William practices across all areas of criminal law. He has appeared in the Magistrates’, Youth and Crown courts and in the Court of Appeal. He has a calm and approachable manner with his clients and presents robust and persuasive advocacy in the courtroom.
William has particular experience dealing with youth clients and clients with mental illness. He has a comprehensive understanding of telephone and cell site evidence and is regularly instructed to deal with serious and complex matters.
Before coming to the Bar, William gained a range of specialist experience. He spent a year working for a boutique law firm in Malaysia, drafting submissions that were instrumental in achieving the exoneration of death row inmates charged with either murder or drug trafficking in the Malaysian Supreme Court. Prior to this, he spent 9 months in the USA investigating and preparing capital defence cases with Mississippi’s Office of Capital Defense Counsel. William also spent a year practising civil law during his time as a County Court Advocate.
William was instructed to represent a 15-year-old client in a three-day, two-handed Youth Court trial (Certificate for Counsel granted). The Crown sought to adduce the complainant’s evidence as hearsay under section 116(2)(e) (the complaint had stated he was in fear but also did not want to be seen as a “grass”) and the defendant’s initial account to police (not taken under caution) under section 114(d). William successfully opposed both of these applications in oral and written submissions. At the close of the prosecution case (and after skeleton arguments from both sides), the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence for any reasonable court properly to convict and the case was dismissed. Instructed by Joseph Hill & Co.
William was instructed to represent a client in a Crown Court trial. The Crown’s case was that the client had been operating a prominent drugs phone over the course of four months. This burner phone had been seized from the police at an address where the defendant and three other persons were arrested (however only the defendant had been charged). The Crown sought to adduce thousands of pages of cell site evidence to attribute the phone to the client as opposed to the other three persons found at the address.
William was only instructed one working day before the trial (due to previous counsel being unable to deal with the case) and no cell site expert had been instructed (due to late service of cell site data and the client not authorising an application for an adjournment). Notwithstanding these constraints, William was able to successfully highlight the significant limitations of the cell site evidence and secure an acquittal for the client.
William was instructed to represent a client in two trials. In the first trial, during Williams’s cross-examination, the complainant claimed to have a “record of pretty much no violence whatsoever” and that he was “not a violent person”. After making an impromptu non-defendant bad character application, William was able to adduce the complainant’s four cautions for common assault, whilst successfully preventing his client’s bad character from also being adduced. The client was acquitted of four out of five charges and subsequently pleaded guilty to a “second strike” bladed article offence (the second trial), resulting in a six-month conditional charge for all convictions. Instructed by Geoff White Solicitors.
William was instructed to represent a client who had pleaded guilty to dwelling burglary and dangerous driving and not-guilty to two counts of attempted burglary. Following representations being made to the CPS, the Crown offered no evidence on the attempted burglary counts. Citing the case of R v Jessemey  EWCA Crim 175, William successfully argued that the Crown Court’s sentencing powers were limited to those of the Magistrates’ Court and he was able to secure an eight-month suspended sentence for his client. Instructed by Thomas Boyd Whyte.
William was instructed to represent a youth client who was charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Following representations being made to the CPS’ reviewing lawyer regarding the positive NRM referral and the inherent weaknesses of the Crown’s case, the Crown discontinued the charges. Instructed by Paul Martin & Co