Cookie Policy - Choose Your Preferences

Cookie Policy

Read Our Latest Cookie Policy

CONNECT WITH US FOR THE LATEST NEWS & UPDATES

Latest News

Darren Snow Defends in Serious Motoring Case at Snaresbrook Securing a Suspended Sentence Darren Snow, instructed by Zubair Ahmed of Ashmans Solicitors, represented the Defendant throughout the proceedings, plea and sentence hearings in a dangerous driving causing serious injury case. The case concerned a road accident in Hollybush Hill, right by Snaresbrook Crown Court, on the evening of 20 June 2023. A cyclist was hit by the Defendant driving a works lorry and the victim was thrown off their cycle. They sustained catastrophic brain and physical injuries. An air ambulance attended the scene. At the time of sentence, nearly three years later, the victim remained in a specialist hospital unit in a coma with 24/7 care needs. Following negotiation with the CPS and the police officer leading the investigation, a plea to the lesser charge of careless driving causing serious injury was agreed. The Defendant was sentenced on that basis with an agreed basis of plea. At sentence, the victim’s family read out victim impact statements and the devastating impact upon them was clear. Her Honour Judge English, who had overseen the case throughout, imposed a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years with 280 hours unpaid work. The Defendant was also disqualified from driving for two years and must complete an extended driving test before he can regain his licence. In passing sentence, the Judge recognised that there are no winners in these types of cases, and the impact upon the family of the victim had been catastrophic. There was no order for costs or compensation as the Defendant’s employers’ motor insurers were handling a substantial civil claim for damages. Liability had been conceded early on. This was a very sensitive case for all involved. The Defendant took full responsibility for his actions and read out a letter in court explaining his regret. Following the hearing, with the support and assistance of the police officer overseeing the investigation, Darren and the Defendant met with family members of the victim after the hearing to reinforce the Defendant’s remorse and deep regret for what had happened. Darren Snow has many years’ experience working on serious motoring cases involving death and serious injury. He also has extensive experience working with underlying motor insurers, reflecting his previous career in the insurance industry before joining the Bar. Photo by Nigel Cox via Geograph, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Libertas Chambers

Defence Forces Collapse of International 23kg PWITS Case Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Darren Hornsby of Robert Lizar Solicitors, secured the collapse of a serious drugs case involving over 23kg of cannabis concealed within furniture destined for export to Ireland. The case against HT, in Wood Green Crown Court, concerned an allegation of possession with intent to supply (PWITS), arising from the discovery of 23.27kg of cannabis hidden within a sofa intercepted by Police in Staffordshire. The Prosecution case against HT rested entirely on forensic evidence said to link him to the packaging: specifically, fingerprints said to be his being identified on a plastic bag containing the drugs within the concealed shipment. There was no DNA evidence, no evidence of handling the sofa itself, no evidence of involvement in the logistics of the export, and no communications, financial, or surveillance material connecting HT to the alleged operation. From the outset, the Defence position was clear: the case was fundamentally incapable of establishing knowledge or control. At its highest, the evidence suggested no more than contact with a movable object at an unknown time, in circumstances entirely consistent with innocent handling of a plastic bag (if, indeed, the identification of the prints was even accurate). Ms Hodgetts drafted a detailed application to dismiss, drawing on appellate authority confirming that even DNA evidence, without more, may be insufficient to found a conviction where the timing and context of transfer cannot be established – and that the position was stronger still in a fingerprint-only case involving transferable items such as plastic packaging. The Defence submissions highlighted that there was no evidence capable of establishing when any alleged contact occurred, no evidence linking HT to the concealment, transport, or intended export of the drugs, no evidential basis upon which a jury could safely infer knowledge of the contents of the packaging – and that the Crown’s case, taken at its highest, could not meet the threshold required for a proper conviction. Before the application was even argued before the Court, the Crown reviewed the position and offered no evidence, stating that: “there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction” – resulting in a Not Guilty verdict for the Client, and securing acquittal without the case even going to trial.

Libertas Chambers

Operation Critic: Chaynee Hodgetts for D1 in Multi-Million Pound Tobacco Conspiracy Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Hockham Salhan and Mr Mukesh Salhan of MCS Solicitors, and led by Dominic D’Souza, represented D1 in Operation Critic, a substantial HMRC prosecution concerning an alleged conspiracy to evade excise duty on tobacco products. The trial, heard at Bristol Crown Court, lasted in excess of nine weeks and involved multiple Defendants. The Crown advanced a case of large-scale, organised offending, relying on extensive telecommunications evidence, surveillance material, and documentation arising from coordinated searches. Acting for the lead Defendant, Ms Hodgetts was closely involved in the development and execution of defence strategy across a complex evidential landscape, requiring detailed forensic analysis of call data, usage patterns, and cross-referencing with the broader evidential picture. The Defence also engaged extensively with disclosure and evidential integrity issues, including issues arising from the continuity and documentation of seized material, the contents of many thousands of calls and telephone messages over time, and the limitations of surveillance evidence in establishing knowledge of the alleged contents of boxes. These matters were pursued through sustained cross-examination of HMRC officers and other Prosecution witnesses, alongside ongoing disclosure engagement and careful management of a large volume of material over the course of the trial. Following verdicts, the team continue to represent D1 at sentence in 2026, in order to secure the most appropriate outcome in all the circumstances. The case attracted national media attention and was covered by The Sun.

Libertas Chambers

Latest Insights

Dr Felicity Gerry KC Writes for Counsel Magazine on Autism Dr Felicity Gerry KC, a leading expert in criminal law, explores the complex intersection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the UK criminal justice system in her latest piece for Counsel Magazine. Drawing on her extensive experience, Dr Felicity Gerry KC examines how systemic gaps in understanding and support can have profound consequences for neurodiverse individuals, particularly in cases involving joint enterprise convictions. Her article sheds light on the urgent need for reforms and greater awareness to ensure justice is equitable for all. Article Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC It is not known how many people are in prison for murder when they did not kill anyone but were convicted as secondary parties via the discredited label ‘joint enterprise’. It is not known how many of these people were convicted under the law on ‘joint enterprise’ that in 2016 was held to be erroneous by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is not known how many of these people in prison live with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There is currently no national UK audit of prisons to establish this information. It is known that ASD is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability which affects how people interpret the world and understand it. It affects more than one in 100 people. Despite its prevalence, it remains poorly understood, stigmatised and stereotyped. Research states: ‘if social conventions and connectedness are opaque to [people with ASD], how can they authentically appreciate that a person’s actions are morally wrong?’ The Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge found that an overwhelming majority of ASD accused persons were not provided with adequate support or adjustments in the UK criminal justice system (CJS). This followed an Equality and Human Rights Commission report in June 2020 that warned that the CJS is failing those with learning disabilities and autistic people. The Cambridge report noted that there was almost no research investigating how autistic defendants are being treated within the CJS. In 2024 an expert consensus was published on the identification and support of individuals with ASD in within the UK CJS. It concluded that greater attention needs to be given to this potentially vulnerable population when navigating the CJS. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Joint Enterprise National Monitoring Scheme 2024/25 data released in September 2025 focused on mental health, to include neurodiverse conditions. It states ‘the quality of data flowing about whether or not a defendant has a disability is poor’ and more likely to ‘be identified during a case’ and while it ‘would be kept under review throughout the life of a case’, any updated information may not be available for the purposes of the monitoring scheme. These are significant holes through which ASD people will fall. Continue reading the full article here:https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/autism-joint-enterprise

Libertas Chambers

Clean Hands, Clean Title: Navigating Good Faith and Ownership in Modern Fraud Litigation I was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the recent first-instance judgment of Khan v Allana (2025), a case that vividly illustrates how traditional property principles intersect with the realities of modern fraud litigation. The dispute concerned ownership of a valuable Audemars Piguet watch and required the Court to determine whether a purchaser acting in good faith could acquire better title than an original owner alleging loss. Having appeared in the case, I was reminded how often these issues arise at the boundary between civil and criminal law a space in which I regularly practise, navigating both the commercial and criminal arenas where allegations of fraud, deceit, and financial misconduct converge. The analytical tools are similar: proof of ownership in the civil court and proof of criminal provenance in the Crown Court both demand precision about evidence, motive, and credibility. This article explores that shared territory by examining the intersection between nemo dat quod non habet the principle that no one can give what they do not have and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA). The Court of Appeal recently considered the provisions of PoCA in The King (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715, and applied the same in determining when tainted property may, or may not, be “cleansed” through acquisition in good faith. Under section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a person cannot transfer better title than they possess. The exceptions, voidable title, estoppel, and sale by a person in possession are all premised on the good faith of an innocent purchaser. In Khan v Allana, that doctrine was decisive: the defendant’s account of loss was contradictory, and no theft was proved. The watch was, at most, subject to voidable title, and the claimant having purchased in good faith and for value took good title. The judge’s findings underline that the burden rests on the party asserting loss to establish factual dispossession. The Court of Appeal in World Uyghur Congress v NCA noted that the definition of “criminal property” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) “is not only very broadly expressed, but it is a fluid one which depends on the state of mind of the alleged offender”. The court recognised, the same asset can be clean in one person’s hands and criminal in another’s, depending on their state of mind. Critically, payment of adequate consideration the statutory defence under section 329(2)(c) does not “cleanse” criminal property. The taint only lifts if section 308 applies: where property has been acquired for value, in good faith, and without notice of the underlying criminality. This echoes the nemo dat logic: a bona fide purchaser for value can break the chain of taint. The question of title, in both the criminal and civil jurisdiction are built on the same basic idea that once property becomes tainted, it can only be made “clean” again if it passes to someone who acts honestly, pays proper value, and has no reason to suspect anything is wrong. In civil law, the source of taint lies in a defect of title where someone sells what they do not own whereas in criminal law under POCA, the taint arises because the property represents the proceeds of crime. Each system provides its own route to purification. In the civil sphere, title may pass to a good-faith purchaser for value without notice, unless there is evidence that the original owner did not voluntarily part with the property, since involuntary loss or theft prevents any title from passing at all. In the criminal sphere, section 308 of POCA removes the criminal character of property acquired for value, in good faith, and without knowledge or suspicion of its illicit origin. The burden of proof differs, civilly it rests on the party alleging defective title; criminally it lies on the prosecution to prove knowledge or suspicion but both regimes treat state of mind as decisive. In each, the law distinguishes between the innocent acquirer who deals honestly and the wilfully blind actor who ignores obvious red flags. Title and criminal purity are thus preserved by the same moral and evidential principle: good faith and absence of notice cleanse what would otherwise remain contaminated. The symmetry between nemo dat and the statutory scheme of POCA has practical importance that extends well beyond theoretical comparison. In civil fraud litigation, tracing and restitution hinge on whether title ever validly passed; if the original transferor’s title was void or voidable, the downstream recipient may acquire no better title, and recovery follows. In criminal confiscation, by contrast, the central question is whether the property retains its criminal character if it remains the proceeds of crime, it is liable to recovery regardless of subsequent transfers. Yet the dividing line in both systems is the same: good faith. Each regime penalises wilful blindness. A purchaser who ignores suspicious circumstances risks losing the protection of section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, just as one who acquires property under section 308 of POCA with suspicion or awareness of criminal provenance cannot rely on statutory immunity. The parallel demands of honesty and inquiry mean that both civil and criminal fraud cases ultimately turn on an evaluation of state of mind, inference, and evidential discipline. This convergence explains why modern commercial fraud advocacy requires practitioners to operate fluently across both jurisdictions navigating the interplay between title, suspicion, and the differing burdens of proof that govern the civil and criminal response to tainted assets. For practitioners, the message is clear adequate consideration alone is not enough; due diligence and absence of suspicion remain essential. Nemo dat quod non habet and the idea of criminal property are based on the same simple test of honesty. Both ask whether a person who receives property does so cleanly or carries forward the stain of wrongdoing. In each case, the law looks not just at the price paid but at what the buyer knew or should have known. The closer the buyer is to suspicion, the less protection the law gives. In the judgment, the Judge specifically praised Mr Qureshi’s handling of the case, noting that his cross-examination was “highly skilled.”

Libertas Chambers

Sinéad O’Connor and the Weaponization of Hunger: What if she Sang for Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan? If Sinéad O’Connor were around today, watching the children of Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan starve, her outrage would be incandescent. Thirty-one years ago, she revealed the true nature of the Irish ‘famine’ and its ‘painful feelings’, in her unique and fearless voice. An Gorta Mór was a woeful period marked by invasion and conflict – a purposeful program starvation, politically recast as the sole result of crop failure. There is no doubt Sinéad’s howl of outrage would link the bitter legacy of Britain’s starvation of Ireland to the deliberate deprivation being perpetrated in parts of the MENA region. She would rightly be calling it a crime. Across the MENA region, like Sinéad, musicians have framed the language of resistance. Palestinian group DAM have spoken about their guilt and mourning as activist artists watching the devastation at home. Tunisian singer Emel Mathlouthi, her voice soaring at the Arab Spring, asserted, “I am free and my word is free/ Don’t forget the price of bread … I am the voice of those who do not die,” lyrics that resonate as both witness and indictment. Egyptian band Cairokee, Syrian singer Samih Shqeir, and Lebanese composer Marcel Khalife all fuse grief and protest, arguably turning every refrain into evidence. Through their music, collective memory is sharpened into accusation, particularly on the theme of starvation. But, when and how can such an accusation become a criminal case? According to the World Food Programme (WFP), conflict is the primary reason people are living in acute hunger. The WFP explain that hunger drives people away from their land and livelihoods, disrupts markets, increases food prices and destroys critical developmental gains. Palestine, Yemen and Syria are described as “hunger hotspots” where people are suffering devastating impacts. Research has shown that across all causes and factors, conflict is the dominant feature in famine across time, but it was not until more recently that it became a crime. The Lieber Code (1863) specifically allowed the ‘extreme measure’ of driving the fleeing civilians back into a starving city under siege ‘so as to hasten on the surrender’. The first instance where ‘deliberate starvation of civilians’ was identified as a war crime was after WWI by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. Although ultimately never implemented, the list of crimes, including starvation, remains one of the earliest attempts at itemising specific war crimes. Ask about starvation and the siege of Leningrad in WWII is often recalled where there was mass death from hunger, but the siege itself was not unlawful. Starvation remained a military and political tactic, framed as legitimate globally and regionally, well into the twentieth century. Even after the horrors of two world wars, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not specifically prohibit starvation. It was the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions that explicitly prohibited starvation as a method of warfare. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, concerned the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. It prohibits various acts which deny civilians sustenance. Eleven years later, starvation was added to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a war crime. Six years ago the same laws were amended to apply to non-international armed conflicts – applicable to regions, including MENA. It is often said that in World War II more people died of starvation and disease than in active combat but Daphne Yuqing Liu, an expert on the law on starvation, describes this as too sweeping a declaration. She explains the modern approach as follows: “First, there is a fine difference between the tactical use of starvation and starvation due to an instability. Second, the war crime of starvation as we discuss it today is more than food. ‘Hunger’ for water and medicine also count. The test is whether the item is indispensable to civilian life” This modern test of what is indispensable is important to account for activities in conflict such as destruction/rendering useless by poisoning or polluting water supplies. In MENA, violent attacks on aid workers (and their convoys) and healthcare providers (and their facilities) may be evidence of a starvation tactic. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation which controls food distribution has been described as “an experiment in food control and counterinsurgency for the digital era”. In Syria 5.4 million are at risk of hunger. Famine in Yemen is so ubiquitous it has its own Wikipedia page. In relation to Gaza, UN experts have said : “Securing access to food, water, medicine and critical services is not a matter of charity – it is a legal duty” So it is that international law now reflects Sinéad’s moral values: Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare can, with the necessary evidence, lead to accusation, arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentence, although the laws do not apply to combatants, which can make understanding a situation opaque. It is a law which needs to be tested and therefore should not sit idly on the Rome Statute books but needs to be enforced to see if it functions. If it is used, there may be an impact in terms of deterrence or crime prevention, however aspirational that may sound. We do not have to wait for the much-beleaguered International Criminal Court (which by the way only has three courts), because in many cases, international laws can be enforced in those states which can apply what is known as ‘universal jurisdiction’. This means that many states have the ability to put anyone on trial for international crimes, wherever they are committed. The Global Investigative Journalist Network has reported that in 2025, over 300 million people face acute hunger and that Sudan and South Sudan, Gaza, and Haiti are facing the worst crises. Which of these are conflict related, time and evidence will tell. In addition to the importance of what has become known as ‘activist lawyering’ for moral imperatives , the international legal prohibition on starvation is also a crucial tool for advocacy, evidence-gathering, and the demand for accountability. The recognition of starvation as a war crime (national or regional) transforms it from a military objective to a violation of international norms. It follows that the fundamental right to food is not a ‘cost’ of conflict but a key basis to identify organised criminal military activity. In this context, law also empowers musicians, activists, and lawyers to frame starvation, as Sinéad did, not as collateral tragedy, but as evidence of a prosecutable crime. If Sinéad O’Connor were here, she may demand that these laws against starvation do more than exist on paper. She may insist they serve the hungry, not through empty promises but through real-world prosecutions and prevention. Anything less, as MENA’s musicians explain, is silence. Dr Felicity Gerry KC is an international barrister, consultant and media commentator with expertise in complex, contemporary legal issues such as human trafficking, homicide, terrorism and war crimes. Check out the article here.

Libertas Chambers

Latest Events

FASD Training for Legal Professionals | SAFETRAC Webinar Libertas Chambers is pleased to bring you specialist training webinar focused on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) and their impact across the criminal justice system. SAFETRAC is a research-informed training programme designed to equip barristers, solicitors and legal professionals with a clear understanding of FASD and the significant implications it can have in practice. Individuals with FASD are disproportionately represented in justice settings, with international estimates as high as 46%, and may face particular challenges in understanding their rights, participating in proceedings, and providing reliable evidence. This session will provide a practical and accessible overview of the causes and characteristics of FASD, and examine how these factors influence offending behaviour, police interviews, fitness to plead, and court participation. Drawing on case examples and lived experience insights, the training will also highlight key indicators that legal professionals can identify, alongside practical strategies to safeguard client rights and ensure a fair process. The webinar is delivered by the Salford FASD research team, Europe’s largest specialist group in this field, offering extensive expertise to support legal professionals in strengthening advocacy, ethical practice, and communication when representing vulnerable clients. Session Details Date: 5 May 2026 Time: 5:30pm – 7:30pm Location: Virtual Register: https://forms.office.com/e/ry4xJuRdef Speakers Dr David Junior Gilbert, Chartered Psychologist and University Fellow in FASD and the justice system Tania Goddard, Solicitor and PhD researcher in FASD and fitness to plead Uzma Naseem, Lawyer and PhD researcher in FASD and harmful sexual behaviours Dr Alan Price, Lecturer in Psychology specialising in FASD and trauma This webinar is free to attend for Law Firms and Legal Professionals in the Libertas network To ensure you don’t miss out on future events please register for our newsletter by clicking here.

Libertas Chambers

Libertas Chambers Supports The Economist Sustainability Week 2026 We’re pleased to share that Libertas Chambers is supporting The Economist’s Sustainability Week next week, and Chambers Member Tanveer Qureshi has been invited to speak on a topic that is moving quickly from “good practice” to live legal risk – 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲: 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 🗓️ Tuesday 3 March 2026 | 15:00 GMT | 30 minutes 📍 InterContinental London – The O2 This invitation reflects Tanveer Qureshi’s growing presence in ESG and sustainability – related regulatory work, and the increase in instructions in matters where environmental claims, disclosures, and supply-chain assurance are central issues. Ahead of the session, Tanveer comments: “As scrutiny intensifies, environmental claims are no longer a marketing flourish. They are increasingly treated as statements that must be evidenced and, if they are not, the consequences can be regulatory, commercial, and reputational. In my session, I’ll look at what is changing in practice: where enforcement attention is landing, how claims are being tested, and why businesses with complex supply chains are often the most exposed. The focus will be practical: what “good” looks like in 2026 for manufacturers, retailers, and brands – particularly when it comes to substantiation, governance, and the internal controls that sit behind sustainability messaging. I’ll also cover the UK landscape and regulators, including the CMA and ASA, and how their approach feeds into wider board-level risk management.” Visit the event site for more details: https://events.economist.com/sustainability-week/

Libertas Chambers

Urgent Submission to UN on Medical Neglect of Guantanamo Detainee by Felicity Gerry KC Dr Felicity Gerry KC makes an urgent further submission to the Special Rapporteur’s Mandate on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment regarding Mr AMMAR AL-BALUCHI held in Guantanamo Bay Mr al-Baluchi has been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (‘NSGB’), by the United States government since 5 September 2006 after being detained at CIA ‘black sites’ across North Africa, Asia and Europe between 2003 and 2006. He has now been imprisoned for 22 years with no conviction. He was held incommunicado for at least 3 years, was subject to extraordinary rendition and interrogation techniques, and was at one-stage used as a ‘torture prop’ by a rogue interrogator who used him to train other interrogators in his particularly harsh brand of information extraction. In April 2025, the Guantanamo Bay military commission ruled that admissions Mr al-Baluchi made were not admissible because the information was obtained by means of torture. The fact of Mr Al-Baluchi’s torture is unequivocal. As a direct result of his treatment Mr al-Baluchi suffers from on-going physical and psychological health conditions. These conditions have largely gone untreated. This submission concerns the fact that Mr al-Baluchi has been diagnosed with a spinal tumor and doctors visiting NSGB have determined that he will need surgery to investigate, treat and/or remove it. The kind of specialised medical care that this requires cannot be accessed at NSGB. Dr Corry Jeb Kucik, a former Congressionally-mandated oversight Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at NSGB, and currently, Full Professor of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and consultant to the Military Commissions Defense Organization has provided a report (attached) on this matter that plainly states that Mr al-Baluchi’s surgery should beundertaken in the United States or at another Host Nation with the ‘expertise, equipment, required caseload and support structures in place for all potential surgical misadventures’. Professor Kucik’s report is unambiguous that NSGB is incapable of safely providing complex care for detainees in a timely manner, as is required by Geneva Convention obligations. Without adequate and immediate medical care Mr al-Baluchi risks a worsening of his condition that is tantamount to torture or ill-treatment. Therefore, it is important that this issue is addressed by the Special Rapporteur urgently, alongside the extant issues of Mr Al-Baluchi’s historic torture, to help ensure that the United States comply with their obligations under international law as to his treatment (and the treatment of other detainees at NSGB in similar circumstances). You can read the further submission here You can read the previous submission here

Libertas Chambers