I was born and brought up in London – qualifying as a solicitor in 1999 after completing my training contract with Venters & Co Solicitors and I’m currently an associate with HJA. I am a dedicated criminal defence solicitor covering all aspects of criminal defence and regulatory work having demonstrated commitment to my cases over the last 15 years. I am experienced in offences of violence including Murder and Firearms matters and a number of sexual offences as well as fraud and POCA proceedings.
I represent clients from the moment of arrest right through to trial. My case preparation is full and thorough as is my forensic analysis of cases and my appetite for leaving no stone unturned in relation to all potential defence leads.
I have a strong commitment to ensuring a high service of representation for all clients whether privately paying or assisted by way of legal aid.
“Alfie and I are very grateful for your help and efforts and wish to thank you for your good and clear explanation of the process and advice which helped us immensely.”
“No word to express my thanks for everything what you did to support me with your legal expertise to win the case.”
“I am very pleased with how the interview went the other day at the police station. You were incredibly helpful and professional and I just wanted to thank you for coming down at 6 pm on Wednesday after you had been in court all day.”
“I just wanted to convey my thanks to you for all the hard and conscientious work done on my case. I am very pleased with the outcome and the excellent level of service provided by you and your firm.”
“Absolutely amazing service. Gary Monks is the most amazing and helpful person. Such a pleasure to have had him help me throughout a horrible journey, he kept me smiling. I would always use them for any problems.”
“I am so very pleased to have met you at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court. I thank you very much for the clear explanation and advice you gave from the outset. Thank you for your expertise in the handling of the case and also for recommending and introducing us to Sallie.”
“You did a superb job preparing the case for the appeal, and in managing the whole course of the proceedings. Thank you also for attending court on Friday, and for all of your assistance throughout the day. It really made a big difference you being there, and your comments and insight were invaluable. I greatly enjoyed working with you on this case, and I very much hope that we can work together again in the near future.”
BA(hons) 2:1 Anglia Ruskin University
LPC, College of Law, London
Senior Associate – Hodge Jones & Allen, 2016 – present
Associate Solicitor – Hodge Jones & Allen, 2014 – 2016
Assistant Solicitor and Supervisor – Mackesys Solicitors, 2001 – 2014
Assistant Solicitor – McCormacks, 2000 – 2001
Training contract and Assistant Solicitor – Venters & Co, 1997 – 2000
Private Prosecution: Currently defending an individual in relation to a PP brought by Amazon in relation to a 1.3 million Euro fraud.
R v PH – Defendant accused of possession of indecent images and enters a guilty plea thereby placing himself in breach of a suspended sentence for the same offence; he avoids prison, the judge imposing a further stand-alone suspended sentence.
R v JH – Defendant faces an allegation of possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and having entered a guilty plea avoids straight imprisonment and is made the subject of a suspended sentence.
R v GA – Defendant accused of a number of counts of Insolvency Act Fraud. Successfully ran a fitness to plea argument that lead to the end of the proceedings without the need for disposal under S37 of the Mental Health Act.
R v EH – Acted for 1 of 9 defendants in a £2m conspiracy to supply class A drugs and money laundering allegation.
R v KS – Currently acting for 1 of 8 defendants in a people trafficking matter with an application to dismiss pending.
R v DS – Defendant accused of Murder. Late service of evidence regarding blood splattering served during the trial and successfully negated by defence expert which helped assist in the acquittal after trial.
R v DW – Defendant accused of Murder. CCTV was enhanced that put the Crown’s identification in doubt sufficient for a successful half time submission.
R v AG – Defendant accused of Murder. Convicted at the Crown Court on a construct of joint enterprise which was rejected by the Court of Appeal when they overturned the conviction. The Supreme Court re-instated the conviction albeit on an alternative basis.
R v EG– Represented a Defendant charged with assault by penetration and other similar offences in respect of 4 complainants; acquitted of all charges.
R v AA – Represented a Defendant charged with stranger rape. Actively pursued the CCTV that undermined the complainant’s evidence and lead to an acquittal.
R v SR – Compelling personal mitigation utilised to ensure a 2 year conditional Discharge for possession of an offensive weapon per se; I represented the defendant in the Magistrates Court.
R v TP – I represented a defendant in the Magistrates Court regarding a charge of possession of 20 Ecstasy tablets with intent to supply on a social basis the starting point for which is 18 months and secured a conditional discharge from the Judge following a guilty plea.
R v JT – I represented a man charged with ABH using a glass and following a guilty plea and mitigation he received an absolute discharge.
Membership & Appointments
The London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association
Fraud Lawyers Association
Personal Interests I enjoy walking my dog, wine tasting, attending the gym and reading.
We were recently reminded of the more rigorous regime of case management courtesy of the CPRs in connection with drink drive and failing to provide a specimen cases when faced with instructions that are based on a distrust of the intoxemeter both in terms of the reliability of the readings and where a failure to blow has been recorded on the MGDDA.The comments of former senior DJ Riddle in the Cipriani case (where there were three days of evidence over 5 court days) adopted and approved of by the divisional court in Hassani would leave one in no doubt of the frustration of the court regarding that case and the robust approach to case management that should be adopted moving forwards and to which both defendants and lawyers will be subject.