• R v AA & Others [2023] Central Criminal Court (led): AA stood trial alongside three others charged with conspiracy to murder and possession of a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life. The judge directed the jury to find AA not guilty following a successful no case to answer submission.   
   
• R v RB & Another [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: RB is jointly charged with offences of kidnap, false imprisonment, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, possession of an imitation of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and blackmail. The Crown case is that RB and another forced the complainant from the street and into a car with a pistol and drove him to an address where he was tortured.
   
• R v UH [2024] Aylesbury Crown Court: UH was charged with possession of a firearm. The trial involved cross-examination of the Crown’s DNA expert on transference and challenging the Crown’s application for the jury to be informed of UH’s conviction for a previous firearms offence. 

• R v SH & Others [2025] Snaresbrook Crown Court: SH is charged alongside three others with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and violent disorder. The Crown case is that SH was part of a group that attacked the complainant following a road rage incident, and that during the attack the complainant was stabbed seven times. 
   
• R v ZN & Another [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: ZN, a mental health nurse, stood trial on charges of causing grievous bodily harm and care-worker ill-treatment in relation to the restraint of a patient. Following a seven-day trial, which involved experts called by the prosecution and defence on the use of force in healthcare settings, the jury unanimously found ZN not guilty.
   
• R v ID & Another [2025] Snaresbrook Crown Court: ID was jointly charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent arising from his involvement in a fight outside a pub during which the co-defendant bit the complainant’s ear off. Following representations drafted by counsel, the Crown accepted ID’s plea to a lesser charge.
   
• R v ZR [2025] Inner London Crown Court: ZR is jointly charged with robbery of an off-duty police officer. The Crown case is that ZR was part of a group of four persons who violently attacked the police officer and stole his bag. ZR is a young person with diagnoses of a chromosomal condition associated with learning disabilities, developmental delay, autism, and ADHD. 
   
• R v BH & Others [2024] Birmingham Crown Court: BH stood trial with seven others charged with violent disorder in relation to a street fight that occurred on a residential street between two families attending a wedding and at which persons were armed with metal poles and bats. On day nine of trial, the defence successfully applied to discharge the jury and the prosecution subsequently offered no evidence. 
   
• R v BR [2024] Inner London Crown Court: BR was found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. It was alleged that BR had attacked a man unknown to him at a bus stop, causing two fractures to the complainant’s jaw. The defence argued self-defence. 

• R v GW & Another [2025] Lewes Crown Court: GW is charged with offences under the Environmental Protection Act. It is alleged that GW was part of a sophisticated and longstanding conspiracy to illegally deposit baled waste on multiple sites across Surrey, Sussex, and Kent between 2017 and 2019. The evidence exceeds 4,000 pages. 
   
• R v DK & Another [2025] Southwark Crown Court: DK is charged with fraud offences. It is alleged that DK purchased stolen credentials using Bitcoin currencies from a website on the dark web. 
   
• R v CE & Others [2024] Southwark Crown Court: CE was found not guilty of fraud by false representation arising from her alleged involvement in an over £1 million fraud on NatWest Bank following a 12-day trial at Southwark Crown Court with five other defendants. 

Laura is frequently instructed in cases for clients charged with the full spectrum of drug offences. She specialises in drug importation cases and issues of modern slavery. 

• R v RH [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: RH was charged with drug importation in relation to 20 kg of cannabis located in his suitcase whilst exiting Heathrow Airport. RH pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence following extensive mitigation concerning the defendant’s youth, mental disorders, and learning disabilities and his difficult personal circumstances. 
   
• The Commissioner of the Metropolis Police v TA [2023] Stratford Magistrates’ Court: Police applied for a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order (STRO) against TA, who had been convicted of multiple drugs conspiracies for which he was serving a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. The application was successfully opposed on the basis that an order was not necessary to manage the asserted risk. Laura was instructed as fresh counsel for the STRO application and related appeal against sentence.

• R v NP [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: NP was found not guilty of rape, coercive control, and multiple assaults against his former partner. The trial involved careful cross-examination of his former partner to prevent any application by the Crown for the jury to be informed of the defendant’s previous convictions whilst advancing the defence case that the complainant had made a false complaint to obtain independent accommodation after NP’s infidelity towards her. 
   
• R v YM [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: YM was found not guilty of attempted rape. The trial was prosecuted by King’s Counsel. The complainant, a disabled woman, called the police immediately after the incident, however, the defence relied upon her failure to mention the alleged rape until three minutes into that call.   
   
• R v SA [2024] Croydon Crown Court: SA was found not guilty of attempted rape and sexual assault. The trial involved cross-examination of the complainant regarding her criminal convictions for fatal driving offences and previous allegations of rape against other men. 
   
• R v HH [2024] Kingston Crown Court: HH was found not guilty of rape against the complainant whilst she was asleep. The trial was prosecuted by King’s Counsel and involved review of hundreds of messages on the complainant’s phone between HH and complaint witnesses. 
   
• R v BR [2024] Leicester Crown Court: BR was acquitted of two counts of sexual assault against his former partner. Laura successfully applied for an intermediary to assist BR for the duration of the trial, as her client had recently been diagnosed with autism.

Laura is regularly instructed as counsel in protest cases in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal. She has represented members of Palestine Action, Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, and Animal Rising charged with a wide range of criminal offences.

• R v JM & Others [2025] Worcester Crown Court: JM stood trial for public nuisance alongside six others for affixing themselves to a fence outside an industrial diary in protest against the industry’s contribution to climate change and animal cruelty. At the conclusion of the Crown case at trial, a successful no case to answer submission was made, which was then subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal following the prosecution’s appeal.
   
• R v RS & Others [2024] Southwark Crown Court: Laura represented two of five defendants who stood trial charged with criminal damage over £5,000 for their involvement in a protest at the Queen Victoria Monument outside Buckingham Palace. The protest was targeted at dispensations from green initiatives obtained by the Royal Family in respect of Crown land and involved adding plant-based dye to the fountain water.
   
• R v MN & Others [2024] Lewes Crown Court: MN, a Catholic priest, stood trial for public nuisance alongside nine defendants for his involvement in the Insulate Britain protest at the Port of Dover. During trial, Laura sought a ruling that MN’s wearing of his clerical collar was an exercise of his right to manifest his religion and did not create a ‘false impression’ for the jury that he was of man of good character with no previous convictions (MN had a lengthy criminal history for protest offences). 
   
• R v MD-J & Others [2024] Oxford Crown Court: MD-J was jointly charged with affray alongside two others in relation to a street brawl. Following service of an application to dismiss based on incorrect identification, the Crown offered no evidence against MD-J.

• TA v R [2025] Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Court of Appeal has granted leave to appeal against TA’s 14-year sentence imposed for multiple Class A drug conspiracies. The grounds of appeal advance arguments concerning TA’s culpability; his young age, immaturity and background; totality; and disparity with the sentences of other defendants.
   
• RS & Others v R [2025] Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The sentence appeals of RS and four others have been referred to the Court of Appeal. RS received a suspended sentence for criminal damage arising from a peaceful protest at the Queen Victoria Monument outside Buckingham Palace. The grounds of appeal centre on the disproportionality of a custodial sentence in light of the defendants’ rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
   
• OH v R [2023] Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): OH’s sentence of two years’ immediate imprisonment for a Class A drugs offence was quashed on appeal following submissions that the sentencing judge had failed to reduce the sentencing starting point in light of the small quantity of cocaine at issue and to apply a further sentence reduction in light of OH’s strong mitigation. A suspended sentence with no punitive requirements was substituted by the Court of Appeal.

• OA v Germany [2025] Westminster Magistrates’ Court: OA is a 17-year-old Syrian refugee whose extradition is to stand trial for multiple offences of attempted murder. Challenges to his extradition centre on the suicide risk if he is extradited, given OA’s diagnosis of complex PTSD related to his previous experience in German prison, as well as his other vulnerabilities. 
   
• IB v The United States of America [2025] Administrative Court (led): IB is a UK national who was allegedly involved in conspiracies to import cocaine from Curaçao to the USA and launder money. Challenges to his extradition centre on the inadequate care and support available for US federal prisoners with IB’s mental health and learning disabilities, as well as racial disparity in federal sentencing.
   
• FS v Portugal [2025] Administrative Court: FS is a Romanian national arrested on an accusation warrant for offences of aggravated robbery and kidnapping in Portugal. Challenges to his extradition centre on the poor conditions in Portuguese prison, particularly the inadequate healthcare, and FS’s suicide risk if extradited, given his PTSD related to his past attempt at suicide in a Portuguese prison.
   
• TA v Germany [2024] Administrative Court: TA was a Syrian refugee whose extradition was requested for the prosecution of drug offences. His extradition was challenged on grounds that it would be ‘oppressive’, given the impact on TA’s mental health and disproportionate with TA’s right to private life. 
   
• RT v Romania [2024] Administrative Court: The High Court quashed the order imposed by the lower court for RT’s extradition to Romania to serve a 10-month prison sentence for an offence of failing to provide a blood sample. The High Court agreed with the arguments advanced on appeal that, despite RT’s fugitive status, extradition was a disproportionate interference with his rights to private and family life, given the expert psychiatric evidence on the impact that extradition would have on RT’s adult son, who suffered from mental disorders and relied on his father’s support. 
   
• PH v Poland [2024] Administrative Court:The warrant for PH’s extradition to Poland to serve a sentence for fraud offences was withdrawn following an application on behalf of PH to amend the grounds of appeal to add a time served argument.