 

The defendant faced an allegation of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20. He was found not guilty following a two-day trial.

 

 

R v MW in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20140099]

 

The defendant was accused of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20. The defendant was said to have ‘glassed’ the complainant causing facial injuries during a fight outside a house party. The defendant was found not guilty following a four-day trial.

 

 

R v MLA in the Central Criminal Court [20147475]

 

Allegation of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and having an offensive weapon. The defendant (of good character and father of four children) spoke almost no English; he was found not guilty following a five-day trial at the Old Bailey.

R v PM in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20217170 / T20220141]

 

Nine-count indictment alleging non-recent rapes and indecent assaults on siblings (from age 6), dating back to the 1970s when the defendant was himself also a child. Defence of doli incapax raised. Trial in June 2023.

 

 

R v CL in the Crown Court at Wood Green [T20217187]

 

Causing a child to engage in sexual activity without consent (x3), and making threats to kill (x2). Teaching assistant committing offences against child in school. Two complainants gave evidence at trial via s.28 pre-recorded cross-examination. Pre-trial legal issue around one complainant’s unwillingness to co-operate with the investigation by providing the police with access to her mobile phone.

 

 

R v HF in the Crown Court at Croydon [20157277]

 

Allegations of non-recent sexual offences (including rape) of children by a teacher between the 1960s and the 1990s. The defendant had previously been convicted of similar offences – admitted as evidence of bad character at trial. Seven-count indictment (four complainants). Six-week trial. Defendant found not guilty of five counts; convicted (by majority) of two counts.

 

 

R v JO in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20170340]

 

Allegation of sexual assault of a child under 13, and two allegations of causing or inciting a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity. Following a catalogue of disclosure failures, Mr Manning made an application to stay the case as an abuse of process. This submission was accepted by the Court and the prosecution was stayed.

 

 

R v JD in the Crown Court at Woolwich [S20190135]

 

Defendant (aged 15-16 at the time of the offences, 17 at the date of arrest, but 18 at the time of charge) admitted three offences related to possession and distribution of indecent images of children. Mr Manning made an application to stay the case based on the prejudice caused to the defendant by the delay in the bringing of the charges; this was rejected by the Judge, but a suspended sentence order was then imposed.

 

 

R v RO in the Crown Court at Aylesbury [T20160123]

 

Defendant faced a two-count indictment: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and meeting a child following sexual grooming, contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Following a two-day legal argument regarding admissibility of text messages, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count with the second count being left to lie on the file. The defendant received a suspended sentence.

 

 

R v SK in the Bromley Youth Court [2016]

 

The autistic defendant (aged 12 at the time of the alleged offence, 13 at the time of trial) was accused by his neighbours of exposing himself to other children in an ice cream van queue. Found not guilty at trial.

 

 

R v TF in the Crown Court at Blackfriars [T20150819]

 

Allegation of attempting to meet a girl under the age of 16 following grooming (i.e. intending to commit a sexual offence). This case arose from a ‘paedophile hunter’ sting – the defendant was entrapped by members of the public who had posed as a child to communicate with the defendant via social media. Mr Manning made an abuse of process submission over the course of a three-day pre-trial voir dire. The submission was dismissed; the trial collapsed when the Crown were unable to comply with their disclosure obligations. The jury returned a not guilty verdict at the direction of the Judge.

 

 

R v IK in the Highbury Corner Youth Court [2013)

 

Mr Manning represented the 14-year-old defendant who faced an allegation of sexual assault on a 15- year-old child in a school lavatory. The co-defendant pleaded guilty before trial. The defendant was acquitted at the conclusion of a three-day trial.

Rape (adult)

 

R v RU at the Central Criminal Court [T20237105 / T 20227072]

 

Allegation of rape (x2), arson (x2), inflicting grievous bodily harm (x2), and coercive & controlling behaviour. Defendant of good character. Trial in March 2023 aborted on day five due to prosecution’s disclosure failures. To be re-tried in February 2024.

 

 

R v MB in the Crown Court at Inner London [T20197564]

 

Allegation of rape. Defendant, a private hire taxi driver, was accused of posing as an Uber driver and then raping a drunken passenger. Prosecution initially refused to undertake toxicology on the complainant’s blood samples. The defence made repeated disclosure requests and instructed a toxicology expert to give evidence about trace amounts of cocaine found in the complainant’s blood sample. Defence made representations about alcohol induced blackouts. The prosecution offered no evidence on the eve of the trial having re-reviewed the case – not guilty verdict entered by the Judge.

 

 

R v FA in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20217272 / T20227130]

 

Two allegations of rape by two unconnected complainants against the same defendant in similar circumstances. Mr Manning applied (s.41 / s.100) to cross-examine the complainants about previous false sexual allegations, also in similar circumstances. Application allowed. Not guilty verdicts on all counts after a trial.

 

 

R v AS & Another in the Crown Court at Sheffield [T20197559 / T20197197]

 

Two defendants each facing a separate count of rape against the same complainant. Alleged gang rape of a drunken student. Cut-throat defences.

 

 

R v JF in the Crown Court at Sheffield [T20217035 / T20197672 / T20210075]

 

13-count indictment (relating to two apparently unconnected complainants) including: kidnapping, rape (x3), assault occasioning actual bodily harm (by choking), and administering a poison or noxious substance with intent. A significant amount of prosecution disclosure was made on the first day of trial. As a result of a careful review of this material Mr Manning was able to show that in fact the complainants were not unconnected but had been in contact via social media. Rather than being given a cross-admissibility direction, the jury were directed about contamination and collusion. The defendant was found not guilty of the majority of the charges.

 

 

R v ML in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20177068]

 

Allegation of rape in a domestic context. The complainant made the allegation shortly after the defendant had ended their long-term relationship and had told her that he was going to go to the family court regarding custody of their children. Mr Manning applied successfully (s.41) for permission to cross-examine the complainant about previous sexual behaviour and experience that undermined the complaint. The defendant was found not guilty after a ten-day trial.

 

 

R v KM in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20177226]

 

The defendant (a Jamaica-born man of good character) faced a six-count indictment including rape, attempted rape (x2), assault by penetration (x2), and sexual assault. An issue arose at trial about admissibility of evidence of alleged bad character relating to a non-recent conviction in Jamaica for “carnal abuse”. Mr Manning argued that the formalities for proving foreign convictions had not been complied with and this alleged (disputed) bad character evidence was not admitted. The defendant was found not guilty of all charges after a trial.

 

 

Other sexual offences (adult)

 

R v JN in the Crown Court at Isleworth [T2022 0489 / 0490 / 0491 / S20220372]

 

The defendant faced a joinder indictment containing 14 counts relating to indecent images of children. He was also committed for sentence in relation to 15 charges for similar offences admitted at the lower court. The defendant pleaded guilty to most offences and is due to be sentenced in 2023.

 

 

R v HL in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2022 – 01BS0043522]

 

Privately instructed by this defendant who was charged with nine offences relating to breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The defendant had confessed in interview to all nine alleged breaches. However, upon instruction, it became apparent that the defendant had a defence to some of the charges. Following representations made on the defendant’s behalf, seven of the charges were withdrawn. The defendant pleaded guilty to the other two charges and received a community order.

 

 

R v TV in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20170861]

 

The defendant faced an allegation of sexual assault on a woman on a bus. The defendant suffered with schizophrenia that had been untreated for many years; the defence obtained two psychiatric reports saying he was unfit to plead. The prosecution offered no evidence and a not guilty verdict was entered.

 

 

R v MM in the Crown Court at Croydon [2016 – 01ZT0532615]

 

Allegation of voyeurism, contrary to section 67 Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr. Manning raised a legal issue regarding the admissibility of incriminating comments allegedly made by the defendant in the absence of an interpreter, contrary to Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings. The defendant was acquitted after the Crown offered no evidence.

 

 

R v ML in the Crown Court at Croydon [T2016]

 

Defendant charged with thirteen counts of making indecent images of children. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and a suspended sentence was imposed.

 

 

R v MWK in the Stratford Magistrates’ Court [2015]

 

The defendant was charged with doing an act capable of outraging public decency (allegedly masturbating in his car). The defence raised was that the defendant was suffering from balanitis and so was in fact scratching rather than masturbating. Not guilty.

 

 

R v JB in the Crown Court at Maidstone [2014 – 46XY1244112]

 

The defendant faced a four-count indictment: harassment; committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence, contrary to section 62(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; common assault; and attempting to cause a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent (section 4 SOA 2003). The defendant used adult websites to pose as the complainant in order to dupe an unsuspecting swinger into carrying out a ‘rape role-play fantasy’, to which the complainant did not in fact consent. Mr Manning proposed a motion to quash the indictment on the basis that it disclosed an offence not known to law. A preparatory hearing was held to hear this argument, with an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal following (see above). The case received widespread national media coverage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28701619

 

 

R v SY in the Crown Court at Southwark and the Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2014 – 01CW4555814]

 

The defendant, a diplomat from Lesotho, was charged with one offence of sexual assault, said to have taken place within the Mexican Embassy in London. On the basis of information provided by the High Commission for the Kingdom of Lesotho (the defendant’s employer), Mr Manning made representations to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in relation to the defendant’s diplomatic immunity, specifically that he was entitled to ‘special mission’ immunity. The charges were subsequently dropped.

 

 

R v RD in the Crown Court at Southwark [2013 – 01PY0306512]

 

The defendant faced eight counts of making indecent images of children (thousands of indecent images, still and moving, including some of the most offensive variety). The defendant pleaded guilty and a suspended sentence was imposed.

 

 

R v SH in the Crown Court at Leeds [2013]

 

The defendant faced one allegation of intentionally touching a girl under the age of 13 contrary to section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The case required lengthy legal argument and a voir dire to resolve admissibility issues concerning the intersection between section 41 YJCEA 1999 and section 100 CJA 2003 bad character. The defendant was acquitted after the Judge directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict on day two of the trial. The defendant’s representation was privately funded. A Defendants’ Costs Order was obtained allowing the recovery of costs from central funds.

R v MNM & Others in the Crown Court at Worcester [T20187011 / T20187214] (Operation Hyperion)

 

Mr Manning represented the fifteenth defendant of fifteen, who faced one count of money laundering arising from a complex courier fraud. Mr Manning’s client was part of the second trial relating to the proceeds of the fraud. Mr Manning’s client was convicted following a three-week trial and was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. This sentence was successfully appealed with the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) quashing the custodial sentence and substituting a community order with unpaid work (see above for full details – [2019] EWCA Crim 1525).

 

 

R v SW & Others in the Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames [T20187210 / 7214 / 7190 / 7212 / 7216 / 7241]

 

Mr Manning represented the fourth defendant of thirteen defendants charged on a seven-count indictment: conspiracy to rob, conspiracy to steal, conspiracy to commit burglary, aggravated burglary etc. The case related to high value and violent robberies, burglaries, and thefts including: a ram raid on a “high-end clothing store on Kensington High Street” that sells very expensive ski-wear; and the theft of BBC cameras positioned on bridges to film the Varsity Boat Race and valued between £150,000 – £180,000. The defendants pleaded guilty. This case proceeded to an appeal against sentence (see above R v Aron Lee PASK & Others [2019] EWCA Crim 2472).

 

 

R v LM & Others in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20177227]

 

Mr Manning represented the second defendant of four. This prosecution of a group of accountants related to a £700K fraud against the Redundancy Payments Service (RPS), a government agency that makes payments to workers owed money when their employers become insolvent. The Defendants arranged for 105 false applications to be submitted, in some cases supported by false identifies and forged documents. This was the first ever prosecution for fraud against the RPS. Conspiracy to cheat the public revenue and conversion of criminal property.

 

 

R (RSPCA) v ES & Others in the Crown Court at Isleworth [T20170120]

 

Mr Manning represented the first defendant of seven in relation to this dog breeding fraud. Case related to puppies being mis-sold as pedigree, vaccinated, home-bred dogs when in fact they had been bred in puppy farms and were unvaccinated. Many died of avoidable illnesses including giardia, parvovirus and campylobacter. The 12-count indictment contained allegations of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation plus there were associated summary only animal cruelty offences. One of the co-defendants practiced as a vet. The total value of the fraud was estimated to be in excess of £2m. Mr. Manning’s client was sentenced to a suspended sentence which was then subject to an AG’s Ref. (neutral citation number: (2018] EWCA 1924 (Crim) – see above for more details).

 

 

R v SH & Another in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [T20170094 & T20161591)

 

Allegation of going equipped for theft and possession of a bladed article. Acquitted of all counts after trial.

 

 

R (Royal Borough of Greenwich) v AD & Others in the Crown Court at Inner London [T20160238]

 

Mr Manning represented an 84-year-old lady accused of benefit fraud. AD, along with three co-defendants, faced trial on an eighteen-count indictment relating to alleged fraud valued at a total of £240,000. Two of the co-defendants pleaded guilty. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

R v SJB & Others in the Crown Court at Caernarfon [T20227290 / T20227291]

 

Allegation of causing damaged valued in excess of £1.3m to a factory in North Wales. The trial was in May 2023. See above (protest cases).

 

 

R v LB in the Crown Court at Inner London [T20177022]

 

Arson with intent to endanger life. Dangerousness finding following a guilty plea. Sentenced appealed to CA(CD) – see above (R v Lee BARTON [2018] EWCA (Crim)1354).

 

 

R v HH in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20177375]

 

Allegation of arson being reckless as to whether life is endangered. Defendant pleaded guilty to lesser offence of simple arson. Prosecution offered no evidence on the aggravated count and a not guilty verdict was entered. A suspended sentence was imposed.

R (TA) v WS in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20217176]

 

Mr Manning represented the defendant (WS) in this private prosecution further to allegations of perverting the course of justice and fraud. On behalf of the defendant, Mr Manning drafted written representations to the Crown Prosecution Service. In light of these representations the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to exercise his powers under section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to take over and discontinue the proceedings. The CPS duly offered no evidence, and a not guilty verdict was entered.

 

 

NCA v XX – pre-charge advice [2021]

 

Client suspected of making an untrue statement to procure a passport, contrary to section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. Investigation by the National Crime Agency. James was instructed to provide pre-charge advice.

 

 

R v MC & others in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [T20178235]

 

35-defendant, 38-count indictment (all allegations of perverting the course of public justice, contrary to common law). The case involved a corrupt employee of the Electronic Monitoring Service (Serco) who was tampering with tags worn by suspects / defendants / offenders. Mr Manning’s client (DB) was found not guilty following a ten-week trial (trial two of five).

 

R v JR in the Crown Court at Chelmsford [T20220174]

 

Allegation of possession with intent to supply class A and money laundering. Defence under s.45 Modern Slavery Act 2015 raised. Trial in 2023.

 

 

R v IK in the Crown Court at Northampton [T20220181]

 

Possession with intent to supply class A & B. Guilty pleas. Confiscation proceedings ongoing.

 

 

R v TE in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20210443]

 

Supply of class A & B drugs. Police covert test purchasing evidence tested at trial. Defendant then pleaded guilty. Suspended sentence imposed.

 

 

R v AA in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20200199]

 

Allegations of producing a controlled drug of class B and abstracting electricity. Modern slavery referral made to the Home Office Single Competent Authority – negative conclusive grounds. Guilty plea followed by Newton hearing.

 

 

R v KB in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20190293]

 

Defendant (an Irish national) was stopped by the police near Caterham. He was the driver (and sole occupant) of a van which was found to contain 1kg of cocaine and 20kg of skunk cannabis. No comment interview. Following Mr Manning’s advice, the defendant’s solicitors encouraged the police to make a referral to the Home Office Single Competent Authority for victims of modern slavery / human trafficking. The Home Office reached a “positive conclusive grounds decision” that the defendant was a victim of modern slavery / human trafficking by virtue of forced criminality (drug trafficking). Despite this decision, the Crown Prosecution Service continued with the prosecution (for possession with intent to supply cocaine and cannabis).  At trial Mr Manning successfully advanced the defence under s.45 of the Modern Slavery Act for victims of modern slavery / human trafficking: the jury found the defendant not guilty of all counts.

 

 

R v LL in the Crown Court at Inner London [T20191013]

 

Possession of controlled drugs of Class A with intent to supply and possession of criminal property (substantial amount of cash alleged to be the proceeds of drug dealing). Defendant convicted of drugs offences at trial but found not guilty of possessing criminal property.

 

 

R v AN in the Crown Court at Norwich Crown Court [T20190145]

 

Possession with intent to supply class A. County lines operation.

 

 

R v JC & Others in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20187202]

 

Mr Manning represented this defendant who faced trial in relation to one count of conspiracy to supply cocaine. Approximately half a kilogram of cocaine had been found at an associated property. The investigation involved extensive covert police surveillance. Mr Manning made a successful half-time submission of no case to answer. The Judge directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

 

 

R v TJ & Others in the Crown Court at Inner London [T20187130]

 

Mr Manning was instructed as a leading junior to represent the second defendant of six who faced two counts of conspiracy to supply cocaine and heroin. Mr Manning made a submission of autrefois convict. The defendant eventually pleaded guilty.

 

 

R v SB in the Crown Court at Harrow [T2016]

 

The defendant faced a two-count indictment: possession of class A and B controlled drugs. The Judge directed the jury to acquit the defendant on both counts at half time following Mr. Manning’s successful submission of no case to answer.

 

 

R v MB in the Crown Court at Wood Green [T2016]

 

The defendant was charged with five counts of possession of class A controlled drugs with intent to supply. The defendant was acquitted after Crown offered no evidence, following an application to dismiss based on lack of forensic evidence.

 

 

R v KHR in the Crown Court at Croydon [T2016]

 

The defendant faced a six-count indictment: three offences of possession of class B controlled drugs with intent to supply; and three offences of possession of criminal property. Following a four-day trial, the jury was hung on four out of six counts. The defendant was convicted of two counts on the indictment and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

 

 

R v SA in the Crown Court at Isleworth [T2016]

 

Allegation of drug trafficking: being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of a class A drug (specifically, 40 packages containing 581 grams of cocaine of 75% purity), contrary to section 170(2), (3) and (4) of and schedule 1 to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979). Following a guilty plea and plea in mitigation, the defendant received a three-year custodial sentence.

 

 

R v MM in the Central Criminal Court [T2015]

 

The defendant faced an allegation of possession of a class B controlled drug. Mr. Manning raised a legal issue regarding the prosecution’s failure to have the drugs properly examined. The indictment was stayed as an abuse of process.

 

 

R v JD & Others in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [2013]

 

The defendant faced an indictment containing sixteen counts of possession of class A controlled drugs with intent to supply. The case concerned a test purchasing operation by covert police officers and relied on cell site evidence. The defendant pleaded guilty to thirteen counts of supplying Class A controlled drugs and was sentenced to 31⁄2 years detention in a Young Offender Institution.

 

 

R v JH & Another in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T2012]

 

The defendant was charged with production of a class B controlled drug. The defendant was found not guilty following a three-day trial (co-defendant convicted).

R v HT in the Croydon Magistrates’ Court [01RP/01143/16]

 

Allegation of drug driving (cannabis / THC). Defence expert forensic evidence relating to delta- 9tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC).

R v DH & Another in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20227085]

 

Alleged conspiracy to commit burglary. The case concerns a spate of 29 burglaries that occurred at various pubs and restaurants across Kent, targeting fruit machines. Trial in December 2023.

 

 

R v SI in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [T20197830]

 

Series of three armed robberies of a bank, a building society, and a post office / pharmacy. Imitation firearms were brandished during the course of the robberies. Flying squad investigation. Defendant convicted following a two-week trial in January 2021. The defendant (aged 50 at the time of the robberies) was already subject to a life sentence having been convicted of several similar armed robberies over the preceding decades.

 

 

R v DW in the Central Criminal Court [T20187335]

 

Allegation of attempted robbery in Peckham during which the complainant was hit over the head with a wine causing loss of consciousness. Defendant found not guilty after trial.

 

 

R v IM in the Central Criminal Court [T20187058]

 

Burglary (dwelling house). Defendant convicted after a short trial. Exceptionally, a conditional discharge was imposed.

 

 

R v MS & Others in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20167267]

 

Mr Manning represented the first defendant of three tried for aggravated burglary of a disused pub which was said to house a clandestine counterfeit tobacco factory.

 

 

R v JD in the Crown Court at Croydon [T2016]

 

Allegation of burglary based on recent possession. This four-day trial involved extensive cross-examination of a prosecution expert witness regarding his fibre analysis techniques.

 

 

R v MW in the Crown Court at Wood Green [T2015]

 

Allegation of aggravated burglary arising out of the 2011 London Riots (defendant had absconded to Dubai for four years). Guilty plea.

 

 

R v LD in the Crown Court at Maidstone [2012]

 

The defendant faced a two-count indictment: going equipped, and burglary with intent to steal (at Leeds Castle). The Judge directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict on the burglary count following a successful submission of no case to answer at half time. The jury was hung on the going equipped count and the Crown did not seek a re-trial.

 

R v KM in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20210464]

 

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a shotgun without a certificate. Suspended sentence imposed.

 

 

R v CN & Others in the Crown Court at Isleworth [T20197330]

 

Mr Manning represented the third defendant of four at trial (March 2020) in relation to an allegation of conspiracy to transfer a prohibited weapon. The item concerned was a Victorian antique ‘shooting stick’ (a walking stick containing a concealed single-barrel shotgun) which was viable and capable of firing contemporary shotgun cartridges.

 

 

R v MB in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20167265]

 

The defendant faced a two-count indictment: possessing a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968; and possessing ammunition without a firearm certificate, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968. The defendant pleaded guilty subject to a basis of plea which was not accepted by the Crown. A Newton hearing was held following which the Judge accepted the defendant’s basis of plea. A submission of ‘exceptional circumstances’ was advanced in mitigation but rejected by the sentencing Judge. The five- year mandatory minimum sentence was imposed. Mr Manning acted in an appeal against sentence in this matter – see above for more information (cases before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)).

 

 

R v HC – in the Crown Court at Croydon [S20160141]

 

The defendant faced five allegations of possession of offensive weapons in a public place (having been found in woodland carrying two samurai swords, a meat cleaver, a pair of scissors, and a large kitchen knife). Following a guilty plea and a plea in mitigation focused on the defendant’s psychiatric difficulties, a suspended sentence was imposed.

 

 

R v PM in the Crown Court at Isleworth [2016]

 

The defendant faced an allegation of possession of a firearm without a certificate. Following a guilty plea a suspended sentence was imposed.

 

 

R v MS in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20157548]

 

The defendant faced a six-count indictment: two offences of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life; two offences of possession of a firearm; possession of ammunition; and possession of class B controlled drug with intent to supply. The defendant guilty, subject to a basis of plea, to the lesser offences. The Crown did not proceed with the more serious offences (possession with intent to endanger life) but did not accept the basis of plea. Following a Newton hearing, the defendant was sentenced to total of 6½ years’ imprisonment.

 

 

R v JR (& 5 others) in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20157105]

 

Mr. Manning represented one of six defendants in this eight-week trial concerning conspiracies to supply firearms and ammunition. The Crown’s case depended almost entirely on covert audio and video surveillance product. Mr. Manning’s client was charged with one count of doing an act capable of assisting or encouraging the unlawful sale or transfer of a firearm, contrary to section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. One of the defendants was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. Mr. Manning’s client (who was found guilty by a 10-2 majority) was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment (making him eligible for immediate release on licence having served half the sentence on remand).

 

 

R v TJ in the Crown Court at Blackfriars [T2015]

 

The defendant was initially charged with a firearms offence and tendering counterfeit currency notes. Following guilty pleas, subject to a basis, to the weapons offence and fraud (rather than counterfeiting) (which was accepted by the Crown) the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence.

 

 

R v AL in the Crown Court at Maidstone [T20150331]

 

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and one offence of making threats to kill. Following a plea in mitigation, the defendant received a suspended sentence.

 

R v MG in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [T20227193, T20200172]

 

Mr Manning represents the defendant who is accused of blackmail and fraud. Trial in 2023.

 

 

R v NK & Another in the Crown Court at Isleworth [T20217154]

 

Mr Manning represented the second defendant of two was charged on an indictment alleging: blackmail; disclosing a private sexual film with intent to cause distress, contrary to section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 2015; threatening to destroy property; theft; threats to kill; harassment; various assaults; and battery. Mr Manning’s client pleaded guilty subject to a basis of plea and received a suspended sentence.

 

 

R (BCC) v CJM & Others in the Crown Court at Isleworth [T20197499]

 

Mr Manning represents the fourth defendant of four. The case relates to an alleged illegal money lending operation. The indictment charges blackmail alongside various other offences (some quite unusual): unlawfully engaging in the activities of a consumer credit business without a licence, contrary to section 39(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; Contravening the general prohibition by carrying on a regulated activity when not an authorised or exempt person, contrary to section 23(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; money laundering; inflicting grievous bodily harm; and intentionally assisting offences believing one of more will be committed, contrary to section 46(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Trial upcoming in 2023.

 

 

R v JR & Others in the Crown Court at Inner London [T20177330]

 

Mr Manning represented the third defendant of three charged with blackmail (the first defendant also being charged with fraud and perverting the course of justice). The case related to a honey trap involving a prostitute. A not guilty verdict was entered in respect of Mr Manning’s client.

 

 

R v NK in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20157476]

 

Mr Manning represented the defendant at trial. He was charged with kidnapping and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was convicted following a six-day trial.

R v MAH & Others in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook [T20227722]

 

Mr Manning was instructed to defend the fifth defendant of five who were charged with conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration, contrary to section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977. This was an alleged conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom, as per s.5 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism & Conspiracy) Act 1998. The investigation was conducted by the National Crime Agency. The prosecution collapsed after Mr. Manning put forward a motion to quash the indictment on the basis that the prosecution had failed to obtain the consent of the Attorney General to the institution of these charges. See above (terrorism) for further details.

R v IM & Others in the Crown Court at Kingston [T20187058]

 

Mr Manning represented the first defendant of four who were charged with violent disorder and various assaults. The trial collapsed on day six due to prosecution disclosure issues and the prosecution eventually offered no evidence. Not guilty verdicts were entered.

 

 

R v JG & others in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20140816]

 

Mr Manning represented the first defendant of five charged with violent disorder arising out of a violent incident at a hotel during a wedding culminating in a member of staff having a glass thrown in his face. Following a guilty plea Mr Manning’s client received a suspended sentence.

 

R (BCC) v CJM & Others in the Crown Court at Isleworth [20197499]

 

Mr Manning represents the fourth defendant of four. The prosecution is brought by Birmingham City Council. The case relates to an alleged illegal money lending operation. The indictment charges unusual offences including: unlawfully engaging in the activities of a consumer credit business without a licence, contrary to section 39(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; Contravening the general prohibition by carrying on a regulated activity when not an authorised or exempt person, contrary to section 23(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; money laundering; blackmail; inflicting grievous bodily harm; and intentionally assisting offences believing one of more will be committed, contrary to section 46(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Trial upcoming in 2023.

 

R v LM in the Crown Court at Croydon [T20160266]

 

Mr Manning represented the defendant at trial who was charged with various offences including: depositing controlled waste, contrary to section 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; failing to comply with a duty of case under section 34(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, contrary to section 34(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and failing to comply with a section 59 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Notice, contrary to section 59(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

 

 

R (HSE) v MM in the Crown Court at Maidstone [T20190080]

 

Mr Manning represented the defendant in this prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive. The defendant was charged with: failure to discharge the duty imposed by Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Electricity at Work Regulations Act 1989 and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; failure to discharge a duty imposed by Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; failure to discharge a duty imposed by Regulation 36(3) of the Gas Safety (Installations and Use) Regulations 1989 and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The defendant pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence.

 

 

R (SDC) v MM in the Crown Court at Woolwich [T20180429]

 

Mr Manning represented the defendant at trial in this case brought by the Sevenoaks District Council. The defendant faced an indictment containing two counts of failure to comply with an enforcement notice, contrary to section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The defendant was convicted at trial; however the conviction was overturned on appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Mr Manning also acting for the defendant / appellant on appeal R v MKM [2020] EWCA Crim 1723 (see above for more information).

 

 

R (KFRS) v MM in the Crown Court at Croydon

 

Mr Manning represented the defendant in this prosecution brought by the Kent Fire and Rescue Service. The defendant was charged with six counts of failure to comply with a prohibition notice, contrary to article 32(2)(h) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The defendant pleaded guilty subject to a basis of plea and received a suspended sentence.

 

 

PNI v Nursing and Midwifery Council in the High Court of Justice [CO/2288/2022]

 

Mr Manning was instructed on behalf of the appellant (a nurse who had been struck off the register) in this appeal under article 38(1) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order (2001).

 

A v DPP [2017] EWHC 821 (Admin)

 

Mr Manning was instructed on behalf of the Appellant (‘A’) in this appeal by way of Case Stated against the decision of Justices sitting in the Ealing Youth Court who convicted the Appellant of three offences of assault by beating. The assaults were said to have been committed by the Appellant (who was 16 at the material time) when she resisted physical restraint in a secure children’s home.

 

 

R v SK in the Bromley Youth Court [2016]

 

This 13-year-old defendant faced an allegation of exposure, contrary to section 66 Sexual Offences Act 2003. The defendant, who has autism spectrum disorder, was found not guilty after trial. This case involved sensitive examination and cross examination of child witnesses (both prosecution and defence witnesses). A ground rules hearing was held and a body map was used.

 

 

R v OS in the Croydon Youth Court [2014]

 

This 15-year-old defendant, who suffers with autism and learning difficulties, was accused of common assault of a neighbour. The case was eventually discontinued following defence representations being made at multiple hearings. This case involved very difficult client handling.

 

 

R v IK in the Highbury Corner Youth Court [2013]

 

This 14-year-old defendant faced an allegation of sexual assault on a 15- year-old child in a school lavatory. The co-defendant pleaded guilty before trial. The defendant was acquitted at the conclusion of a three-day trial.

 

R v HC (& another) in the Wimbledon Youth Court [2013]

 

This 10-year-old defendant was accused of two offences of common assault arising out of playground games. The District Judge accepted a submission of no case to answer based on the ‘rough horseplay’ defence.

 

 

R v AS (& four others) in the Hammersmith Youth Court [2010]

 

This 12-year-old defendant was one of five charged with robbery. He, along with his four co-defendants, was convicted after trial.

R v BGH in the Court Martial at Colchester [2014]

 

Mr Manning appeared (pro bono) for this defendant, a Lance Sergeant with 1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards who was accused of two offences: ill treatment of a subordinate, contrary to section 22 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; and committing a criminal offence contrary to section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 namely Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The defendant pleaded guilty, subject to a basis of plea. A two-day Newton hearing took place before the Court Martial, which was decided against the defendant. The defendant was sentenced to a suspended period of detention and a two- step reduction in rank but avoided being discharged from the Army.

R v SAMOON & BARYALI (On appeal from redetermination) [SCCO Ref:  74/16]

 

Mr Manning appeared before Costs Judge Simons in this appeal against a decision of the Legal Aid Agency refusing to pay a solicitors’ firm for 2,656 PPE under the Litigator Graduated Fee Scheme.

Applications for writs of habeas corpus

 

JKR v the Governor of HM Prison High Down and Secretary of State for Justice [November 2015]

 

Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Holgate in the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). Successful urgent ex parte application for a writ of habeas corpus.

 

Mr. Manning appeared for the Applicant in this urgent application for a writ of habeas corpus, made by telephone on a Saturday afternoon. The Applicant had been sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment on the Friday afternoon, having been on remand for just over 8 months. He had therefore served more than half of the time that he was obliged to serve. HMP High Down initially declined to release the Applicant on licence due to supposed paperwork difficulties over the weekend. The Hon. Mr. Justice Holgate ordered the Governor of the prison to release the Applicant immediately. The Second Respondent, the Secretary of State for Justice, was ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs.

 

 

HY v the Ministry of Justice [CO/4059/2017]

 

Application for a writ of habeas corpus.

 

Mr Manning was instructed on behalf of the Applicant, who was remanded in custody facing terrorism charges. An urgent ex parte out of hours application was made before the Hon. Mr Justice Lavender who ordered that the matter be heard at a full hearing. The matter was then heard before Sir Ross Cranston who ordered that the application continue as an application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR r.87.5(d)).

 

 

Civil claims against the police or public authorities

 

HY v The Security Service & Others before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT/17/52/CH)

 

Mr Manning was instructed on behalf of the claimant / complainant in this matter before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The claim and complaint related to alleged entrapment and breaches of the suspect’s human rights during a counter-terrorism investigation. The claim and complaint were resisted by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. A novel legal point arose about IPT proceedings conducted in parallel to a criminal trial. Mr Manning advanced several rounds of written submissions on legal issues at the direction of the Tribunal.

 

 

JKR v the Ministry of Justice [D61YJ975] (2017)

 

Mr Manning acted for the Claimant in this successful action against the Ministry of Justice; the claim was for damages for false imprisonment.

 

 

Defending civil claims arising from criminal cases

 

 

MKX v HF in the High Court of Justice (QBD) [HQ17P00880]

 

Mr Manning was instructed to represent the defendant in this claim for damages arising from a sexual assault in the 1960s.

 

 

TPE v HF in the High Court of Justice (QBD) [HQ17P02072]

 

Mr Manning was instructed to represent the defendant in this claim for damages arising from a rape. Mr Manning drafted the defence and the case subsequently settled.

 

 

Applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)

 

Mr Manning has been instructed (via private funding) to advise and draft applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘CCRC’). The CCRC is the official independent body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

 

 

Applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)

 

Mr Manning has been instructed (via private funding) to advise in relation to applications on behalf of victims of crime (including an acquitted criminal defendant who was a victim of modern slavery) for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is a government funded scheme designed to compensate victims of violent crime in Great Britain.