Jonathan Page

Jonathan almost invariably conducts the POCA proceedings that arise out of his own cases. He is also instructed to represent defendants who change representation and seek specialist confiscation solicitors and Counsel.

He has also been instructed in section 10A proceedings. He resisted successfully an attempt by a third party to institute 10A proceedings which would have deprived the defendant he represented of a significant proportion of the available assets.

 Notable Cases:

R vs SS Leicester Crown Court. Legal argument then settlement in 2023. The defendant was facing ‘lifestyle’ confiscation proceedings with a Benefit figure alleged to have been £4.8m. After contested legal argument, the Court ruled that it was not a ‘lifestyle’ case and the Benefit figure dropped to £430k. After further written submissions, a figure of £122k was agreed.

R vs AO Southwark Crown Court. Leading junior in confiscation proceedings following allegations of fraud and handling stolen goods. A £3.5m benefit figure sought from available assets was reduced to £700,000.

R vs BS Birmingham Crown Court. Successfully argued to have the Third Party litigation conducted in the County Court, as opposed to the Crown Court pursuant to section 10A POCA.

He has also advised companies facing asset forfeiture proceedings and has successfully applied for the release of funds from frozen accounts, for legal and living expenses.

Over many years, Jonathan has represented defendants charged with the full gamut of criminal offences including homicide (murder, manslaughter, death by dangerous driving), Drugs, Sexual offences, Violence and Terrorism.

Increasingly, allegations involve large volumes of digital evidence which require detailed analysis to best present the defendant’s case. Since studying for his Ph.D, Jonathan is extremely familiar with searching, filtering and presenting digital media in a way that provides juries with assistance when understanding a defendant’s case.

Jonathan has been instructed in several complex murder cases, as led Junior counsel and has brought his energy and meticulous preparation at an early stage of the case in order to assist leading counsel.

He has recently represented defendants charged under the Terrorism Act. One such defendant was an NHS surgeon charged with money laundering and terror-related fraud. The investigation was conducted by counter-terrorism officers (SO15) because of alleged links to a terrorist funding network. The defendant was one of only 3 to be acquitted of all charges.

In 2018, Jonathan secured an acquittal for a young man with autism who was charged with several rape allegations and harassment. The defendant had confessed in interview, which was excluded at trial, following a section 76/78 PACE argument criticizing the custody sergeant’s approach during the booking-in procedure.

Notable cases:

R vs SS – Blackfriars Crown Court – trials in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The defendant was accused of importing firearms into this Country from Poland on a massive scale. Disclosure arguments led to the first trial being aborted. The second trial led a re-trial, listed in late November 2019. This was an NCA investigation and received extensive publicity. Jonathan was instructed as leading junior.

R vs NM – Birmingham Crown Court. The defendant was already serving life for offences in Liverpool, but faced another indictment alleging that he had committed other similar offences in Birmingham. The Crown accepted his plea to a few substantive counts of burglary and robbery. He received a short additional sentence.

R vs JS – Cambridge Crown Court. The defendant was one of several travelers who were alleged to have carried out a number of burglaries and robberies of high-performance motor vehicles and parking meters. He pleaded early to receive maximum credit following a number of conferences at an early stage.

R vs PH – Liverpool Crown Court. Head of a drugs ring, responsible for organising the importation of 20 tonnes of class A drugs into the UK from Spain.

R vs OD – Harrow and St Albans Crown Courts. Conspiracy to burgle domestic properties for the car keys, enabling the theft of expensive top-end cars. The defendant was said to be at the centre of the case.

R vs JR – Chester Crown Court. Illegal money lending. The principal defendant was alleged to have loaned, without a licence, hundreds of thousands of pounds over a 3-year period.

Cases of this type will frequently involve extensive knowledge of the background of the defendant and the complainant(s). Cross-examinations are often far-reaching, demonstrating the factual background and context of the allegations, and why they were made. Jonathan is often instructed because he delves deeply into the allegation and assimilates the material presented to him by both the Crown and the Defendant. Also, where there is a requirement to comply with PACE procedures, Jonathan will examine whether breaches have occurred that could lead to exclusion of the evidence concerned.

He has conducted section 28 cross-examinations and has undertaken the vulnerable witness training. He has also advised about the instruction of intermediaries and conducted trials with vulnerable defendants.

Notable cases:

R vs AA – Leeds Crown Court. The defendant was charged with assault and rape. His defence was that his wife had made allegations to assist with her application to the Home Office for permanent leave to remain in the UK. An extensive knowledge of that application process was required to demonstrate that her applications had changed in order to fit with changes in the HO rules. The defendant was acquitted.

R vs CC – Croydon Crown Court – Jonathan secured an acquittal for a young man with a type of autism charged with several rape offences and harassment. The defendant had confessed in an interview; however, this was excluded at trial, following a successful section 76/78 PACE argument criticizing the custody sergeant’s approach during the booking-in procedure.

R vs PW – Guildford Crown Court – defendant charged with historic sexual offences on his granddaughters. Acquitted after trial.

R vs SN – Winchester Crown Court – defendant charged with a range of recent and historic sexual offences spanning 20 years concerning a number of victims.  The defendant had an extensive history of sexual offending on his record. Following his conviction, the Court was persuaded not to pass IPP, despite having the power to do so.

Jonathan has appeared many times before the Court of Appeal in appeals against conviction and sentence.

Jonathan is regularly instructed in murder and manslaughter cases, as well as attempted murders and assisting offender cases. He regularly instructs experts, for example, pathologists, psychiatrists, telecoms experts, and similar. He was most recently instructed in a murder for trial in 2021 at the Central Criminal Court involving attribution, cell site, ANPR, expert evidence involving a revenge attack and conducted a lengthy cross-examination of the telecoms expert. His Ph.D. involved extensive use of Microsoft Excel, leading to extensive skills in filtering, searching, and manipulating data, particularly telephone and banking records.

Notable Cases:

R vs YT – Reading Crown Court. Trial 2023 (10 weeks). The defendant was charged with assisting 2 defendants, charged with murder. He had provided lifts and assistance to them shortly after a stabbing. The case was complicated, with volumes of digital evidence, including telematics from the defendant’s car. The defendant was acquitted of all counts he faced. Leading junior.

R vs HR – Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey). Trial 2021 (11 weeks). This was a retribution stabbing arising from of a number of revenge, tit-for-tat violent incidents. There was a wealth of digital evidence, CCTV footage, forensics and computer data against the 8 defendants on trial. There was extensive pathological and forensic evidence. Jonathan was instructed to analyse and then cross-examine the telecoms expert at trial.

R vs SM – Croydon Crown Court – Trial and re-trial. Murder. The defendant was accused of luring the deceased to her house so that he could be executed by her new boyfriend. The new boyfriend was convicted and sentenced to 30 years. The jury rejected the Crown’s case against SM that she was a knowing participant in the killing and she was acquitted of murder and released from custody. Jonathan was instructed as a led junior. 

R vs HM – Lewes Crown Court. Murder prepared for trial, involving a lie-in-wait robbery that went tragically wrong. There was extensive expert evidence concerning the question of whether the victim was tortured. Jonathan was instructed as a led junior. 

R vs HL – Central Criminal Court – Jonathan represented a 15-year-old defendant (charged with murder), who “happy-slapped” a grandfather who had just left a mosque with his 7-year-old granddaughter. The prosecution accepted a plea to manslaughter. Jonathan was instructed as a led junior.

R vs KS – Winchester Crown Court – A manslaughter within the Polish community in Southampton was alleged. The Prosecution was not, ultimately, able to prove causation and offered no evidence on this count. Jonathan was instructed as a led junior.

R vs KS – Central Criminal Court – Murder and ABH. Female defendant acquitted of all counts following trial. The allegation was the result of an argument over a football going into a neighbour’s garden and the ensuing fight. Jonathan was instructed as a led junior.

R vs RC – Central Criminal Court – Murder. Blind Peruvian defendant acquitted of all charges, notwithstanding his admission that he had stabbed the victim at least 50 times with a pair of scissors. Jonathan was instructed as a led junior.

R vs KC – Central Criminal Court – Manslaughter, Rape x 3, Administering a noxious substance with intent to Rape. High profile case against a male nurse who was alleged to have administered Midazolam in order to rape his patients. He also administered the same drug to a friend, who subsequently died. Jonathan was instructed as a led junior.

Jonathan has been instructed in terrorism cases involving mindset and radicalisation evidence. The cases concerned attracted considerable media attention.

Noteable cases:

R vs SA – Manchester Crown Court. The defendant pleaded guilty to accessing terrorist-related material via jihadi-sympathetic internet sites. Extensive reports were obtained about the extent to which he had been radicalized. The case received national attention. The defendant received a short custodial sentence in the circumstances of the considerable mitigation that was presented to the Court.

R vs AK – Central Criminal Court 2017. The defendant is an NHS surgeon who was charged with money laundering and terror-related fraud. The investigation was conducted by counter-terrorism officers (SO15) because of alleged links to a terrorist funding network. The defendant was one of only 3 to be acquitted of all charges.

Jonathan has represented defendants facing prosecutions by various Regulators and Regulatory Agencies, including the Environment Agency, Trading Standards, and the RSPCA.

Notable cases:

R vs RB (Chelmsford Crown Court) – the defendant is alleged to be an unlicensed puppy breeder, who during the pandemic was supplying the increased demand for puppies. The Prosecution is brought by the RSPCA.

R vs SP (Winchester Crown Court) – the defendant who ran a metal works was alleged to have poisoned the Blackwater River with cyanide, resulting in the loss of marine animals and plants.

R vs BM – (Basildon Crown Court) – Trading Standards Prosecution. The defendant was a director of a company producing and fitting pioneering exhausting systems. Leading Junior.

For 10 years, Jonathan was a chairman of the Disciplinary, Admissions and Appeal Committees of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA). ACCA regulates the behaviour of qualified accountants and has a worldwide membership of over 300,000 trainee and qualified accountants.

In addition, for the last 4 years, Jonathan has sat on the Appeal and Investigation Committees of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA). CIMA has 240,000 members and student members worldwide.

In 2016, Jonathan was appointed to the Taxation Disciplinary Board. He was the chair of the Committee that determined, in 2019, the case of David Hannah, a chartered Tax Adviser (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-adviser-who-dodged-stamp-duty-on-his-own-home-5svhjxwwm ).

Jonathan has extensive experience from his sitting over the last 12 years of the rules and procedures of Regulatory and Disciplinary Proceedings. He has also represented Solicitors before the SDT.