Ben Douglas-Jones KC

Ben specialises in fraud, serious crime, appeals, human rights and consumer law.

In fraud, Ben has significant experience in serious and complex fraud, including corporate, financial, banking, carousel, MTIC, tax evasion scheme, acquisition, mortgage, Excise, Hawala, advance fee (419), boiler room, Ponzi , NHS, dental, pharmaceutical, Internet, car-ringing, gambling, cheque clearing cycle and insurance fraud.

Fraud cases include a huge alleged Ponzi fraud, a 14-handed money laundering case and the landmark National Trading Standards prosecution of the officers of BZZ Ltd for reselling concert and event tickets using multiple names.

Ben is a member of the Fraud Lawyers' Association.

In serious crime, Ben prosecutes and defends in cases including murder, sexual and drug offences. Notable cases include defending MQ, leading Amy Jackson of St Ives Chambers, in the 6-handed drive-by shooting of three men - including the alleged murder of one, a baby shaking case involving experts in five disciplines; R v Sweeney et al, a manslaughter; and the prosecution, leading Tim Evans of Apex Chambers, of the high profile murder of David Gaut who was stabbed 200 times after being released from a 33 year sentence for the murder of a child.

Ben’s human rights and appellate practice has seen him appear in many leading and reported cases. These cases include R v Patel (2025) in which Ben, leading Robin Shellard, asked the Court of Appeal to reconsider the correctness of the law concerning the interplay between European and domestic law in the context of drugs; R v Bryant [2025] EWCA Crim 621, leading James Marsland, in which a specially constituted court was convened to consider the appropriate approach to indicting multiple incident counts of statutory fraud.  The Court agreed with Ben’s approach and upheld the convictions in this high profile fraud against the National Trust committed by an employee; R v AFU [2023] EWCA Crim 23, a leading case on abuse of process on appeal after the coming into force of s.45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015; and R v AAD [2022] EWCA Crim 106; [2022] 1 WLR 4042, a seminal case concerning evidence, law and procedure in the context of human trafficking and modern slavery.

Ben conducts second-opinion defence appellate work where he did not appear in the Crown Court and is instructed by the CPS Appeals and Review Unit in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Ben has significant expertise in miscarriage of justice work having represented Colin Stagg and secured Stagg’s £706,000 compensation for his wrongful indictment for the murder of Rachel Nickell.

Ben’s regulatory practice extends to all areas of consumer law, with an emphasis on trade-marks and copyright law, criminal planning, food safety and environmental health.

He has vast experience in restraint, confiscation and s.10A Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 interventions and receivership proceedings.

Ben’s civil practice centres on judicial review and fraud.

Ben is also an attorney-at-law in Grenada, with rights of audience in the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.

Ben has been in over 120 reported cases in the last few years; see: www.bendouglas-jones.com/cases/

Fraud

In R v Hunter, Ben led Rhodri James (of 23 Essex Street) in the representation of the first defendant in the landmark National Trading Standards prosecution of the officers of BZZ Ltd for reselling concert and event tickets using multiple names.

The case involved the evidence of Ed Sheeran’s manager and promoter. Ben led an abuse of process argument based on Regulators’ Code (Adaway consumer abuse) and the law concerning tickets and contractual webs involved in the ticketing industry; and unfairness to consumers in business-to-consumer contracts forming part of contractual webs. Ben led the argument on the law of fraud, fraudulent trading and dishonesty concerning consumer fraud in the secondary ticketing industry.

Meanwhile, Ben, leading Aparna Rao, prosecuting for the Specialist Fraud Division, secured convictions against four men who used the foundry website to distribute films, including The Expendables 3, illegally before their official release dates by torrent software and “seedboxes” for the “MiLLENiUM” release group, costing the film industry a minimum of £8.5 million.

In Operation Atlas Case 1 and Operation Atlas Case 2, Ben, leading Aparna Rao, prosecuting for the Specialist Fraud Division, secured convictions against Philip Bukak, the former CEO of Montessori, for two frauds on Montessori - an expenses fraud and separate fraud relating to the charity’s printing budget.

Ben led Anthony Hucklesby in R v Marcou and others - a multimillion pound alleged finance fraud committed through Abacus Trading Company Ltd against Barclays’ financing arm.

Ben led Jennifer Dannhauser in a case representing the first defendant in R v Moshfiq and others (Operation Park), an alleged multimillion pound cross- jurisdictional fraud involving mobile telephones.

Ben led Dominic Lewis in Operation Festival, which involved alleged fiscal fraud on a vast scale. One of three related trials involved over 70,000 pages of evidence.

Ben, leading James Marsland, appeared for the Specialist Fraud Division before the Court of Appeal R v Mumtaz [2017] EWCA Crim 1843 (serious and complex fraud). In a judgment given by Hickinbottom LJ, the Court agreed with Ben that there was no prejudice in an amendment to the indictment which had secured the conviction of the Appellant.

Before taking Silk, Ben, led by Patrick Harrington QC and John de Waal QC, represented the first defendant, Eric Evans in SFO v Evans. The Defendants, a retired consultant solicitor, Eric Evans, his professional partner, Alan Whiteley, and assistant solicitor, Frances Bodman, had set up a complex commercial transaction involving opencast mining sites and restoration obligations. A fifth defendant, Stephen Davies QC, had advised on the legality of the scheme. Central to the scheme was Celtic Energy Ltd, South Wales' most successful mining company, whose 100% shareholder, Richard Walters, and finance director, Leighton Humphreys, were also charged.

Mr Evans and Mr Humphreys had always vehemently denied having done anything wrong and were indeed keen to show that their conduct was commercially adept. 

The case was dismissed by a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Hickinbottom.

In Silk, Ben went on to represent Mr Evans successfully in Solicitors’ Disciplinary Proceedings.

Ben, led by Patrick Harrington QC and leading Simon Rogers, prosecuted the biggest mortgage fraud ever investigated in England and Wales: Operation Valgus, R v Lowry-Huws and others. After a five month trial they secured six convictions.

Later, a further seven defendants pleaded guilty. Appeals against conviction were dismissed: [2014] EWCA Crim 1762.

Facing allegations of creating and operating copycat government websites to defraud the public, Stephen Oliver was represented by Ben - who was led by Graham Trembath QC. The case was complex and substantial.  After a trial, the defendants were acquitted of copycat website fraud and the prosecution abandoned further proceedings concerning consumer protection offences. A second case has been discontinued.

 Appeals

Fraud and Proceeds of Crime 

In R v Luckhurst [2022] UKSC 23; [2022] 1 W.L.R. 3818; [2023] 1 All E.R. 807; [2022] 7 WLUK 247; [2022] Crim. L.R. 996; Times, October 3, 2022, Ben, leading Nathaniel Rudolf QC (25 Bedford Row) and William Douglas-Jones (St Philips Chambers), instructed by Ben Henry of Jonas Roy Bloom Solicitors, secured a landmark Supreme Court win. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Pt 2 s.41(4) did not preclude an exception or variation to a restraint order imposed on an alleged offender to make provision for reasonable legal expenses incurred in civil proceedings where those proceedings had arisen from the same or similar facts or allegations as the underlying criminal offence. Although s.41(4) precluded the legal expenses of defending the alleged criminal offence and resisting confiscation and restraint orders, legal expenses in respect of civil proceedings for causes of action such as torts or equitable wrongs were not precluded, but were controlled by the courts' discretion.


Human Trafficking

Ben has appeared in many of the leading cases concerning the prosecution of victims of human trafficking.

R v AJW EWCA Crim 803

Lady Justice Carr (as she then was) with Sir Nigel Davis and Jay J. 

The Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud by a sham marriage, which was planned in order to enable the applicant to reside in the United Kingdom permanently by reason of marriage to a European national. Evidence was adduced to the effect that her birth certificate had been false. 

Ben Douglas-Jones KC, leading James Rowbottom, from Matrix Chambers, sought to argue that the conviction was unsafe because she had been trafficked by her co-accused. Ben argued that the Appellant committed the offence against a background of being subject to the threat of FGM, rape and violent abuse in Nigeria as a child. She was then trafficked or smuggled to the United Kingdom and trafficked through exploitation in which she was subject to forced prostitution and criminal activity - at all material times remaining a child.

However, and although the applicant had said at the time in terms that she was a minor, the defence took no steps to obtain or secure a formal age assessment and no inquiry was made as to whether the applicant should be referred as a possible VOT. She was not advised about human trafficking or modern slavery law or of the possibility of a referral to the NRM. 

The stance that Ben took caused the CPS to concede that there should have been consideration of her human rights. The Lady Chief Justice agreed with Ben and quashed the conviction. 

R v AFU

Ben Douglas-Jones KC appeared for the Appellant in R v AFU [2023] EWCA Crim 23, a leading case on abuse of process on appeal after the coming into force of s.45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The Appellant was a victim of human trafficking who had been kidnapped in Vietnam, trafficked to the UK in debt bondage, tortured and put to work in a cannabis house.

The Court agreed with Ben that the prosecution had been an abuse of process and overturned the Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to produce cannabis.

The Court reviewed the principles of the UK’s duty in England and Wales not to prosecute victims of human trafficking and slavery (VOTs) where (1) they have a credible defence under s.45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (so that the evidence limb of the Full Code Test is not made out) or (2) their criminality or culpability has been extinguished or diminished to a point where prosecution is not in the public interest, following R v AAD [2022] EWCA Crim 106; [2022] 1 WLR 4042.

Significantly the case confirmed that the usual principle of finality does not apply in guilty plea cases where the defendant is a VOT.

An appellant’s conviction may be safe, applying the Dastjerti [2011] EWCA Crim 365 checklist (see [9]) to Boal principles (see R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108; [2022] 4 WLR 62 at [154] to [180] and Archbold (2023 ed) at 7-43 to 7-46).  I.e. in a case where the criminal act is committed by a VOT, where a defendant (1) has been correctly advised about a possible section 45 defence and (2) pleads guilty voluntarily following that advice, his/her conviction may be safe on traditional principles.

However, even if the conviction is safe on traditional appeal grounds, (1) where the State’s Article 4, ECHR operational measures duties have not been complied with; and (2) an appellant has not been identified as a possible credible VOT when they are a VOT, their conviction will be unsafe if (a) their trafficking circumstances have not been properly investigated; (b) had they been properly investigated the appellant would have been shown to have been a VOT; and (c) the CPS would or might well not have maintained the prosecution on evidential or public interest grounds.

Anonymity is to be considered by reference to AAD at [3] and [4] and summarised in Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery Law and Practice (2nd ed) (at 8.103-8.108).

R v RAHMAN Melina EWCA Crim 1719 

Ben, leading Giles Fleming, from Drystone Chambers, represented the Respondent in this appeal. 

 The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Jade Melina Rahman against her convictions for being concerned in making an offer to supply cocaine and cannabis. Rahman was in a relationship with Shemsi Hasani, an Albanian national involved in drug dealing, and was a victim of his serious domestic and sexual abuse. 

At trial, Rahman was acquitted of money laundering (Count 1) but convicted on two drug supply counts (Counts 3 and 4) based on text message exchanges with Hasani. Her defence was that she was not making genuine offers to supply drugs; instead, the messages were jokes or attempts to appease her abusive and controlling partner. Expert evidence confirmed she suffered from PTSD due to the abuse. 

Rahman appealed her convictions on two main grounds: that the trial judge was wrong to withdraw the statutory defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 from the jury, and that the judge failed to properly summarise her defence.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, ruling that the Modern Slavery defence requires evidence of compulsion to commit the offence. Rahman's own evidence was not that she was compelled to offer drugs, but that she had not committed the offences at all because the messages were a joke. Therefore, she had not provided the necessary evidence to raise the statutory defence. The court found that the judge’s summary of her defence was sufficient and that the evidence against her was "overwhelming". 

Rahman's appeal against her two-year suspended sentence was also dismissed. The court found that, since the jury had convicted her, they had rejected her explanation. The judge was therefore correct to sentence her for genuine criminal conduct and had appropriately followed sentencing guidelines while giving full weight to the significant mitigation, including the abuse she suffered. 

R. v BYA [2022] EWCA Crim 1326

Ben appeared for BYA.  Her conviction, entered following a plea of guilty to possessing a false identity document with intent, was unsafe. Following her conviction, it emerged that there were conclusive grounds for believing that she was a victim of human trafficking.  She had been exploited in three jurisdictions in enforced prostitution – and had been raped daily.  It was clear that she had committed the offence in an attempt to escape her traffickers and that her culpability was therefore considerably diminished. Had the prosecution given adequate consideration to whether she might have been a victim of trafficking, it might well not have prosecuted her.

R v BXR [2022] EWCA Crim 1483

Ben appeared for the Appellant, a Nigerian victim of human trafficking, who had used a false passport to obtain employment prior to the coming into force of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.  He had pleaded guilty to using a false instrument and fraud without telling his legal advisers that he had been trafficked.  The Appellant had been persecuted and subjected to extreme violence and abuse for being gay in Nigeria and subjected to sexual violence and forced labour and servitude in the UK.  He had been subjected to multiple rapes and had later been put through a process of gay conversion “deliverance”.

The court admitted fresh evidence of the true position and found that the nexus between the trafficking and use of the passport reduced the man’s culpability to a very low level and that, had the CPS known the facts, it would very likely not have prosecuted him. His convictions were overturned.

R v AAD, AAH and AAI [2022] EWCA Crim 106

Ben appeared for the Crown in this case, leading Andrew Johnson.  The Court decided that anonymity in appeals against convictions of alleged victims of trafficking who commit criminal acts is to be decided as per Hallett LJ’s approach in R v L; R v N [2017] EWCA Crim 2129; i.e. in principle, it is desirable for the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to follow the practice of providing anonymity protection to an appellant in cases raising asylum and international protection issues, bearing in mind (1) the United Kingdom’s international obligations and aim to safeguard the human rights of victims, to avoid further victimisation and to encourage them to act as witnesses in criminal proceedings; but also (2) other important issues, such as the principle of open justice in criminal trials and appeals, and that anonymity orders should only be granted when they are strictly necessary.

The Registrar invited the Court to give guidance.  It proceeded to do so as follows:

1. Single competent authority conclusive grounds decisions (which are not admissible in Magistrates’ Courts or the Crown Court following R v Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731 may potentially be “adduced” on an application for leave or an appeal in the CACD.  The context and issues will determine whether they should be received in evidence.
2. Brecani is consistent with previous authority of the CACD.
3. Brecani is consistent with the UK’s international obligations and European case law with regard to the protection of victims of trafficking.
4. As to the admissibility of expert evidence on the question of trafficking and exploitation at trial: 1) It does not matter that the members of the jury have not shared the suggested experiences described by the defendant in a human trafficking or modern slavery case.  Jurors will be well placed to form their own conclusions without expert evidence.  2)Evidence is inadmissible to show whether a given set of facts meets the legal definition of trafficking.
5. On appeal it may be necessary to hear oral evidence, including from the applicant/appellant to substantiate, for instance, the history relied on if the suggested trafficking is based, for instance, on unsatisfactory and untested hearsay evidence from the appellant so that his/her account may be appropriately tested.  The Court may order the production of any relevant documents, including reports such as a conclusive grounds decision. This will be a highly fact-specific judgment.
6. If the parties are not agreed on whether there is to be oral evidence, this should be referred to the Criminal Appeal Office so that the Vice- President or presiding Lord Justice can give appropriate directions.
7. The residual jurisdiction of abuse of process (in practice only to be exercised in very limited circumstances) survives the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.  The Court was “rather puzzled” by the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in DS [2020] EWCA Crim 285; [2021] 1 WLR 303.  It found A [2020] EWCA Crim 1408 to be obiter.  The Court was not bound by those decisions but would depart from those decisions in any event in light of VCL and AN v UK [77587/12 and 74603/12].  The Court proceeded to hold: “if the CPS guidance in a [victim of trafficking] case is not properly applied it will not comply with its legal obligations … legal redress, in the form of an opportunity at least to make an application for a stay, should be available: which a Crown Court judge can then appraise by way of review on public law grounds. Moreover, so to conclude does not in any way involve a Crown Court judge entering into the arena of making improperly decisions of fact or usurping the functions of CPS and jury.”
8. The definition of “compulsion” in VSJ [2017] EWCA Crim 36 at [21] and section 45 Modern Slavery Act 2015 was not too narrow and it was not appropriate to adopt a “causation” based approach, rather than a “compulsion” based approach.
9. A victim of trafficking may appeal against a conviction following a guilty plea in the narrow circumstances set out in R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim.

Human Trafficking – A Landmark Decision: R v Brecani

Ben, leading Rebecca Austin, instructed by the CPS Appeals and Review Unit, appeared in this landmark decision which profoundly affects the law of evidence and criminal procedure in all cases in which a possible victim of trafficking or slavery faces a criminal trial.

In a special court sitting of the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice, the Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and Mr Justice Jeremy Baker accepted Ben’s argument that a conclusive grounds decision made by a Single Competent Authority appointed under the National Referral Mechanism and signed by a caseworker was not admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings in determining whether a defendant was a victim of modern slavery under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Pt 5 s.45(4).

Caseworkers were not experts in human trafficking or modern slavery and could not give opinion evidence in a trial on the question whether an individual was trafficked or exploited.

The Court overturned the Divisional Court decision of DPP v M.

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 s.45 – Retrospective effect?

R v CS [2021] EWCA Crim 134; 2 WLUK 68

In a case presided over by Thirlwall LJ; Holgate and Johnson JJ, Ben, leading Andrew Johnson, argued that The Modern Slavery Act 2015 s.45 did not have retrospective effect. There was no factor which positively indicated that Parliament intended the defence under s.45 to be available in respect of offences committed by victims of trafficking before the Act came into force.  The Court agreed.  This case defined the offences to which s.45 applied by reference to the date of the criminal act.

H v DPP  [2021] EWHC 147 (Admin); [2021] 1 W.L.R. 2721; [2021] 1 WLUK 352; [2021] 1 Cr. App. R. 23; [2021] Crim. L.R. 400; [2021] A.C.D. 41

Ben, leading Chris Buttler KC and Katy Sheridan, Matrix, represented a putative victim of human trafficking, L, in a rare successful challenge to a CPS decision not to prosecute her alleged traffickers in a number of successful judicial reviews, including R (oAo L) v DPP [2020] EWHC 1815 (Admin) | [2020] 7 WLUK 137 | [2020] A.C.D. 106 and R (oAo COL) v DPP [2022] EWHC 601 (Admin); [2022] 3 WLUK 239; [2022] 2 Cr. App. R. 14; [2022] Crim. L.R. 755; [2022] A.C.D. 60; CLW/22/13/3 

In R v GS  [2018] EWCA Crim 1824; [2018] 4 W.L.R. 167; [2018] 7 WLUK 736; [2019] 1 Cr. App. R. 7; [2019] Crim. L.R. 147; CLW/18/33/3 |[2018] EWCA Crim 1824. The Court adopted Ben’s suggested approach to consideration of when to prosecute victims of trafficking and exploitation who commit criminal acts.  This has been adopted as the leading approach in all subsequent leading cases.

Ben also appeared in the leading case of R v L and others [2013] EWCA Crim 991; [2013] 2 Cr. App. R. 23, in which the Special Court judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lord Judge, Lord Justice Moses and Mrs Justice Thirlwall) was given confirming that where a victim of trafficking’s criminality or culpability is extinguished or significantly reduced because of the dominant force of compulsion from exploitation, they should not be prosecuted in the public interest.

Ben appeared in O [2011] EWCA Crim 2226 [O 2011] and R v LZ [2012] EWCA Crim 1867. He suggested in those cases that the Court of Appeal should allow appeals in respect of victims of sexual servitude notwithstanding that there had been no fault in failing to identify them as trafficking victims and where there were unequivocal guilty pleas.  The Court of Appeal agreed. In a departure from the fault based appeals following N and Le [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. 35; [2012] Crim. L.R. 958 (in which Ben Douglas-Jones also appeared for the Crown), for the first time after the judgment in L and others the Court of Appeal, in R v S, endorsed the O and LZ line of authority.

Ben appeared for the Crown in L and others [2014] EWCA Crim 1483, 5 conjoined appeals, in which the Crown was held right to concede appeals where victims of trafficking had been prosecuted. The criminality had been extinguished by their trafficking circumstances.

In Regina v N and Le [2012] EWCA Crim 189; [2012] 3 W.L.R. 1159; [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. 35;

[2012] Crim. L.R. 958; Times, April 10, 2012, Ben, led by Tim Owen QC and instructed by Shuba Karan and Steve Alvarez of the CPS Appeals Unit, appeared for the Respondent in these conjoined appeals, heard by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Royce and Globe JJ. Convictions were upheld and the Court set out "a series of considerations of broad general effect" concerning Article 26 of the Human Trafficking Convention 2005.

Ben’s other notable cases include R v Dastjerti  EWCA Crim 365 - cited where a trafficked victim has pleaded guilty on bad advice. Ben’s approach to the safety of convictions in these cases gave its name to the “Dastjerti checklist”, applied by Leveson P in the R v K [2017] EWCA Crim 486 and R v LZ [2012] EWCA Crim 1867 - a trafficked adult subjected to repeated rape.

R v O [2011] EWCA Crim 2226 involved a victim trafficked with coercion from “JuJu magic” and who was exposed to sexual slavery. Ben's legal argument on behalf of the Crown was accepted by the Court of Appeal. Ben argued that O's appeal against conviction (her guilty plea) should succeed on Human Rights grounds: she was a credible victim of child trafficking, subjected to "JuJu Magic" rituals and forced into sexual exploitation.

Small Boats and Asylum Defence Cases

R. v Elmi (Abdihakim) [2022] EWCA Crim 1428; [2023] 1 W.L.R. 1211; [2023] 3 All E.R. 828; [2022] 11 WLUK 15; [2023] 1 Cr. App. R. 7; CLW/23/01/6

Ben, leading Andrew Johnson, appeared for the Crown in this leading case on the scope of the s.31, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 “refugee defence” for document offences.  The appellant contended, relying on FA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 696, [2010] 1 W.L.R. 2545, [2010] 6 WLUK 421, that s.31 should be construed to include those granted humanitarian protection within the definition of refugees and, relying on Adimi, to include presumptive refugees. However, the Crown correctly argued that s.31(6) defined “refugee” by reference to the Convention and did not allow a more expansive definition, emphasising the distinction between the two concepts in the Immigration Rules para.339C(ii), FA (Iraq) and Adimi considered. It was not possible to construe s.31 as if it applied to persons with either sort of protection. The defence only applied to refugees but, consistent with its statutory purpose, could be advanced at trial by those who were at that time presumptive refugees. It was for the jury to determine whether the defence was made out (see paras 45-49 of judgment).

R v Bani EWCA Crim 1958; [2021] 12 WLUK 457

Ben appeared for the Crown, leading Andrew Johnson. This is the conjoined special court appeals of four RHIB (rigid hull inflatable boat) cases where migrants have been piloted across the English Channel and intercepted at sea.

Four issues of importance derive from this judgment, I suggest:

1. For the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law to be made out, it will usually be appropriate for the offence to be predicated on a breach of ss.1 and 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.  It will therefore be necessary to show that the act facilitated an entry into the UK or an attempted entry into the UK.  Entry means entry without leave.  Therefore the entry would have to be someone without a designated area for processing people who arrive in the UK without leave but who have not at that stage entered because they have not passed through immigration controls.
2. § 104 and 105 deal with “conditional intent”, where in setting off from France the migrants have a number of a number of contemplated outcomes to their journey: landing at a port with a designated immigration area (arrival, not entry), being intercepted (being in detention and therefore not entering) or landing on a beach or at a port without a designated area (entry): The offence is complete when the act of facilitation (“the act”) is done with the necessary knowledge or reasonable cause for belief.  The words “or attempted breach” in section 25(1) of the 1971 Act mean that it is an offence to facilitate a breach of immigration law at any stage in the plan which may result in such a breach.  It does not matter whether the plan results in a breach of immigration law or not.  It is an offence to facilitate any step in the journey which is more than merely preparatory to the breach.  In these small boat cases the facilitator at the time of the act must be proved to have known or had reasonable cause to believe that the migrant who s/he was facilitating would enter the United Kingdom without leave if no other means of entry became possible.  If those on a vessel set off intending to be intercepted, but also intend that if they are not intercepted then they will land on a beach, then the journey prior to interception will be an attempted breach of immigration law by them.  If they are intercepted then the entry which actually happens will be lawful, but by then the offence has already been completed.  If landing on a beach if necessary was within the plan of (one or more of) the migrants, then it would be open to the jury to conclude that the helmsman assisted an unlawful entry even if the boat was ultimately intercepted.  In this situation the facilitator would have assisted an attempted breach of immigration law.  If, on the other hand, the facilitator knows that the only way in which the migrant intends to enter the United Kingdom is by being brought ashore by the UK Border Force, then he will not be committing the offence, unless he has reasonable cause to believe that this will not be possible.  If he is the helmsman, he will be the one putting the migrants’ plan into action and the jury may conclude that he must therefore know what it is.
3. The value of expert evidence of cultural context was questioned at §§ 96-98.

4. The Boal test for overturning a conviction following a guilty plea does not apply where: 1) “… [a] guilty plea was not entered simply because counsel gave wrong advice.  It was entered because a heresy about the law had been adopted by those who were investigating these cases, and passed on to those who prosecuted them, and then further passed on to those who were defending them and finally affected the way the judges at the Canterbury Crown Court approached these prosecutions;” § 109. 2) “In this situation, Mr. Zadeh was deprived of a fair opportunity to decide whether to plead guilty or not, knowing precisely what he was charged with and whether in law he was guilty of that charge or not;” § 116.  3) “R v. Boal and the other cases which have followed it, do not, for obvious reasons, contemplate this situation which we hope is unique.  We have reached the conclusion on the facts of these cases that it would be wrong to treat Mr. Zadeh differently from the other appellants because he pleaded guilty, and they were convicted by the jury.” § 118

   R v Idahosa

   Leading case on the asylum defence and the duty of advocates to keep notes of advice given and instructions received at court.

In R. (on the application of Khalif) v Isleworth Crown Court [2015] EWHC 917 (Admin), Ben appeared for the DPP. This is a leading case concerning when leave to appeal should be granted following a guilty plea in the Magistrates’ Court. In this case, the

Court also analysed the application of the statutory defence in Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.

In R v Ghorbani [2015] EWCA Crim 275, Ben appeared in this case where the analogy between victims of trafficking and asylum seekers was drawn in the context of the safety of convictions.

In Mateta and others [2013] EWCA Crim 1372, Ben appeared for the Crown (CPS Appeals Unit) in a Special Court sitting of the Court of Appeal in which Lord Justice Leveson set out to “kill [the issue of lawyers failing to identify clients with asylum defences in lower courts] stone dead”.

Ben’s other notable asylum defence cases include R v A [2013] [citation pending] - involving a refugee escaping persecution on grounds of sexuality and R v Sadighpour [2012] EWCA Crim 2669; [2013] 1 Cr. App. R. 20; Archbold News February 2013, a leading case concerning the application of burden and standard of proof in refugee-defence cases and the admissibility of FTT decisions in appeals against conviction.

R v C [2011] EWCA Crim 2911 concerned the application of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in the context of s.31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999). Ben successfully argued on behalf of the Crown that Article 31 of the Geneva Convention was not engaged in this case in such a way as to make a conviction for possessing false i/d documents unsafe.

Human Rights Based and Complex Appeals

R v Hamilton [2023] EWCA Crim 850 

Ben Douglas-Jones KC, who did not appear in the Crown Court, led Emma Nash, from 187 Chambers, and acted for the Crown in an appeal against conviction for an historical offence of rape. He persuaded the Court of Appeal that the conviction was safe. The Court of Appeal accepted that prosecution disclosure failings in respect of the complainant's medical and counselling records, including non-disclosure of a magazine article concerning the effects on the complainant of anti-depressant medication following a subsequent unrelated illness which was similar to the account given in her victim personal statement, had not affected the outcome of the trial. It concluded that the article's content would not have undermined the complainant's credibility in respect of the facts of the rape or more generally.  

R v KADIR [2022] EWCA Crim 124; [2023] 1 W.L.R. 532; [2022] 9 WLUK 159; [2023] 1 Cr. App. R. 4; [2022] Inquest L.R. 271; [2023] Crim. L.R. 142 – leading case on giving evidence via WhatsApp, etc from abroad 

The Appellant argued that his conviction was unsafe because a judge had refused a witness permission to appear from overseas via WhatsApp. Ben Douglas-Jones KC, leading Valeria Swift, from 5 KBW, had to argue that the conviction was safe but concede that the judge was wrong to have held WhatsApp to be an inappropriate means of receiving witnesses’ evidence from abroad. 

Ben argued that, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.51, as temporarily modified during the COVID-19 pandemic, and also under the version of s.51 which had been in force since 28 June 2022, evidence could be received by WhatsApp. Ben then set out a series of considerations for the Court to take into account to ensure the evidence was not tainted by the video link. 

The Court of Appeal agreed with Ben that a judge presiding over a Crown Court trial could permit a witness who was outside the UK to give evidence via WhatsApp video call if it was in the interests of justice.  

Ben’s instructing solicitor, Irene Bhadresa, was named The Times Lawyer of the Week (TLTW) as a result of the case.  Ben had to decline the invitation to be TLTW because he has been TLTW before – for his prosecution of the murder of David Gaut. 

Media coverage:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/lawyer-of-the-week-irene-bhadresa-who-was-the-specialist-prosecutor-for-the-crown-in-an-appeal-on-what-is-acceptable-as-evidence-in-uk-courts-brznj89r5

https://www.legalcheek.com/2022/09/court-of-appeal-gives-thumbs-up-for-witnesses-giving-evidence-via-whatsapp/

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/witnesses-can-give-evidence-by-whatsapp-court-of-appeal-rules/5113719.article

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/R.-v-Kadir-Abdul-2022-EWCA-Crim-1244.pdf

Patel, Darshan Appeal

Ben Douglas-Jones KC, leading Robin Shellard, acted for the Respondent in this seminal case concerning low-THC cannabis.  He argued that the Court of Appeal had been wrong in Margiotta in its interpretation of the interplay between domestic and European law pre-Brexit. The Respondent’s argument was that Patel's convictions for importing herbal cannabis and related offences were safe and that his appeal should be dismissed. 

The Respondent refuted the central claim that the low-THC cannabis was not a controlled substance. It argued that the Appellant's reliance on the Margiotta case and EU law was misplaced because there was no evidence that the product's THC content was at or below the 0.2% threshold required for consideration as legal hemp - tests only confirmed it was below 1%. Furthermore, for offences post-dating the Brexit transition period, EU free movement of goods principles did not apply. The Respondent stated that, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, cannabis is defined by the part of the plant, making its THC content irrelevant to its status as a Class B controlled drug. 

Addressing the Appellant's claim of receiving inadequate legal advice, the Respondent argued that his guilty pleas were not equivocal. Patel was advised of the challenges to his case, particularly with regards to a police email that he admitted left him with a "suspicion about the illegality of the product". Despite this, he continued to import it. Patel's decision to plead guilty was a calculated one, made freely to accept a guaranteed suspended sentence rather than risk imprisonment at trial. 

Finally, the Respondent dismissed the argument that the law lacked clarity, asserting that the UK's definition of cannabis has been consistent for decades and is not dependent on THC levels. Therefore, there was no breach of the Appellant's human rights, and the convictions should stand. 

R v M  [2021] EWCA Crim 1934; [2021] 12 WLUK 701; [2024] 1 Cr. App. R. 20; CLW/24/14/2 

This was a five-handed case where the evidence showed D1 to have been in single-sex relationships. D1 sought to prevent Ds2-5 from knowing about this evidence on the ground that he was married to a woman and from a conservative Pakistani background which did not accept single-sex relationships. 

Ben argued a number of issues relevant to the human rights of D1, including that s.78 of PACE could not be used to prevent the service of evidence in a case, notwithstanding Arts 2, 3, 6 and 8, ECHR being engaged.   

The Court agreed that s.78 was for: first, when fairness in the actual conduct of the trial is in issue; second, when there are significant and substantial breaches of the procedural safeguards (e.g. infringements of the Codes of Practice); and, third, when the “moral integrity” of the proceedings has been substantively undermined (for example, on account of entrapment or material bad faith). The evidence was placed before the Crown Court after the interlocutory hearing on rights and all defendants were convicted. 

Ben appeared for the DPP in R (on the Application of A) v Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 659 (Admin); (2013) 177 J.P. 377; [2013] E.M.L.R. 20; [2013] Crim. L.R.

763; [2013] A.C.D. 72. In this case, he persuaded the Court that it should not allow a restriction or super-injunction on the publication of the details of a Councillor found drunk in charge of a child.

Ben also appeared in R. (on the application of Ewing) v Cardiff and Newport Crown Court [2016] 1 Cr. App. R. 32, which concerned Article 6 and 10 rights in Crown Court cases.

Human Rights - Fraud Appeals

R -V- Bryant [2025] EWCA Crim 621 

Ben Douglas-Jones KC, leading James Marsland, appeared for the Crown in this specially constituted appeal to determine at the direction of the Single Judge, Sir Gary Hickinbottom, the correct way to indict multiple incident counts of fraud by false representation. 

The Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Bean and Warby and HH Judge Mansell KC) dismissed the appeals of both father and son against their convictions. Roger Bryant, a former National Trust procurement officer, was convicted on 25 counts of fraud and one of perverting the course of justice for orchestrating a scheme where he approved over £1.8 million in invoices for work that was either not done or not completed by his sons' purported contracting companies. His son, James Bryant, was convicted of money laundering in connection with this scheme. 

Roger Bryant appealed his conviction on two "multiple-incident" fraud counts, which covered hundreds of invoices not specified in the individual charges. His first ground for appeal was that these counts were improperly formulated under the Criminal Procedure Rules. The court rejected this, finding that charging a course of conduct involving numerous fraudulent invoices as a single count was appropriate and practical, distinguishing it from cases involving sexual offences. 

Bryant's second ground for appeal was that his acquittal on three specific fraud counts meant the jury must have rejected the prosecution's primary case that his sons' companies were entirely fictitious. The court also dismissed this argument. It concluded that the jury was entitled to find that, while some minor work may have been done, the companies could not have legitimately carried out the vast scale of work invoiced. The convictions on 22 other specific counts, alongside the multiple-incident counts, demonstrated the jury's conclusion that a systematic fraud had occurred. 

James Bryant's appeal was contingent on the success of his father's. As Roger Bryant's appeal was dismissed, the court found that the money laundering conviction against James logically stood and therefore also dismissed his appeal. 

HADEN Mark and others  [2024] EWCA Crim 344; 1 W.L.R. 4777; 1 All E.R. 1071; Crim. L.R. 730; CLW/24/18/7 - Leading case on abuse of process on appeal after the coming into force of s.45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015

In this landmark case on the extension of postponement periods in confiscation proceedings, Ben acted for 10 respondent defendants, leading 1: J McClintock; 2: Umar Shahzad; 3: A Taylor; 4. B Evans; 5. C Jeyes; 6. J McNally; 7. N James; 8. E Coverley; 9. R Freitas; and 10. M Cranmer-Brown. 

The court clarified the legal framework for confiscation proceedings, emphasizing flexibility and fairness over rigid procedural adherence. It stated that confiscation proceedings can be initiated and postponed to conclude after sentencing, provided this occurs before the court becomes functus officio—56 days after sentencing. The court concluded that the two-year period for concluding these proceedings, starting from the conviction date, can be extended in "exceptional circumstances," a term the court interpreted broadly. An extension can be granted even if the two-year period has expired or if no formal application was made. 

Crucially, the court's authority to issue a confiscation order is not contingent on strict compliance with the procedural timelines outlined in section 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. While non-compliance can be a factor in determining a fair order and, in rare cases, could be deemed an abuse of process, it does not automatically strip the court of its jurisdiction. The court stressed the importance of case management to ensure timely resolutions, ideally within two years of conviction. 

The judgment established that the principles from the cases of R. v Soneji and R. v Guraj were paramount, superseding any prior inconsistent rulings. [1][2] Specifically, it overruled decisions in Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Iqbal and R. v Smith (Anthony) that were not in alignment with Soneji. [3] The court directed that, when an appeal court orders the Crown Court to "proceed afresh", it does not necessitate starting the confiscation process from the beginning but rather continuing from the point of the previous jurisdictional refusal. Ultimately, the refusals to extend the permitted periods in the cases at hand were deemed incorrect and were remitted to the Crown Court for immediate continuation. 

R v Hunter and Smith [2021] EWCA Crim 1785; 11 WLUK 384

Court considered components of fraudulent trading, Companies Act 2006, s.993(1), in the “Ed Sheeran” ticket touting case where profit was made by reselling tickets for sporting and cultural events, in breach of ostensible restrictions imposed by event organisers. The s.993(1) offence was not subject to limitations of conspiracy to defraud; no requirement for prosecution to prove intention to deceive.  Where criminal allegation is founded on breach of civil law, the judge must rule on the breaches before the jury decides the criminal issues. The case involved the “fairness” and enforceability under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 of the event organisers terms and conditions of sale which impose restrictions on the purchase and resale of tickets and the risk of ticket nullity, the status in law of a “ticket” and the scope, effect and operation of the doctrine of “equity’s darling”.

Transforming The Landscape For Restraint Applications In England and Wales

R v Luckhurst EWCA Crim 1579; [2021] 1 W.L.R. 1807; [2020] 11 WLUK 309; Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 53; 4 C.L. 65

Ben, leading William Douglas-Jones, instructed by Ben Henry of JRB Solicitors, appeared for the appellant in this case which transforms the landscape for restraint applications in England and Wales.

This case considers the scope of permissible living expenses and legal expenditure under a Restraint Order pursuant to section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the Act”). The appeal arises following HHJ Carr’s decision to refuse an application to vary a Restraint Order made against the Appellant in 2017.

It addresses fundamental points of principle in relation to:

• Factors for consideration in assessing the “reasonableness” of living expenses under a restraint order;
• The application of SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc (In Administration) [2008] EWCA Crim 1443 to living expenses paid under structured credit facilities, such as a Personal Contract Plan (“PCP”) for a vehicle;
• Whether the “other available assets principle” is applicable to the restraint regime; and
• Whether legal expenses arising from a parallel civil claim, founded on the same facts as the offence for which a defendant is under restraint, are “related to the offence” and precluded by virtue of section 41(4) of the Act.

Reasonableness

Section 41(3)(a) allows restrained funds to be made available for reasonable living expenses and reasonable legal expenses. The ‘legislative steer’ at section 69(2) requires the court to promote the preservation of assets so as to render them available to meet a Confiscation Order. The decision as to what is reasonable is fact sensitive, relating to a defendant’s particular circumstances.

At paragraph 33 of the judgment, the court provides a non-exhaustive list of potentially relevant factors to consider when deciding reasonableness. The factors will be of importance to all practitioners dealing with the issue of reasonableness or otherwise of living expenses. These include:

• Whether the payment is necessary or desirable to improve or maintain the value of the assets available to meet a Confiscation Order;
• The defendant’s assets in relation to the size of any likely Confiscation Order;
• The standard of living enjoyed by the defendant prior to the Restraint Order;
• Affordability: the defendant’s means at the time of the Restraint Order or variation application;
• The period of the restraint;
• Whether there is a prima facie case that the existing standard of living is the result of criminal activity; and if so, what standard of living would be enjoyed but for such criminal activity; and
• The amount of the expenditure sought: an absolute level of unreasonableness.

In a significant departure from status quo, the judgment moves away from the previously test that a defendant under restraint can maintain pre-restraint expenditure provided he does not enjoy a “Rolls Royce lifestyle”. This trite term, which has commonly been used since Re: D and D (1992) (Unreported) is no longer of application.  Instead, the court must address its mind to a more objective standard of reasonableness, taking account of the factors above, in accordance with the legislative steer.

Lexi Holdings

The Court found that the fact that living expenses are incurred on unsecured credit does not of itself prevent them being permissible under a Restraint Order. Many ordinary and reasonable living expenses are incurred on unsecured credit (e.g., food and clothes purchased with a credit or debit card). Living expenses are not to be precluded merely because they are incurred by way of unsecured credit. Renting a car may constitute a reasonable living expense. A PCP is a common method of buying a car on financing terms. It is for the court to determine whether renting a car in the circumstances is a reasonable living expense permissible under the Act.

The judgment will have significant effect for those practitioners who deal with exceptions to restraint orders and the approach to prima facie third party debts which are in fact structured facilities for the payment of living expenses in arrears.

Other Available Assets Principle

It is well established that in civil Freezing Order cases, where a defendant has assets available to meet living or legal expenses which are not caught by the restraint, he is expected to resort to those funds as he will not be allowed to draw on the restrained assets. This is known as ‘the other assets principle’. The court was of the view that this principle also applies to restrained funds under section 41 of the Act.

Where living expenses cannot be shown to be reasonable, or where there are other available assets (to whomsoever they may belong), funds will not be made available from the restrained assets.

Legal Expenses

Section 41(4) of the Act contains an absolute prohibition on permitting expenditure on “legal expenses related to the offence”.  However, the court held that the Act does not prohibit the use of restrained funds being used for reasonable legal expenditure in civil proceedings arising in whole, or in part, to the same factual enquiry which gives rise to the Restraint Order. The court made clear that this does not mean that such expenditure will always be allowed. The court should exercise its discretion in line with the legislative steer. The court should exercise a measure of control in relation to the nature and extent of permitted spending. Consideration should be given to countervailing factors, e.g., where a defendant’s interest in civil proceedings can be adequately protected by his legally represented co-defendants.

Consumer and Restraint

R v Hunter and Smith [2021] EWCA Crim 1785; 11 WLUK 384 Ben represented both appellants in this case, leading Rhodri James. The Court of Appeal considered components of fraudulent trading, Companies Act 2006, s.993(1), in the “Ed Sheeran” ticket touting case where profit was made by reselling tickets for sporting and cultural events, in breach of ostensible restrictions imposed by event organisers. The s.993(1) offence was not subject to limitations of conspiracy to defraud; no requirement for prosecution to prove intention to deceive. Where criminal allegation is founded on breach of civil law, the judge must rule on the breaches before the jury decides the criminal issues. The case involved the “fairness” and enforceability under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 of the event organisers terms and conditions of sale which impose restrictions on the purchase and resale of tickets and the risk of ticket nullity, the status in law of a “ticket” and the scope, effect and operation of the doctrine of “equity’s darling”.

Worldwide Tickets Limits v North Yorkshire County Council 4 WLUK 418 Ben acted for the four appellants in the first secondary ticketing s.90 Consumer Rights Act 2015 appeals before the President of the FTT General Regulatory Chamber. He raised procedural impropriety and the four appeals succeeded paving the way to concessions that the penalties imposed in other cases were not safe, due to procedural manipulation by the enforcement authority. The penalties were also found (technically given that the appeals succeeded) to breach natural justice.

PIPCU operation Ben advised the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit in relation to programmatic advertising and infringing websites.

R v Pegram et al Ben, leading Aparna Rao, prosecuting for the Specialist Fraud Division, secured convictions against four men who used the foundry website to distribute films, including The Expendables 3, illegally before their official release dates by torrent software and “seedboxes” for the “MiLLENiUM” release group, costing the film industry a minimum of £8.5 million.

R (TM Eye) v Pama Ben, leading Dominic Lewis, successfully opposed an appeal by TM Eye against the DPP for discontinuing a private prosecution for alleged trade mark fraud.

R v Brook Ben successfully prosecuted three defendants who used a file transfer protocol to distribute infringing material to the public.

Operation Tambourine In two separate trials, Ben succeeded in prosecuting three members of an international trade marks and copyright fraud in which infringing goods were brought in from China.

In Operation Taylor, Ben - instructed by Kevin Hansford of the Specialist Fraud Division - prosecuted companies and individuals involved in the movement of hundreds of thousands of doses of temazepam and diazepam as well as medicinal products.

Ben also represented Stephen Oliver - the first defendant in Operation Cleo, an alleged multimillion pound fraud involving supposedly copycat “Government Gateway” websites. The cases received widespread national publicity as a flagship prosecution of National Trading Standards.

In Operation Albatross, Ben - instructed by Ayo Awoyungbo and Bryony Dean of the MHRA Unit of the Welfare, Rural and Health Division of CPS HQ - prosecuted the directors of a company for illegally importing counterfeit Durex condoms. The operation has been the subject of a BBC Fake Britain documentary due to the public health implications of counterfeit contraceptives.

In DBIS v Rees, Ben was leading defence counsel in criminal proceedings involving the alleged breaches of a director’s disqualification order in the context of two separate companies.

Ben and Edward Jenkins QC appeared for London Borough of Merton (instructed by Head of Civic and Legal Services, Merton London Borough Council) in Merton, LBC v Sinclair Collis Ltd [2010] EWHC 3089 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 286; [2010] All ER (D) 68

(Nov); [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1570; (2010) 175 J.P. 11.

They successfully argued that, notwithstanding the civil complaint procedure embodied in s 7(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (as amended), a sale of tobacco to a person under the age of 18 through a cigarette vending machine was capable of being an offence contrary to s 7(1) of the 1933 Act.

In Operation Citrus / Bedford County Council v M, Ben was retained to advise on complex restraint and management receivership issues in a multimillion pound advance fee / consumer fraud.

Ben was counsel for Merton LBC and the Central Fraud Group in Operation Cantonese - a successful prosecution of three men for conspiracy to defraud through betting tipster and advance fee frauds relating to bloodstock. The confiscation involved tracing assets in the Middle East and Cyprus.

Ben was also involved in Merton, LBC v Tesco as counsel for the Local Authority in a food safety case against Tesco, concerning its flagship store in New Malden. The case resulted in its highest fine ever for a food-safety offence.

Ben was Counsel for the Respondent in the largest civil recovery case of all time: Asset Recovery Agency v Green EWHC 3168 (Admin); WL 3719494; Times, February 27, 2006. This is a leading case defining “criminal property” in restraint (Part 5 of POCA).

Serious Crime Notman

Ben, leading Debi Gould, appeared for the Crown in Notman, a case involving the savage killing of young woman by her partner when he was in a psychotic state brought on by cannabis ingestion: 

Media coverage:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/24/man-jailed-for-killing-girlfriend-after-he-ate-a-cannabis-brownie15661076/#:~:text=A%20man%20has%20been%20jailed,brownie%20infused%20with%20the%20drug 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-stabbed-partner-space-cake-b1963857.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10213447/Killer-ate-weed-brownie-filmed-stabbing-strangling-girlfriend-hitting-car.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-59325877

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killer-who-stabbed-ran-over-25537837

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16840730/killer-boyfriend-high-cannabis-jailed-eight-years/

https://news.sky.com/story/lauren-bloomer-death-jake-notman-jailed-for-killing-girlfriend-during-psychotic-episode-after-eating-cannabis-brownie-12477345

Murder – A Forensically Complex Case R v Thabet

Ben, leading Debi Gould, prosecuted Ameen Thabet for the murder of his secret former Sharia law wife.  After a five week, forensically complex trial he was convicted of her murder.  The following day, he confessed. The victim was one of those described in a New York Times article as being “in peril” of not seeing justice and her name was read by Jess Phillips MP in Parliament as one of those women at risk of not seeing justice.

Media coverage:

BBC News – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-56447380

Daily Mail – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9376731/Businessman-50-jailed-life-strangling-secret-second-wife-death.html

New York Times – https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/02/world/europe/uk-coronavirus-domestic-abuse.html

Murder Acquittal – Gangland Killing - R v Q

Ben, leading Amy Jackson of St Philips Chambers, Birmingham, represented Q, who was alleged to have conspired to murder three people shot in the gangland killing of Dante Mullings. He was also alleged to have conspired to possess a firearm to endanger life.

After a three-and-a-half-month trial, Q, who burned the car used in the shooting was acquitted of both counts.  Four defendants were convicted and sentenced to a total of 113 years’ imprisonment.

Media coverage:

Daily Mail – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9458941/Four-men-jailed-total-113-years-conspiring-murder.html

Daily Mirror – https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/car-sprayed-bullets-deadly-drive-23450113

Convictions In Brutal Robbery, Fraud and Manslaughter Case - R v Sweeney and Cronin

Ben, leading Justin Jarmola of St Ives Chambers, Birmingham, successfully prosecuted Sean Sweeney and Sharon Cronin for the robbery, fraud and manslaughter of Mark Lloyd. Cronin ran a technical psychological defence which was rejected by the jury.

Media coverage:

BBC News – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-54343588

Birmingham Mail – https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/live-mark-lloyd-trial-manslaughter-18969540

MSN News – https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsbirmingham/mark-lloyd-mums-tragic-tribute-as-shannon-cronin-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-and-robbery/ar-BB19uM5e

Drive By Murder

R v Q – a drive-by shooting of three men, including the alleged murder of one.

Media coverage:

BBC News – Ladywood shooting: Man killed by ‘masked men in drive-by’

R v C – A case involving a one-punch manslaughter.

Ben was named The Times Lawyer Of The Week for his successful prosecution of Ieuan Harley for the murder of David Gaut, who had himself served over 30 years in prison for the murder of a baby.

Ben, leading Amy Jackson (of St Ives Chambers), represented a 19-year-old indicted for conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life in connection with a drive-by shooting in Birmingham in R v B, et al.

Ben also worked on R v C - a case involving a one-punch manslaughter.

Ben appeared in the High Court in a murder concerning the right of a deponent to claim the privilege against self-incrimination.

Baby smuggling.

Ben, leading Sharon Bailey of Tuckers, is instructed in R v L - a baby shaking case involving experts in five disciplines.

Ben secured convictions when he prosecuted two “Miracle Baby” cases where the defendant “mother” in each case claimed that she had genuinely given birth to a baby smuggled into the UK having had Nigerian herbal treatment.

Ben, leading Aparna Rao, represented a defendant charged with two counts of conspiracy to bugger dating back to the 1980s when the defendant was alleged to have procured the buggery of a man by a vicar and healthcare worker.

In Operation Throughout, Ben secured the conviction of a defendant for importing 144 kilograms of ketamine from India.

Meanwhile, Ben was instrumental in Operations Cook, Siberian, Tuna and other related UKBA and Serious Organised Crime Agency operations.

Ben and Justin Cole (now HH Judge Cole) were judicially commended by HHJ Ross for their conduct of a complex and substantial drugs importation trial at the Crown Court at Reading.

The case brought together six separate investigations by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the UKBA and Police. It involved over two tons of cannabis and 20 kilograms of cocaine. The six men indicted were all convicted, with the first defendant receiving a sentence of 24 years' imprisonment.

Deputy High Court Judge (King’s Bench Division) with authorisation to sit in the Administrative Court, 2021  

Recorder of the Crown Court. The Fraud Lawyers' Association. Fraud Advisory Panel

Accredited advocacy trainer for Gray's Inn.

Ben is also an attorney-at-law in Grenada, with rights of audience in the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.

Publications, Training and Seminars

AI in Criminal Law, Aine Josephine Tyrell and Ben Douglas-Jones KC 2025, Bloomsbury Professional

Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2026, Sweet & Maxwell

Rook and Ward on Sexual Offences, Sweet & Maxwell

Crown Court Compendium – ad hoc author

Expert Evidence: A Practitioner’s Guide to Effective Psychological Evidence in Judicial Settings edited by Leam A Craig, Wiley

Human Rights in Criminal Law, Douglas-Jones KC, Bunting, Mason, Newton; Bloomsbury Professional, 2023

Ben is author and editor of Southwell, Brewer and Douglas-Jones KC – Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery Law in Practice; Bloomsbury Professional.

Blackstone’s Guide to the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Ben has co-written the 2019 CPS Guidance on charging and prosecuting victims of human trafficking, the Law Society Guidance on defending people who might be victims of human trafficking and the refugee defence and the Judicial College Guidance on trying defendants who might be victims of trafficking or slavery.

Ben has conducted human trafficking training with Beyond Borders in the Middle East. At these events, Ben trains public prosecutors, judges and ministerial officers - informing them of key legal issues concerning human trafficking and slavery.

Lexis Nexis Webinar Commercial Series - Consumer Rights Package; with Claire Andrews, Head of Gough Square Chambers, Ben delivered a webinar (transcript published) concerning the regulatory framework including the new Bill.

Conspiring to define conspiracy to defraud - an article published in The Lawyer concerning the changes in the law with regard to conspiracy to defraud.

The difference between civil and criminal contempt of court - a Lexis Nexis interview