Janick Fielding

An experienced trial advocate, Janick is most often called upon to fight difficult cases in which the odds are stacked against the client. Well known for his fearless cross-examination and excellent closing speeches, Janick has for almost twenty-five years been a first choice for solicitors who have attracted challenging cases, difficult situations and defendants who adamantly refuse to plead in the face of overwhelming evidence. Many of his finest results have come from those cases where the client has already sacked previous counsel after unwanted pressure to plead guilty has been applied.

See below for more information about Janick.

General - About Janick

Janick's tactical skills are increasingly called upon early in a case, sometimes even before a client is charged. His attention to detail and desire to prepare thoroughly to meet and address potential difficulties are well recognised by solicitors who pride themselves on providing a top-class service.

No matter how narrow the defence, regardless of how implausible it may seem on the facts, if the client insists on running it then Janick will be only too pleased to fight it.

Janick's willingness to work closely with his solicitors is often relied upon in managing cases where the client is particularly nervous or vulnerable, or where they have much to lose because of the devastating effect the proceedings they face will have upon their lives.  In such circumstances, Janick can be relied upon to overcome those difficulties and achieve the best results.

The majority of his cases involve the importation and supply of drugs, armed robbery and serious physical or sexual violence. His experience however is far more wide ranging and covers almost all of the criminal spectrum including environmental offences and health and safety.

Janick is also experienced in contesting matters before the Court of Appeal and the Administrative Court, having taken numerous points on conviction and sentence.                  

Janick's practice is increasingly dominated by private instructions, thus allowing him to devote the time and care that each case truly warrants. He will accept a limited number of legal aid briefs, though only very serious or high profile cases.                   


Serious Crime


“If a case requires a tough approach, Janick will deliver without question.”


“Janick is fearless in dealing with judges and witnesses.”



Janick is an experienced criminal defence practitioner, with a very well established practice in London and the South East.

As a first choice counsel for a number of discerning solicitors, it is of no surprise that one eminent partner wrote;

 “I instruct Janick to rip the heart out of the prosecution case.” – Jeremy Yuille (Albin & Co)          

In all circumstances requiring quality defence counsel, Janick is invariably approachable, client-friendly and keen to do his best, often working beyond expectations and through unsociable hours when the case requires it.     

His ability to think around problems, provide fresh perspective and realistic advice adds much needed breadth to any committed legal team.                                                                         



R v Marsh [2021-24] coercive and controlling behaviour and stalking [privately funded]

A complex case arising from a spurned partner’s claim that she was being stalked after enduring years of controlling behaviour. Her case was seemingly supported by a number of staff from the daycare and petting-farm for children with special needs that she had run with the defendant from land on his property.

In reality the defendant was the subject of an elaborate sting conceived by his former partner who prepared and then launched criminal allegations following the defendant’s realisation that she had literally stolen the entire business from under his nose; assets, staff, funding, etc, all while he was away visiting his sons. When he returned to try and deal with this, she had him arrested on the well-prepared false allegations already in place. The police swallowed her story hook, line and sinker.

A forensic defence analysis of the case by solicitors and counsel unpicked the work of the former partner, highlighting her criminal acumen and motives. At the same time, counsel identified significant errors in law and procedure made repeatedly by the police and endorsed by the CPS. Following an incredibly detailed defence statement accompanied by extensive disclosure requirements, counsel drafted and pressed an unanswerable abuse of process application. The Crown, unable to respond as required, ‘reviewed’ the case instead and then conceded.

Counsel secured costs for the defendant. – Maidstone Crown Court.


R v AX [2023] Historic rapes

An exceptionally grave case in which the defendant was accused by his stepdaughter of having groomed her extensively before subjecting her to multiple rapes, several each week, for a period of many years whilst she was a teenager. The complainant, now a qualified solicitor, was extremely well prepared for trial, as it seemed were her mother and sister who were presented as supporting witnesses. Prior to making her allegations, the stepdaughter had sought to secretly record the defendant in an effort to have him provide confessions, although all that were achieved were a collection of videos in which vague family disagreements were aired at considerable length. The Crown nonetheless advanced the same in support of their case.

The defence case was complicated significantly by the defendant himself, a weak and socially inadequate man, who accepted that there had been a single incident when a contact had occurred between the complainant, then aged twelve, and himself which involved a physical interaction but one he denied was sexual. Notwithstanding this limited but nonetheless very damaging concession, the defendant averred that he had been set up by his stepdaughter, evidenced to have been a very controlling young woman who, even as a child, effectively ran the household and had long done exactly as she pleased, despite objections from her parents. The defence contended that she had bullied or coerced others to provide false evidence against him. In particular, it was asserted that the dishonest complaints were callously timed so as to bring about the ejection of the defendant from the family home just after he had ceased to be of any meaningful financial use to his stepdaughter, who’s higher education he had substantially funded. It was advanced that her allegations were designed ultimately to afford her control of the family and their home, the mother being a weak and bullied figure.

Counsel was instructed only a few days before the commencement of this challenging and evidentially overwhelming case but nonetheless advanced detailed and incisive cross-examination, establishing the truth of the familial dynamic, the numerous inconsistencies in the complainant’s account and, boldly, key inconsistencies between the description she had provided of the genitalia of the defendant and the reality of its presentation. Counsel also established that the complainant had sought to condition the defendant to make a confession, promising him falsely that he would receive a non-custodial sentence and that the court would treat the allegations as minor, if he agreed with what she was saying.

After a difficult and very hard-fought trial, with the defendant potentially facing a life sentence on conviction, the jury returned a conviction on the single non-penetrative incident conceded by the defendant and acquitted unanimously on every single one of the hundreds of alleged rapes. – Reading Crown Court.


R v LXR [2023] multiple rape, strangulation, ABH, false imprisonment

A very strong prosecution case in which the defendant had dispensed with the services of his original counsel only two weeks before the first trial. On account of his mental health difficulties, exacerbated by his remand in custody since the allegations were made, he was reluctant to communicate with his team.

The trial and retrial revolved around the claim of his ex-girlfriend that he had forced her from a bus and back to her hostel, subjecting her to numerous injurious assaults en route, including biting her hard in the middle of her forehead, imprisoned her in her hostel room and subjected her to repeated rapes and attempted rapes throughout the night, involving penetration or attempted penetration of all three orifices. The following day, after allegedly damaging her room so that she would be evicted, he had required her to move back in with her mother, from whom she was estranged. After he left her, later that afternoon, she raised the alarm, and family members reported how shocked they were both by her physical and mental state. She presented on medical examination with a multiplicity of injuries to various parts of her body, numbering several dozen in total.

The defence case was that the allegations were in revenge for his infidelity, the defendant and the complainant still being in a relationship. It was claimed that an argument had been sparked between them that night after the defendant had discovered her infidelity with other men and had become upset. They had fought, but only after she had invited him to her room. She was larger and stronger than him, and she had run out of the room before he had caught her and brought her back, an episode captured on the hostel’s CCTV. Albeit she had numerous injuries, the defence case was that a number had pre-existed their meeting that night and she had in fact told him how she had come by them. Others, such as the bite to the forehead, were said never to have existed at all.

The cases featured complex argument on the permissibility of cross-examination based on sexual history, bad character evidence (the defendant was previously convicted of sexual assaults against another female) and, in the retrial, the admissibility of expert evidence concerning the alleged presentation of the bite to the forehead.

Counsel twice cross-examined in detail the complainant, and recent complaint witnesses, the investigating officers and, in the retrial, a medical expert in relation to the existence or otherwise of the alleged bite. The defendant was difficult to manage in and out of the witness box on account of his circumstances, condition and the fear of a potential life sentence on conviction. Both defence speeches were especially difficult to craft given the weight of the evidence and in particular the existence of his previous sexual offending.

At the first trial, the defendant was convicted only of the false imprisonment with the jury hung on the remainder. At the retrial the defendant was acquitted of all the rapes and some of the violence, with the jury hung on the remaining ABH matters. The Crown declined to pursue a third trial and not guilty verdicts were entered on the counts still live. The defendant was released immediately from custody. - trial and retrial at Snaresbrook Crown Court.


R v Ahmed [2023] rape, sexual assault

The defendant was alleged to have taken advantage of fellow-drug abusers whilst left alone in their company. He was cast by the Crown as an individual who would fashion opportunity to force himself upon lone vulnerable females desperate to score by any means the drugs they craved.

The case was flawed by evidence that was on analysis found to be incredible. Counsel’s detailed defence statement was sufficient to require a review of the case, resulting in its disintegration before trial.


R v HX [2022-23] rape, strangulation, controlling and coercive behaviour, ABH

Counsel, leading Kirsty Day, secured unanimous acquittals in respect of multiple allegations of rape and coercive and controlling behaviour alleged to have been committed by the defendant over the course of a two and a half year relationship.

The defendant had been especially challenging to represent and indeed to present to the jury on account of being an opinionated, self-acclaimed lifestyle guru who lectured on ‘re-wiring the mind’, with an interest in the substantiation of polygamy, albeit in his own relationships the evidence suggested that this might have been a rather one-way street.

The complainant was difficult to cross-examine, presenting as an eloquent woman who was well-able to describe how she had endured a number of assaults and suffered numerous injuries during the course of many physical interactions with the defendant. The jury were shown detailed photographs of the same, medical records and contemporaneous footage, including ABE interviews in which the complainant was seen to break down whilst reliving her ordeals. There was graphic evidence from an eye-witness, a friend who had arrived to try and rescue the complainant. There was also footage of the defendant being verbally abusive to the complainant in public, shot by neighbours who had seen some of the defendant’s behaviour toward the complainant.

Counsel established with great care the nature of the relationship and the volatile interactions between the two, as well as counter-balancing evidence of the bond that had existed between them. The wider background demonstrated that the entire relationship had been suffused by a wholly excessive consumption of cannabis.

The defendant insisted in cross-examination on telling the jury all about the ‘toxic masculinity’ that women needed to guard against expressing, a position that did not make counsel’s task any easier. Notwithstanding the violence, and the defendant’s mindset, it was established, the admitted conduct of the defendant notwithstanding, that the complainant’s claims of rape and coercion were vengeful fabrications following the final collapse of their relationship. The case was a good example of how even people with the most unattractive views and personality traits can be defended successfully in the face of what may appear on first consideration to be very substantial and compelling evidence. – Isleworth Crown Court.


R v Sensei O [2022-23] historic indecent assault

The defendant, a long-retired but accomplished sensei from a well-respected karate club found himself the subject of an allegation of indecent assault arising from a claim that during a karate camp in the summer holidays sometime around the early 90’s he had tried to force himself upon an underage student one evening behind the shower block on the camp site. The allegation was particularly egregious because it was brought when he was both fighting cancer and after the other eminent sensei from the same club, a man who would have been an invaluable witness, had passed-away.

The Crown’s case rapidly unravelled under detailed cross-examination, establishing that the Complainant had been a troubled child with an infatuation for her sensei, one that had led to her creating florid fantasies about him, some of which she had even recorded. It was established too that the defendant had even had to be chaperoned by directors of the club in order to shield him from her unwanted and unsolicited advances. Other claims were countered by defence witnesses who were able to recall events and attest to the Complainant’s fabrication of key details.

A swift and unanimous acquittal – Oxford Crown Court.


R v Antwi [2021-22] GBH

The defendant, a sectioned inpatient in a secure hospital, had become embroiled with an orderly over an argument about his medication and in particular whether or not he had taken it. This escalated and resulted in an altercation during which the defendant struck the orderly to the head with an X-box. The two were separated and hospital life continued. Three weeks later, the orderly was rushed to hospital after collapsing. There then followed the discovery of a subdural haemorrhage. It was the Crown’s case that the same was a delayed occurrence arising solely from the altercation, which was evidenced both by the complainant and the CCTV footage from the room where the altercation had taken place. The defence case was that a delayed subdural haemorrhage, especially one delayed three weeks, was a very rare and most unlikely occurrence, especially in the circumstances of the incident from which the same was said to have arisen. Given the highly-specialised nature of the issue, the Crown lined-up two experts and the defence secured their own.

After careful positioning and presentation of the defence case, the Crown conceded just prior to trial. – Lewes Crown Court.


R v Bloomfield [2020-22] Historic sexual assault [privately funded]

The defendant, a family man, in his mid-sixties and of lifelong impeccable character, found himself in 2017 accused out of the blue in relation to a string of sexual offences, allegedly committed against a female member of a social group with whom he had a connection over 30 years previously.

Counsel drafted a detailed account to be advanced in his defence statement, providing the minutiae of his work history for the police to investigate alibi such that key allegations could be contradicted. At trial, counsel dealt with numerous deliberately-late, often mid-evidence disclosures from the complainant, established her dishonesty in a number of respects, dealt effectively with several prosecution witnesses who changed their evidence, assisted the defendant with managing the mental health trauma caused to him by the allegations such that he was able when called upon to give evidence himself, and marshalled a wealth of invaluable character evidence that was then deployed in support.

The first jury were hung, and on the retrial the defendant was acquitted on all counts unanimously. – trial and retrial at Bournemouth Crown Court.


For more cases see Janick's serious crime cv


Privately Paid Road Traffic

Janick’s experience as a heavyweight criminal defence barrister makes him highly sought in defending private road traffic instructions. His keen eye for legal argument and advanced case handling skills ensure that the fee-paying client receives the best service possible.

Whereas some solicitors may take substantial funds and afford the client a junior, inexperienced counsel, those solicitors instructing Janick are the ones ready to go the extra distance for the client, prepare their cases thoroughly together with counsel and bring to bear the same tactics and consideration that would be seen in a murder or armed robbery trial.

Significant private fees are however required. As any competent solicitor will tell you, careful preparation and attention to detail cannot be provided on anything as low as legal aid rates for the majority of such cases. Further, to secure Janick’s availability, other lengthier work has invariably to be returned or instruction refused.


Notable Cases:

(Greater detail is given in respect of some road traffic case examples than in other areas of the CV so as to demonstrate the completeness of the preparation engaged in.)

R v Leeman [2022] dangerous driving, speeding, diving under the influence of cocaine

The defendant was alleged to have consumed a significant quantity of cocaine, such that he was sixteen times over the legal limit, before boarding his pickup truck at night. When police tried to stop him, he rammed one of them out of the way, then sped off through the centre of Maldon, reaching speeds of 100mph, eventually striking a roundabout, which sent his truck into the air. On landing it crashed, causing irreparable damage. Through careful gathering and presentation of character and mental health evidence, counsel was able to persuade the court that an immediate prison sentence was not necessary in this case.

R v Saitch [2018-19] speeding

The defendant was caught by a motorway speed camera at 101mph. She argued that she had been doing no more than 70mph. Her case appeared supported by her father who was travelling in the car immediately behind and had not been caught by the same automated camera.

The Crown sought to rely upon the sufficiency of their own equipment and the possibility that the defendant’s father’s car might have been obscured by a fortuitously placed HGV. Nonetheless, counsel deployed a case statement with disclosure list requiring various materials from the Crown which, over the course of subsequent hearings, they erroneously claimed already to have supplied or which they said were not disclosable. After repeated hearings the Crown eventually conceded the matter and the defendant was acquitted and awarded costs. (Staines Magistrates Court.)

R v Ilgin Williams [2016-17] failing to provide

The defendant was charged having failed to provide a specimen of breath at the road side and then again at the police station. On the latter occasion she had had no fewer than six opportunities, all of which had been recorded on video.

The defence case was that she had just been the victim of a sustained assault at the hands of her boyfriend and had been so traumatised that she had been unable to summon sufficient breath to satisfy the roadside requirements. Thereafter, her trauma had been compounded by her arrest and detention and she had been in such a state that she could not provide the sample as required, even though she had tried her best.

The Crown asserted, without evidence, that there had been no assault upon her, that the same was a convenient excuse to evade liability and that she had failed the tests deliberately because she knew she was over the limit. Officers gave the traditional accounts of slurred speech, glazed eyes and the smell of intoxicating liquor on her breath.

On the advice of counsel, expert reports were obtained from two eminent practitioners; a pathologist and a psychiatrist. The Crown were also pressed in respect of their defective disclosure. The officers, both on the scene and in charge of the investigation were challenged in relation to the observation of their duties and their honesty.

The defence established that there had indeed been a serious assault on the complainant, that her injuries were consistent with multiple recent trauma, that she was mentally shocked by what had occurred, that the same had been compounded by the conduct of the police, that she had subsequently developed post-traumatic stress disorder and that it was most unlikely she would at the material time have been able to comply with the requests for a sample of her breath. It was also established that the officer in charge o the case had lied in relation to the conduct of her investigation. Of particular concern, she had been unable to explain how it was that photographs showing fresh injuries on the defendant’s face, taken on her arrival at the police station, had been buried during the original trial and had then surfaced following defence pressure.

The defendant was a lady of hitherto impeccable character, mother of a special needs child and experienced school teacher. She stood to lose a great deal on conviction. She was acquitted following a three day trial. (Snaresbrook Crown Court)

R v Foster-Jones (No.2) [2014-15] failing to provide

Following on from his acquittal for dangerous driving, the CPS decided to prosecute the defendant for his having failed to provide a sample of breath when required to do so at the police station. The defence case.


For more cases see Janick's Private Road Traffic CV

Civil and Criminal Fraud


“Janick’s extensive knowledge of technicalities allows him to be able to advise swiftly, and accurately; and also to present compelling arguments before the court.”

“Janick’s written submissions struck the first blow to the Crown’s case; the second, fatal blow to the prosecution was dealt with in his challenge to the witnesses’ evidence.”


An experienced and heavyweight criminal defence practitioner, Janick is called upon when a fight is required. Never one to shy away from a direct assault upon the prosecution case, he is exactly the type of barrister sought by clients who expect to see attack as part of their defence.

As can be seen from the high-profile nature of cases he has been asked to defend, Janick is fluent in pre-trial tactics, expert instruction and analysis, and the deployment of searching disclosure arguments. Abuse of process is also one of his favoured specialities.

Fraud cases in which Janick is instructed are often international. His ability to read around topics relevant to the case, whether that be the dispersal of assets during Chiang Kai-Chek’s China during the second world war or the disintegration of society and medical ills in post-independence Congo, has often afforded his clients a leading edge.

Janick is a keen and effective jury advocate, approachable to clients and tactically astute.

He has a good deal of experience in the Court of Appeal and the Administrative Court, having taken numerous points on conviction and sentence.


R v Halim & ors (trials 1 and 2) [2018-19] – Conspiracy to defraud

The defendant, a high street bank employee, was alleged to have been instrumental in allowing fraudsters to walk into her branch and, often without proper documentation, leave with substantial sums of money. The loss to the bank was millions. The Crown’s evidence included forensic analysis of banking records, consideration of branch CCTV showing the defendant’s conduct and the bank’s own internal investigations. A search of the defendant’s home had also revealed that she had retained PIN details and correspondence of a recently defrauded account.

The defendant’s case, notwithstanding evidence that appeared overwhelming, was that the impression the defendant may have given through her conduct was wrong and that she had in fact been targeted by a well-organised criminal gang on account of her unfamiliarity with her role. Further, the bank’s investigation of her was inherently dishonest and had deliberately exposed her to prosecution when in fact she ought to have been exonerated.

Counsel, who had only been instructed 48 hours before the first trial, established during cross-examination of the bank’s investigator that disclosure to the Crown had been partial and partisan. Moreover, it appeared that the bank’s lead investigator may have misled the court on oath. The trial duly collapsed.

During the retrial, counsel established through lengthy cross-examination a raft of questionable conduct engaged in by the bank’s lead investigator, as well as potential involvement in serious crime by the branch management. Legal arguments and repeated recalling of the investigator revealed an evermore troubling picture of dishonesty and discreditable practices that included misleading the police, misleading the Court on oath, excusing likely criminal conduct by others, failing to pass on material that assisted the defence and seeking to stop witnesses from assisting the defence. The position was further compounded by the police who had failed to spot and act on these events. Counsel ran several arguments to exclude evidence and to stay proceedings as an abuse of process. The second abuse of process argument was unanswerable and the prosecution case was stayed. – Southwark Crown Court.

R v Walker & ors [2018-19] – Money Laundering

The defendant was one of twelve caught in an operation that identified high level theft of monies from a high street bank, followed by a complex process of laundering the proceeds.

The case featured close analysis of the various links between the offenders, particularly through forensic searches of electronic media data.

Complicating this defendant’s position was the fact that he had only recently been acquitted of an almost identical laundering offence, having run the same defence of innocent association. Further, on the face of the papers before the jury in this case, there was evidence of involvement in a third, similar conspiracy. In relation to that latter evidential issue, counsel succeeded in having the evidence excluded. The defendant was acquitted. – Inner London Crown Court

R v Bakker, Scheffer & another (trials 1,2 and 3) [2007 – 2016] - Corruption

The defence of a UN consulting agent charged with alleged corruption offences along with the co-director of their NGO. The third defendant is the company solicitor. The allegation concerns the illegal facilitation of award after bidding for an $80 million UNDP Congolese medical aid grant to Missionpharma, an approved Danish UNDP long term contract provider.

The case was described even in its early stages as one of the most complex the LSC had seen.

Counsel was instructed pre-charge to advise on tactics. Having provided advice throughout the interview stage and through the lower court, counsel oversaw the creation of two defence teams for the first two defendants. Acting thereafter for Scheffer, instructed by three firms of solicitors to date and led variously by Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, Sir Allan Green QC, Gareth Rees QC and Christopher Sallon QC, counsel has been a constant presence throughout the lengthy litigation process.

The case has featured extensive background research, counsel having studied the in-country situation in the DRC. Multi-national disclosure requests of complexity and length have been drafted. Foreign and UN law and procedure have been scrutinised. Several abuse of process arguments have been compiled. This in addition to all of the usual preparations necessary in bringing a complex fraud to trial. - Southwark Crown Court.

R v Lynch-Harwood [2015-16] – Fraud

The defendant had pretended to her employers that she was dying of cancer when in fact she was arranging a situation that would allow her to work from home, have time off and cover for her increasing alcoholism. The deception was complex, involving research into the fabricated condition and the production of letters, purporting to be from medical practitioners, that had been forged. She also stole a six-figure sum from a company tax account and used her position to cover the losses. Her actions were eventually discovered when the CEO, who also had cancer, arranged for flowers to be sent to the hospital where he understood her to be undergoing treatment, only to find them sent back with a message that the hospital had no records of any such patient. The subsequent enquiry revealed a loss in high six figures and significant damage to the company and its prospects in a very competitive market. Although there were no realistic prospects of an acquittal, counsel succeeded over several months in limiting significantly the defendant’s culpability and accordingly secured a very low sentence. – Wood Green Crown Court.

Day & Day v Barker [2013-14] – Malicious prosecution:

The claimants (husband and wife) had been the victim of the defendant's road rage attack.  He drove around their car dangerously, drove at Mr. Day, and rammed their car twice. Having followed and apprehended him, the Mr. Day became involved in an altercation as the defendant fought to escape. On arrival at the scene, the police wrongly arrested Mr. Day, the defendant having alleged that it was the claimant who had driven dangerously. The criminal allegation was swiftly dispatched following counsel's pleadings. The claimants then launched an action against the defendant for malicious prosecution and the damages, physical and emotional, as a result. The defendant’s solicitors contended that their client, though conceding the physical damage occasioned, could not be held responsible for the institution of the criminal prosecution. Counsel averred otherwise. The defendant capitulated, affording significant damages to both claimants as well as costs. Basildon County Court.

R v Wells [2012-14] – Fraud:

The defendant, a GP practice manager was charged in a very serious and extensive accusation of fraud against her employers. Counsel was instructed also to oversee the tactical preparation of the defence generally, the second defendant being the daughter and assistant practice manager. It was said by the prosecution that the first defendant had claimed for additional hours, far in excess of what she could have worked, over a period of several years. Further, that petty cash monies had been repeatedly stolen, direct cash payments were not banked and jobs given to family members who similarly took far greater remuneration than they had been entitled to. The defence case was that the practice, run incompetently and dishonestly by the two partners, had worked the first defendant into the ground. She had been the glue holding the practice together, regularly working sixteen hour days, through weekends and holidays. The defence established through emails and expert analysts that work had been undertaken regularly late into the night and from the very early hours of the morning. In addition, her work boosted practice revenue significantly. The defence contended that the partners had conspired to rid themselves of the defendant to prevent the discovery of serious tax discrepancies for which they were responsible. Issue was taken with the Crown’s preparation and investigation and a lengthy abuse of process argument was readied. The Crown discontinued the case when the defendant developed an aggressive, terminal cancer. Guildford Crown Court.

Knights v Wessex Funding Ltd [2013] – Fraud:

Counsel acted for the parent company of a porn brokers accused by a woman of selling her jewelry given them by a thief or handler following an alleged burglary of her home. The claim was a fraud. The claimant had permitted her husband, a man previously jailed for dishonesty, to porn the jewelry, obtain monies and then seek to recover the considerable value of the jewelry on the subsequent false claim. The case required close analysis of complex facts and background sources in order to unmask the fraudulent claim. The defence case was made all the more difficult by absent witnesses, faulty CCTV and the porn brokers having closed down prior to the hearing of the case. The claim was dismissed and the defendant awarded costs in full. Maidstone County Court.

Re: D [2013] - Restraint proceedings:

Instructed on behalf of the ex.parte company, counsel was tasked with seeking to lift a restraint order imposed against an escrow agent's accounts while he was the subject of an ongoing City of London Police investigation. The Applicant company, based in Switzerland and trading in the rare earth element oxide market, had been forced to suspend trading due to the frozen funds, latterly alleged to be improperly accrued, though little evidence in support of the same was provided. The case featured the late production by police of large volumes of material, some of it complex, far less of it relevant. Identification of the salient issues was paramount. - Plymouth Crown Court.

R v Sandhu & others [2011] – Conspiracy to defraud:

Counsel was specifically recommended and instructed for the first defendant in a multi-handed conspiracy concerning the setting up of fake accounts in order to filter client funds to other institutions. The defendant was a Barclays Bank manager with a high level of access. The evidence on the papers appeared overwhelming, coming from a number of sources, including phone data, banking analysis and fingerprinting. Counsel was chosen due to his reputation for fighting after previous counsel had been sacked for pressurising the defendant to plead.

This was a case in which counsel had to be alive to potential conflicts and cut-throat defences being run by any of the four co-defendants, all lower down on the indictment. The trial featured a range of unheralded difficulties, including the Crown objecting to the defendant quite intentionally running two defences, a prosecution handwriting expert who was served mid-trial and inferential patterns drawn from a variety of phone data charts.  – Birmingham Crown Court.

R v O’Donnell & others [2010 – 11] – Environmental offences and money laundering:

Leading Counsel, instructed to lead Gudrun Young, in defending one of four charged in the largest ever environmental prosecution of its kind.

The defendants had set up unlicensed waste collection operations and then deposited huge amounts of building and other debris onto a site of special scientific interest.  In areas the land level had been raised by four metres. Almost four million pounds was then said to have been laundered through a variety of companies.  The case concerned complex analytical evidence in respect of the environmental issues as well as a substantial amount of financial documentation and surveillance material.

Leading counsel’s robust, uncompromising approach was the reason for his instruction and his defendant was the only one to be acquitted. – Reading / Isleworth Crown Court.

R v Lim and others [2006 - 7] – counterfeiting, fraud

Junior to Gregory Bull QC, representing the ringleader of the largest counterfeiting in British history. The defendant had headed an international team of conspirators who had flown to the UK and presented £180,000,000 in forged £500,000 notes to the Bank of England for realisation, the tip of a claim that was said to amount to £900 billion.

The background to the case required counsel to have a detailed knowledge of the financial and political position of Chiang Kai-Chek’s republican government during the years of Japan’s Manchurian occupation of China, both before and during the second world war.

The case featured analysis of the Bank of England’s procedures over the past 80 years, counterfeiting expertise and evidence of banking processes in Holland.

Having persuaded the trial judge, after an eight day submission of no case, to remove the matter from the jury, the Crown lodged an appeal against the terminatory ruling.

The Court of Appeal upheld the original ruling, with the defendant acquitted and awarded costs. – Southwark Crown Court / Court of Appeal.




Regulatory, Judicial Review, Tribunal and Police Actions:

Janick’s skills as an experienced criminal defence counsel translate well into the litigious realms of judicial review, regulatory and tribunal work. Increasingly called upon to deal with local government and executive matters as well as complaint or disciplinary procedures, Janick is alive to the fact that these cases are likely to have exceptionally serious consequences for individuals, their careers and businesses. Janick deploys the same thorough and ruthless approach in dealing with each of these cases as he would to a jury trial.

With his keen eye for detail, Janick heads straight for the core elements of each action, directing the approach around the salient issues and ensuring the best chances for success. Many of the cases in which he is instructed collapse against his clients before the hearing occurs.

As a specialist in criminal law, Janick comes regularly into contact with the police. His detailed knowledge of codes of practice, policing policies, methods and evolving issues make him well placed to offer tactical advice, draft pleadings and execute actions in this area.

Unlike many practitioners, Janick has no personal or political bias toward either the executive or a civilian complaining of wrongs occasioned by them, preferring instead to throw his weight behind any cause where justice should be done. Janick has represented serving officers, individuals assaulted and injured by the police and those who have a grievance arising from a failure by the police to act in accordance with their duties.

Janick accepts instructions in these areas from all funding sources.

Janick Can be instructed for a preliminary conference and / or written advice where the client wishes to receive an indication of their prospects ahead of launching any action.


Notable cases:

Guildford Borough Council  and Epsom and Ewell Borough Council v Heather  - (2022) – breach of s.179 enforcement notice

The defendant was served with an enforcement notice, barring him from keeping trade waste at his residential property after neighbours who had previously intimidated other residents, made unwarranted complaints to the council. The defendant challenged the notice through the council’s internal procedures, asserting that he had only held materials which came from the renovation of that residential property, but was knocked back. Subsequently and investigator came, took photos and instituted the prosecution.

The defendant and his family were so incensed that they decided to fight the unjust prosecution in its entirety. Counsel was instructed and identified immediately the multiplicity of evidential failings that beset the prosecution case. In addition, it was plain that the usual safeguards that preclude prosecutions that have no merit had been ignored.

The prosecution was eventually discontinued and the defendant formally acquitted. The prosecution then tried to resist the application for the defendant’s legal costs to be paid directly by them. They failed, and the defendant was awarded his costs in full, nearly £20k. – Guildford Crown Court.


Channer v the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police - (2021) – removal of prohibition on possession of firearms

Because the Applicant had been given a suspended sentence exceeding three months, he was required by statute to surrender his firearms, held lawfully under license. The ban was automatic under the Act and precluded him even shooting with other people’s guns, even at authorized events. This was particularly difficult for the defendant as he was a keen shot and an experienced one who had participated at a high level for many years.

Counsel settled argument for a removal of the ban and succeeded in persuading the Court that the same should be lifted with immediate effect. – Reading Crown Court.


Inquest into the death of XX – (2020)

Counsel represented an IP (the husband of the deceased). The deceased, a tetraplegic for some years before her death, had sustained a C4 spinal fracture following an RTA when her partner had run her over following an argument in 2012. Her subsequent condition and treatment was exceptionally complex, as reflected in the substantial medical notes and expert reports. In the months before her death she had been beset by numerous, potentially life-threatening difficulties, many recurrent and most requiring hospital stays. She died in January 2016 following a suspected, illicit administration of insulin. The police had investigated the IP as a suspect for murder, during which an eminent consultant concluded that the only explanation for the medical findings was poisoning, highlighting in his report previous hypoglycaemic episodes and excluding all other possibilities. The only common presence was the IP. None of the served evidence appeared to exculpate the IP. Eight consultants and two professors provided reports.

Through extensive cross-examination over several days, it was demonstrated that there were other possible causes of death, alone or in combination, resulting in unlawful killing being excluded. The narrative verdict absolved the IP completely. He was never charged with murder.

Counsel was instructed only three weeks before the inquest and had immediately got to grips with the complexities of the case, including instructing and having served a crucial expert report from a professor of biomedical science, despite not even having the full records of the deceased before the day of trial.

Counsel conducted detailed cross-examination of numerous consultants through areas they were specialist in, demonstrating on the final day that the expert consultant who had alleged poisoning had ignored key, exculpatory material, declined to consider medical accounts that undermined his own preferred theory and had wedded himself to a conclusion that was not the only explanation for death.

The IP had for four years lived with the incorrect suggestions and allegations that he had killed his partner of 30 years. He was publicly exonerated. – Woking Coroners Court.


Environment Agency v Channer & or – (2019-20) – deposition of controlled waste, failing to prevent breaches of s.33 EPA, incineration of waste, failing to provide descriptions with transfer, failing to provide transfer notices

The defendant, a farmer who had previously been convicted and sentenced for like offences, found himself again facing prosecution by the Environment Agency for repeated and flagrant breaches of the Environmental Protection Act. In short, he was storing and burning substantial quantities of waste, without license and incinerating a large proportion of it on farmland. He was jointly charged with his son, who had conducted most of the activities giving rise to the breaches, and over whom the defendant had ever-decreasing control, notwithstanding his ownership of the land.

Counsel advised on the compilation of mitigation, including vast amounts of character references together with evidentially supported accounts of the difficulties, financial and physical, in the management and removal of such waste for farmers. He advised too on how to separate evidentially the defendant from his wayward son. Counsel subsequently ran an argument submitting that the defendant and his son could be severed, the lesser position of the father entitling him to remain in the lower court for sentence. The District Judge agreed with the submissions, and the defendant was subsequently sentenced but avoided immediate imprisonment. His son was sent to the Crown Court, where he was sentenced to imprisonment. – High Wycombe Magistrates Court.


Trading Standards v Karetnikov and Karetnikova – (2018-19) - sale of counterfeit goods

Counsel acted for both husband and wife who had set up an online Ebay shop trading particularly in counterfeit Disney stock and falsely branded electrical goods, the majority sourced from the Far East.

The case was difficult to manage, featuring a complicated financial background and issues relating to potentially relevant previous conduct.

During the course of proceedings counsel secured the award of wasted costs against the prosecution in relation to their dilatory and generally unacceptable conduct, in particular failing to prepare and present their case in a timely manner.

Despite the overwhelming evidential position presented initially by the prosecution, counsel secured the acquittal of the husband on all eleven charges and the wife, having pleaded to limited offences, avoided immediate imprisonment. – Croydon Crown Court.


Trading Standards v Weller & ors – (2017-19) –  sale of counterfeit goods

Counsel represented the ringleader of a group selling significant quantities of luxury counterfeit goods on a number of internet sites, even after Trading Standards had identified what was happening and attempted to close down the operation. Monies generated by the operation was said to have been in six figures.

The defendant was alleged to have enlisted both his partner and other women with whom he had been in a relationship into his scheme and set up a network covering a significant area.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence, continuation after cease and desist requests and the plea being entered very shortly before trial, counsel managed to secure a sentence that avoided immediate imprisonment and kept the confiscation penalty limited to £20k. – Reading Crown Court.


R v Price

Price v The Chief Constable of Essex - (2011 - 2016) - Claim for damages

After an argument with his then girlfriend, the police were called to her address in respect of a minor criminal damage. Subsequently, having spoken with the client, they attended his address in the small hours of the morning. Purporting to effect an arrest, the four officers subjected the client to a savage assault that left him with multiple injuries including a lung punctured by his own broken rib. He suffered long term physical and mental harm.

The police managed to compound their position by providing sub-standard care in the aftermath. Thereafter, they charged him with four assaults on police, who had suffered trivial injuries at most, and in one case, no discernible injury at all.

Counsel contested the criminal trial in the magistrates court, securing acquittals on all four assault allegations and the criminal damage matter. The client was awarded his costs.

Counsel is oversaw and challenged the IPCC investigation, into both the conduct of the officers and the conduct of Southend Police who failed to deal with the client’s timely complaint.

High Court proceedings in respect of the damages, arising from various heads, sought by the client were concluded late in 2016 with the defendant accepting liability for significant damages and costs.


Milton Keynes Council v The Original Smoke Shack – (2015) – criminal breaches of planning regulations

The clients had leased a Grade II listed building, a former coaching inn, that had at the turn of the last century been transformed into a pub. They in turn transformed the same into a burger restaurant, undertaking some significant works on all floors of the property. This annoyed the local council who had not been provided, let alone granted, any consent to the works being undertaken. A criminal prosecution was launched by the council, who argued that the special historic and architectural interest of the building had been affected and that the same constituted a number of offences against both directors and the company itself.

Initial legal arguments removed much of the emotive material that the council had sought to deploy. With the case refocused on its core ingredients, the defence challenged the basis of the council’s assertion as to affectation of character. Following a number of hearings, the council’s case was withdrawn in its entirety on the morning of trial.


Anderson v Guildford Justices – (2015) – Judicial Review

Counsel led Naomi Carpenter in a complex and urgent application to preclude the Court from hearing a case in which the Crown were not only significantly at fault with their disclosure obligations but had chosen also to ignore key material and lines of enquiry that tended to exculpate the defendant. With trial fast approaching, mandatory time limits needed to be met in short order to ensure the matter was before the Administrative Court and thus preclude the risk of the trial proceeding in the lower court.

The application was a success, costs were awarded in favour of the client and the case against him in the lower court collapsed shortly thereafter.


Conn v the Chief Constable of Surrey – (2015) – Judicial Review

The defendant had purportedly accepted a caution for an offence he could not have committed. On discovering that he had a criminal record and that the same would preclude works he wanted to undertake in the financial services industry, he contacted solicitors with a view to inviting the police force that had administered the caution to expunge it. They refused.

Counsel was instructed to draft a detailed letter before claim. The same was met with stiff opposition. Counsel accordingly settled pleadings, renewing all points identified in the original correspondence. The resistance to the application collapsed wholesale, the client’s caution was expunged and the police agreed to pay costs.


Price v the Commissioner of the IPCC – (2013-14) - Judicial Review

Following on from his successful defence to four fabricated assault charges by Essex Police, a complaint was made to the IPCC prior to the issuing of civil proceedings for damages. The long overdue report they produced was little more than an exercise in excusing the police. On the advice of counsel, judicial review proceedings were commenced. Despite IPCC grandstanding and threats as to costs, counsel’s written submissions secured leave. The IPCC then capitulated in full just days before the final hearing. They also conceded costs.


R v XM (2006–7) – Jury trial

Counsel led Edward Culver in the defence of a serving police officer accused of perverting the course of justice and possession of illegal ammunition. The case was exceptionally serious, attracting attention from very high-ranking officers and resulting in a significant police presence at court.

Despite the intimidating atmosphere, counsel conducted several weeks of detailed legal argument in respect of psychiatric, confession, forensic and disclosure material.

The trial lasted 52 days, resulting in a hung jury.



Education Law

With over 25 years experience in the unforgiving arena of heavyweight criminal defence, Janick is ideally placed to defend the interests of students and teachers who have been accused of offending against rules or codes of conduct in an education setting. More often than not, these cases will involve allegations of serious criminality or have consequences or potential consequences that will affect the client far beyond their immediate surroundings.

Janick’s tactical and legal skillset make him a highly sought counsel, whether as a first-choice tactician directing the management and evolution of proceedings from the earliest stages or as a last line of defence when contested hearings, often brought at short notice, need to be fought and won. Able to operate fluidly in multiple jurisdictions, Janick is adept at controlling all manner of cases; where there are simultaneous proceedings in crime, before governors, at appeal panels, through judicial review, in mediation and beyond. He understands the demands of each and demonstrates an unerring ability to take and maintain control of the entire theatre of operations, dictating shape to cases and carving success through a combination of hard graft and a determined focus.

In both crime and mediation, Janick’s practice has focused significantly on the provision of assistance to those with mental health or social difficulties, particularly those with autism spectrum disorders, PTSD or a history of having endured traumatic abuse or misfortune. This wisdom is readily transferable to any education setting, often providing him with experience and advantages over the opposition. Whilst his considerate and informed approach provides reassurance to clients, affording them a professional shield in times of undoubted stress, his demonstration of a solid and ruthless approach in contested hearings gives comfort that they are in the safest of hands.

Instructing Solicitors have long been able to rely on Janick as an experienced sounding board. He is always accessible and easy to get on with. Workload permitting, he is available to work at short notice and long into the night when needed.

As one senior consultant put it recently;

‘What Janick did to their case was what Godzilla did to Tokyo.’



Notable cases;

XY v A school in Essex (2023) – allegations of possession of a knife

Counsel represented a year nine student when the GDC reviewed a permanent exclusion following the discovery of a Gurkha Kukri knife that had allegedly been taken into school by the boy, only days after his readmittance following off-site tuition directed as a result of violent conduct. Counsel was instructed only days before the hearing and assisted Instructing Solicitors through a number of conferences and in the construction of documents seeking disclosure ahead of the set date.

Following extensive negotiation preceding the commencement of the review, counsel persuaded the head teacher to withdraw the permanent exclusion, this notwithstanding the schoolboy was imminently to be arrested and interviewed for an alleged rape of a pupil at the same school.


XR – First Tier Tribunal case (2023-4)

Counsel drafted complex particulars of claim in preparation for representing an extremely vulnerable primary school child, a PLAC with very substantial care requirements, who had been wrongly excluded from school following a violent incident triggered by the mismanagement of playtime behaviour involving a degree of permissible physical contact by senior members of staff. Having worked long into the early hours of the morning dealing with very late-received material, counsel made a successful emergency application to adjourn the hearing following traumatic incidents immediately before the hearing that precluded the key family witnesses from being able to attend. Rehearing pending…


TX v A free school in southeast England (2022-3) – multiple allegations of indecent assault and possession and transmission of illegal images of children

Instructed on behalf of a permanently excluded 15-year-old, accused for a second time of a string of sexual allegations against fellow pupils, both of which he denied, Janick swiftly found the nefarious nexus between the two seemingly independent sets of incidents, identified the investigational failings of the school and put in train the preparation of a detailed defence, together with required disclosure from the school.

This was a good example of a case in which the client had been on the backfoot and the case was being rushed through by the governors. Janick prepared argument, highlighting the procedural failings evident to date, and advanced a cogent defence. Knowing the governors would likely favour the headmaster, who had been with the school since its creation, Janick also laid the groundwork for the inevitable IRP hearing.

Despite a variety of difficulties caused by the school, Janick ensured that key disclosure was obtained and that, at the hearing, significant damage could be done to the evidence of both the headmaster and the chair of the governors.

The IRP quashed the permanent exclusion and sent the matter back to the school for reconsideration.


A London University v Student B (2023) – allegations of rape

A high-achieving student approaching the end of his degree was accused by his occasional partner of a violent drunken rape. The police were not involved and the university took it upon themselves to deal with the matter in perfunctory manner, as a breach of the own code of conduct. The ramifications of the same would have been disastrous; summary expulsion of the student without any proper investigation, resulting in the end of his degree, career and promising future.

What made this worse was the university knew of the special needs of the student, having commissioned of their own volition a report the previous year to ensure that those teaching him could interact with him effectively. Curiously, this appeared to have been ignored during the robust and prejudicial way in which this matter was approached by them before the parents of the student sought legal assistance.

Counsel was instructed only days before the university planned to hold a half-hour hearing, without the calling of evidence and with limited scope for submissions, before determining the student’s future. Applications for a directions hearing and an adjournment were refused. The university were plainly keen not to engage in any meaningful manner.

Counsel settled judicial review grounds. Although the university protested that this was not a matter in which the same could be engaged, instructing solicitors nonetheless initiated the process. Within two hours of service, the university folded.

Thereafter, the university relented in relation to the need for a directions hearing. Counsel dealt firmly but robustly with the obtuse approach of the tribunal, a body still determined to conduct a brief hearing on the limited and highly prejudicial material available. Preparation of a second judicial review on a similar basis was required, which again the university conceded, albeit this time before it had even been launched.

Thereafter, having secured sufficient time for the case to be properly and fairly presented, and after disclosure of further expert material, the university withdrew proceedings and closed the matter. The University also agreed a substantial figure in damages for losses accrued by the student during their ill-handled proceedings against him. Importantly, the student graduated, on time, with the grade he expected.


A&A v Suffolk Council (2022)  - allegations of failing to ensure a child attends school

Instructed on behalf of parents facing a local authority prosecution for failing to ensure their daughter attended school, Janick identified swiftly the core elements of their defence and deployed them against the LA. In summary, their daughter had been injured by the actions of a teacher during a physical education lesson, thereafter developing complex mental health difficulties not immediately apparent, but suggestive of some level of brain injury and requiring a long process of recovery. Disjointed communication between teachers and the LA, coupled with a general ambivalence toward the child resulted in both parents being prosecuted, in circumstances where they were doing no less than they thought best for their daughter.

Janick identified the core areas and served a detailed defence statement taking on both the school and the LA’s positions head on. Requiring extensive disclosure and relying on early sourced experts, Janick was then able to put the prosecution in a position where their chances of success were effectively nil, even before a trial date had been set, thus saving the clients significant expenditure.

In addition to dealing with the legal and evidential positions, Janick also deal with the conduct of the prosecution, who took every opportunity to pressure the clients by informing them of the costs bill they would need to meet on conviction. Able to provide realistic reassurance, the clients held their nerve and secured acquittals on all charges, as well as costs in their favour.


Call: 1997
BA Anthropology & Law (LSE)
Accredited Mediator 2010
Professional memberships:
Inner Temple
BSB Registration: