Raymond is an experienced senior criminal defence advocate. He has the ability to marshal complicated briefs at short notice. As an advocate, his major attributes are robust cross examination and speech to the jury. His areas of practice range from historic sex cases, high value and complex fraud, to assaults against a person including murder.
Mindful of his duties to the court, he adopts a stylistic, yet successful approach of advocacy to engage with juries.
On several occasions Raymond has been described both by his contemporaries and Judges as being a “smooth” advocate. With regularity, he has been commended by his opponents and Judges.
Raymond has maintained his professional ties with the Caribbean, especially Guyana. He has been briefed at the behest of the Lord Chief Justice to represent numerous clients charged with murder on death row.
Areas of Expertise
Exclusive Criminal Defence including serious offences against the person, sexual offences, fraud, drug cases and all types of multi-handed Criminal Conspiracies.
R v G. CCC. Murder. Led by Lee Karu QC
The Defendant was acquitted of Murder following a 10 day trial at the CCC. As Led Junior my role was fact management and cross referencing multiple witnesses statements in order to assist the QC to mount an effective and probing cross-examination.
R v R. Guildford CC. Attempted Murder
A no case submission was successfully upheld, following a five day trial where the client and his co-defendant were involved in a stabbing incident in a takeaway chicken shop.
R v A. Woolwich CC. Conspiracy-Prison Mutiny
The Client was a serving prisoner (life for murder) and indicted (first on the indictment) with six others with Prison Mutiny. The Crown said that the Client was the ringleader. On the first day of trail after representations and successful negotiation with the Crown, they agreed to offer no evidence against him whilst acceptable pleas were taken in respect of the other six defendants. The case was particularly sensitive given its nature and the fact that most of the defendants were Muslim.
R v M. Isleworth CC. Historic rape
Following a retrial, the client was acquitted on several counts of historic rape. Instructions were not always forthcoming and the strategy formulated at trial was to challenge the Prosecution evidence rigorously. Leave was sought and given to cross-examine as to a previous sexual allegation where the complainant had admitted to the police that she had fabricated an allegation of rape to spite a previous partner. Leave was given and the matter put to the complainant and ultimately, the Jury acquitted the client.
R v O. Snaresbrook CC. Conspiracy to defraud. Leading Junior
The Defendant was Indicted with eight others with a factually complex conspiracy to defraud. He was first on the Indictment. Liability was not contested but to avoid a Newton Hearing on quantum, numerous and lengthy prosecution schedules had to checked and challenged. This was a particularly, paper heavy case. Agreement was reached and the Defendant pleaded to substantives.
R v R. Woolwich CC. Conspiracy to defraud
Received instructions in this matter as a late return. The trial lasted 4 weeks. A very paper heavy case where the nature of the Fraud was European Distribution. The Crown relied upon an expanse of financial documents, mobile phone data and CCTV. The Defendant was said to be central to this conspiracy as his computer contained much of the incriminating evidence. The case demanded intense fact management and detailed analyses of computer and telephone evidence.
R v K. Harrow CC. Conspiracy to supply class A
Successfully defended client (first on the indictment) who, along with seven others, was charged with the conspiracy. He was placed at the top of the chain as he was considerably older than the other co-accused and it was his premises where the bust occurred. The ‘Leem’ defence was put before the jury and proved to be successful.
R v S. Kingston CC. Rape
The Client faced numerous particulars of controlling and Rape. The case was factually detailed and entailed careful cross-examination of the complainant. Many factual issues arose during the trial including disclosure of further witness statements which necessitated revisiting issues in cross-examination, in situ. An issue of late disclosure arose which prompted an application to discharge the jury.
R v P. Wood Green CC. Rape
Historic Rape with two victims who were brothers. The Defence focused on attacking the credibility of the victims, suggesting collusion and questioning the competence of the Police Investigation.
R v J. Isleworth CC. Dangerous driving
The Prosecution evidence was that of Police Officers. Despite robust cross-examination by Prosecuting Counsel the Defendant was acquitted.
R v O. Kingston CC. Conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life
The case involved representing a young vulnerable juvenile and demanded great care. The case involved extensive cross- examination a Police Expert on the meaning of ‘drill’ lyrics, gang culture and detailed forensics of telephone data .Despite conviction, I managed to persuade the Judge in mitigation that, on the evidence, the client given his age was exploited and manipulated by a considerably older co-defendant. The Judge was so persuaded and did not impose a custodial sentence.
R v A. CCC. Murder and Attempted murder
Appeared as Leading Junior in a Case where a car was used as a weapon. Prepared numerous advices to secure Video Enhancement and Collision Expert Reports. The Defendant was acquitted of Murder and Attempted Murder but found guilty of no-intent manslaughter.
- London University, LL.B ( Hons )
- Kings College London, LL.M
- Inns of Court School of Law -
- Hugh Wooding Law School ( Caribbean Bar )
- Called to Bars of Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago
QPR and West Indies supporter
- Criminal Bar Association
- Grays Inn