Back to members

Simon Heptonstall

Year of call: 1999

Send Email
Download full CV

Practice Profile

I practise principally in crime and personal injury with elements of contract, commercial, landlord & tenant and general common law.  Following a commercial career involving analysis, training and marketing I converted to the Bar; I was the leading student in my BVC year.  Before pupillage I worked in competition law and was a magistrates’ clerk for 12 months.  I came to these chambers after 2 years’ experience as a pupil and tenant in a personal injury and criminal defence set.

Since joining 4 King’s Bench Walk my criminal practice has been equally divided between prosecution and defence work; I believe that balance of instructions assists in the rounded representation for the individual case.  That practice is exclusively in the higher courts and includes the full range of offences in the criminal calendar from low level dishonesty to serious sex and violence.  I regularly appear for the Crown and appellants in the Court of Appeal.  I have been assessed as grade 3 for CPS London work.

My civil practice is mainly fast-track and multi-track trials in the County Court and High Court litigation, together with the advisory and drafting work required for such proceedings.  I deal with personal injuries arising out of simple road accidents to actions brought after prosecution for serious criminal offences.  I have experience of low velocity impact cases and credit hire claims.

I have acted in professional disciplinary proceedings, medical and police, including accepting instructions under the licensed access scheme.

I have been a regular adviser to a local authority licensing committee and have advisory and advocacy experience under the new licensing regime.

In all areas I enjoy cases that require analysis of detailed technical and financial information.

Professional Courses and Development

  • Rape & Serious Sexual Offences
  • Criminal Justice Act 2003
  • Forensic Accounting
  • Sexual Offences Act 2003
  • Proceeds of Crime 2002
  • Human Rights Act 1998
  • Speaker at conference for FME’s and police investigators Raising the Standards of Sex Crime Investigation, Manchester 2007
  • Lecture on professional development to colleagues, including Schedules of Loss, London 2006
  • Regular practitioner advocacy tutor to BVC students at the College of Law, London
  • Mentor to BVC students at Manchester Metropolitan University
  • Inner Temple sponsor

Professional Memberships

  • Personal Injuries Bar Association
  • Criminal Bar Association
  • South Eastern Circuit

Interests

Family, cycling, golf, rugby, snooker

Case Profile

  • Court v Mahadik & others [2006], Cambridge County Court
    Multi-track trial (3 days) for Claimant against 3 Defendants: householders, builders & local authority.  Claimant relied on negligence, failure to comply with building regulations and occupiers’ liability.  Particular issues as to the application of the building regulations, a lacuna in those regulations and the factual matrix as works had subsequently been removed.
  • Whittaker v Sedge [2006], Medway County Court
    Contested possession claim for the Defendant, the disabled son of the Claimant.  Reliance by Defendant on oral contract and unperfected assignment of residential tenancy from a housing association.  Pleading the defence included issues of trusts, surrender and estoppel.
  • R v Reynolds, R v Webb and other conjoined appeals [2007]
    EWCA Crim 538; Times, March 21, 2007
    Court of Appeal decision dealing with errors in the application of the CJA 2003 sentencing regime at first instance; the tension between the mandatory CJA sentences and the Criminal Appeal Act; whether the imposition of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order might avoid the need for Imprisonment for Public Protection and vice-versa; the limits on the power of the Crown Court to alter its sentences.  Instructed for two separate appellants, having not appeared below.
  • R v Ammouchi 8th March 2007 Unreported, 2006/06516/a5
    Court of Appeal reduces sentence for indecent assault, by comparison with maximum sentence for new offence of voyeurism, to allow immediate release.  At my invitation the Court of Appeal then sat as a Magistrates’ Court, under s66 Courts Act, to impose bail conditions in pending summary proceedings.  Court of Appeal then encouraged the Crown Court to use that power more frequently to avoid delays and inconvenience arising from concurrent proceedings in the lower court.  Appeared for the Crown at first instance and on appeal.
  • R v Qayum [2006] EWCA Crim 3265
    Successful appeal against sentence, from the Crown Court at Aylesbury, to time served.  The Court of Appeal deprecated the refusal to obtain a pre-sentence report before imposing immediate imprisonment on the day of conviction of a 45 year old man of positive good character with significant family commitments.  Appeared for the appellant at first instance and on appeal.
  • R v Greaves [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.); [2006] EWCA Crim 641
    Court of Appeal gives guidance on the application of the assumption of ‘dangerousness’ by reference to previous convictions.  Instructed for the Crown having not appeared in the Crown Court at Aylesbury.
  • R v Purday (Steven) & 2 others [2006] EWCA Crim 217
    Successful appeal against sentence, from the Crown Court at Basildon.  The Court of Appeal accepted that in imposing a sentence of 3½ years, on a man with previous violent offences but some personal mitigation, for a guilty plea at the first opportunity to an almost fatal s20 GBH, the sentencing judge had given insufficient discount for the plea or taken too high a starting point.  Appeared for the lead appellant at first instance and on appeal, including seeking leave before the full court.
  • R v Davis [2006], Reading Crown Court
    Prosecuting a series of violent armed robberies in domestic and commercial premises.
  • R v Blackwell [2006], Reading Crown Court
    Prosecuting offences of making indecent images involving complicated computer data.  This was one of the first cases in which the prosecution relied on data that was said to be a fingerprint for an image that was no longer present on the computer.  Careful presentation of the case was required to ensure that both of the Crown’s experts’ evidence was delivered in a way that was understood, related to voluminous written evidence and kept the jury interested, despite the emotive content of the case.