Crime
Giles now exclusively practices in criminal law, where he both prosecutes and defends in the Magistrates’ Court, Youth Court, and Crown Court.
Unusually, for a Midlands-based criminal barrister, Giles also regularly appears in extradition proceedings at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
Giles is hard-working and responsive – he likes to get involved, early, in a party’s preparation for trial. Particularly when defending, Giles takes time and care with his clients to understand their positions and to provide them with reassurance.
Giles is a confident trial advocate and, where appropriate, will fearlessly argue points of law for his clients.
Giles has first-hand experience of the decision-making processes, and culture, of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”). Among other things, Giles was seconded to the CPS as a Senior Crown Prosecutor from May to December 2022.
Giles was appointed as a Legally Qualified Chair of the Police Misconduct Panels for the South Eastern Region in December 2023. He has since transitioned into being a Legally Qualified Person following changes to the law. Giles was appointed to sit in the South-Eastern Region in 2023 and parts of the South-Western region in 2024. Giles’ role brings him into contact with seven different forces.
Reported Cases
- Souza v Souza [2021] EWHC 199 (Fam) (Royal Courts of Justice, Cohen J)
- Ali v Barbosa [2019] EWHC 2776 (Fam); [2020] 2 F.C.R. 263 (Royal Courts of Justice, Lieven J)
Notable Crime Cases
Rex v D.S. (Crown Court sitting at Leicester)
Defended at a trial of wounding with intent (stabbing with a kitchen knife), among other offences, in a domestic context. The Defendant denied presence and put forward an alibi; there was an unsuccessful application by the Defence to exclude CCTV evidence which, the Prosecution said, called the Defendant’s alibi into question. Before the trial, a successful section 8 application produced material that led the Court to the unusual step of granting the Defendant’s application to adduce non-defendant bad character in a domestic abuse case. The Defendant did not give evidence or call any evidence on his behalf. The Defendant was unanimously acquitted by the jury.
Reg v D B (Crown Court sitting at Wolverhampton)
Defended at a trial of issue concerning the possession with intent to supply 6kg of cocaine; the Defendant’s basis of plea asserted she was ‘lesser role’ within the sentencing guidelines. Before the hearing, she was advised abandon her basis of plea and expect a sentence of around ten years imprisonment. At the trial of issue, the basis of plea was abandoned; nevertheless, the Court accepted all of Giles’ submissions and sentenced her to four years imprisonment.
Rex v K A (Crown Court sitting at Birmingham)
Instructed to prosecute a ten-day trial concerning allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour comprising both the ‘violent’ and ‘non-violent’ offences. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the non-violent offence only and received 27months immediate imprisonment consecutive to another sentence.
Reg v S B (Crown Court sitting at Birmingham)
Defended at a sentence involving numerous child images offences and attempting to cause a child to engage in sexual activity which, in turn, involved the making of threats and blackmail. After hearing both sides, including the Defendant’s strong personal mitigation and making various protective/other orders, the Court imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended for 18months.
Rex v H & L (Crown Court sitting at Wolverhampton)
Prosecuted a two-handed seven-day trial concerning allegations of robbery involving six child witnesses. Contested argument to exclude cell-site evidence. Both Defendants were convicted by the jury.
Rex v N S & others (Crown Court sitting at Warwick)
Defended at a seven-day trial concerning a serious violent incident which involved the use of an axe. The Court accepted Giles’ submission of no case to answer in relation to one of the two charges; after N.S. was convicted of affray, the Court accepted Giles’ submissions about the limits of the prosecution’s evidence of N.S.’s involvement – N.S. received a suspended sentence.
