Martin has over 20 years of experience in all areas of serious crime both defending and prosecuting and has recently finished a month long murder trial where he was instructed by Krystle O’Donnell of EBR Attridge. Frequently instructed to provide advice and assistance prior to charge in a variety of cases from a roadblock shooting by a British soldier in Kabul, Afghanistan, to fatal aircraft crashes in the UK. Martin is experienced in leading legal teams in high pressure factually and legally complex cases, especially where there are multiple defendants, and is known for his strategic and practical approach.

Martin is leading Clea Topolski, instructed by Simon Hancock at Mitchells Solicitors, in restraint and confiscation proceedings at Southwark Crown Court arising from a fraud where over 300 investors lost all their money having been sold partnerships in Ecuadorian gold mine. He is also currently leading Ben Rowe, instructed by Gary Bloxsome and Jennifer Richardson of Blackfords LLP, in a multi-handed trading standards fraud fixed for 14 weeks in Southwark. He is instructed pre-charge by the Pension Regulator, leading Claire Robinson and Libby Anderson, in respect of a multi-handed multi-million-pound fraud.

Martin has extensive experience of regulatory/disciplinary hearings, inquests and investigations for Regulators and for individuals, corporate bodies, charities and other institutions. Worked with and/or against the Civil Aviation Authority, Office of Rail and Road, Nursing and Midwifery Council, Royal College of Nursing, Bar Standards Board and Rugby Football Union. Cases have included advice on jurisdictional issues, prosecutions arising out of fatal crashes (Emiliano Sala), dangerous goods prosecutions (including of Amazon & Sanyo), fitness to practice committees, competitions committees and internal hearings. 

Scappaticci [2021] NIQB 81
Balancing the need for civil proceedings to continue against an individual alleged to have been a state double agent within the Provisional Irish Republican Army in the 1980s and 1990s, against a request for a stay for continuation of an independent police investigation and subsequent criminal proceedings relating to the case. The Court found there would be a long delay before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, which would prejudice the claimants and potentially compromise the evidence. The investigation's materials could be disclosed through a closed material procedure to protect the investigation's integrity.

Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 3849 (QB)

The claimant had been detained by British forces in Iraq in 2004 before being transferred into the custody of US forces and rendered to Afghanistan. It was alleged by the Claimant that his detention had been unlawful and that he had been ill-treated while in detention. He was not released until 2014.

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury
Conjoined administrative and commercial Court proceedings arising from financial measures imposed on Bank Mellat by HM Treasury. Bank Mellat sought damages from HM Treasury, estimated at one point to be in excess of $4 billion.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v. LG, IM & JM [2017] A.C.D. 100
The respondents had been made subject to TPIMs. It was alleged that each of LG, IM & JM ‘are members of, and are or were senior leaders’ of Al-Muhajiroun. The Court upheld the TPIMs subject to amendments to a number of the measures.

R (ono AZ) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] 4 W.L.R. 12
Challenge to the refusal to provide a refugee travel document following an assessment that the Claimant would travel to Syria.

W (Algeria) and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
Involved in these proceedings since 2006. The case was remitted back to SIAC by the Supreme Court – W (Algeria) v. SSHD [2012] 2 AC 115 in SIAC in 2012, returned to the Court of Appeal in 2013 and was then remitted back to SIAC again in 2015. Following lengthy hearings in 2015 SIAC ruled that the individuals could not be returned to Algeria.

ZZ v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] 2 W.L.R. 791
The Court of Appeal in 2011 made a reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on the question of whether an EU citizen might derive from the Directive 2004/38 a procedural right to be told the essence of the case against him on which another Member State had refused him entry in the interests of national security. At the end of 2013 the case returned to the Court of Appeal where the Court stated that the CJEU judgment meant that ZZ must be informed of the essence of the case against him and remitted the case to SIAC. SIAC considered the case in a number of disclosure hearings and a substantive hearing in 2014 before ruling against the Secretary of State and allowing ZZ to return to the UK after nearly 10 years of exclusion.

R (ono SSHD) v. SIAC [2015] 1 WLR 4799
Conjoined preliminary hearing in SIAC to consider disclosure for the lead naturalisation cases and in the Administrative Court when the SSHD sought to review SIAC’s preliminary rulings. This litigation determined the standard of review to be applied within SIAC and the level of disclosure required by the Secretary of State.

R (Binyam Mohamed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2011] Q.B. 218, [2009] 1 WLR 2579, 2653
Relationship between the executive and the judiciary in the context of national security, torture and CIDT in the age of terrorism and the interests of open justice in a democratic society.

Aamer v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2010] ACD 25 SSHD v. Y [2010] ACD 89
Application by a British resident detained in Guantanamo Bay for disclosure of documents held by UK Government under the Norwich Pharmacal principals as a result of allegations of torture/CIDT.

Roberts v. Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2009] PTSR 415
Application by Mr Roberts for disclosure under the Data Protection Act 1998 of a Psychological Report written on him by an employee of the NHS Trust for use by him at a Mental Health Review Tribunal hearing. Mr Roberts had been detained under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 since October 1989. 

R v Aleksandrovas and one other.

Defence Counsel in murder of a homeless man in Brixton. The victim was beaten to death in an incident with no witnesses of CCTV coverage. The Crown relied on a new DNA technique requiring enhanced statistical analysis to match DNA found in a mixed part profile on the victim to that of Mr. Aleksandrovas.

R v. Cuni & others [2018] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 18

Privately instructed in the Court of Appeal in respect of major conspiracy to import Class A drugs

R v. Dzuga & Dzuga
Defence Counsel for the first Defendant where the Defendants faced allegations of trafficking multiple individuals into and around the United Kingdom between 2005 and 2013.

R v. Tafari Deacon
Tafari Deacon faced an allegation of murder relating to the killing by a gang of a young man with a shotgun. He was acquitted at half-time following a successful submission of no case to answer. He then faced a separate trial for possessing a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life, see Attorney General’s Reference Nos 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 of 2014 (Deacon & others) [2014] 2 Cr App R (S) 51

R v. T
Prosecution of a stepfather for sexual assault and assault by penetration of his stepdaughter between the ages of 11 and 14.

R v. S
Defence Counsel in respect of allegations of historical sexual abuse including rape and buggery, stretching back twenty years, against the third eldest child in a family by one of his brothers and two of his sisters.

R v. NW [2010] 2 Cr App R 8
Definition of term ‘present together’ in violent disorder.

R v. Roger Vincent & Others
A huge investigation commenced following the murder of a notorious gangster in Hertfordshire with an AK-47, the first time one was used in the mainland United Kingdom. The investigation gave rise to a lengthy trial where Roger Vincent was alleged to be the gunman. The trial was complicated by the Crown’s wish to place Mr. Vincent’s previous acquittal for murder before the jury.

R v. Khan (Fahad Tariq) [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 95
Sentencing, conspiracy to rob, young offenders.

R v. De Oliveira (Fabio) [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 17
Sentencing, false instruments. 

R v DW and others. 

Defence Counsel in fraud arising from selling partnerships in Ecuadorian Gold mines to over 300 investors who lost all their money.

R v. Ayoub Mohamed

Defence Counsel in two-month trial arising from multi-national money laundering through a number of companies in excess of £25 million and $25million, involved consideration of potential bad character arising from sanctions imposed by US Treasury.

X
Advising company X in respect of allegations of fraud arising from a franchise agreement.

R v. Alexander de Rothschild Hatton
Defence Counsel at the confiscation proceedings. Mr de Rothschild Hatton had been convicted of a number of allegations arising out of him commencing a relationship with a divorcee and deceiving her into handing over in excess of £500,000. The Crown alleged there were substantial hidden assets and that he was a serial offender committing similar offences with other women in the UK, Europe and the USA.

CAA v Henderson
Prosecution for endangering the safety of an aircraft of the organiser/operator of the final flights taken by Emiliano Salah.

Khan v Bar Standards Board [2018] A.C.D. 124

Professional misconduct, Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, sanction.

Y
Advising company Y following an incident resulting in multiple fatalities of members of the public.

CAA v. Amazon UK Services Ltd
Prosecution of Amazon at Southwark Crown Court for breaches of regulation 5(1) of the Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 2002 over a period from late 2013 to the middle of 2015.

CAA v. Iain King
Prosecution under Article 94(1)(c) of the Air Navigation Order 2005 of a flying instructor for falsely certifying a pupil applying for a Private Pilot’s Licence (Helicopters) had completed the required course of training. He also falsely certified eight days of flying which did not take place in the pupil’s logbook. The pupil’s Gazelle helicopter crashed on his first solo flight following the grant of his licence killing the pupil and his wife.