Barry White

Barry is an experienced junior, who defends serious criminal cases including violence, sexual offences, dishonesty and drugs. He also prosecutes and defends in regulatory and quasi-criminal matters.

Murder, Manslaughter and Non-Fatal Violence

Barry acts as a single defence junior for the full spectrum of serious violence, from attempted murder to ABH. He has an easygoing and personable manner and quickly builds rapport with clients.

• R v H (2021) — The defendant stabbed a man to the neck causing life-changing injuries. He was charged with a s.18. Barry successfully defended him to acquittal on the basis that he had acted, at all times, in self-defence,
• R v H (2020) — Father and son charged with s.18. Their neighbour, with whom there had been a long running feud, had been beaten so badly that he sustained a Lefort II frature pattern to the bones of his face. Barry defended the father successfully.
• R v W (2017) — Attempted Murder: A man with a long and complex history of mental illness, who made a random knife attack on two men in a pub, and subsequently had a psychiatric breakdown, such that he remained unfit to plead up until just before the matter was listed for trial.
• R v T (2017) — Attempted Murder: A man of previous good character who, upon separating from his wife, made a failed attempt at murder-suicide.
• R v R (2017) — Section 18: co-defending alongside a silk where the two defendant’s were alleged to have struck the complainant with a hammer before biting off a portion of his nose. Each had similar previous convictions.

Serious Sexual Offences

Barry is regularly instructed as a defence advocate for all types of sexual allegations, including those where an intermediary is required. His friendly but direct manner allows him to gain the confidence of even the most nervous or difficult client.

• R v K (2021) — The Defendant was charged with the rape of his partner, who alleged he was also controlling and coercive. When interviewed by the police, he confessed to the rape. At trial, the defence case was put on the basis that the confession was in fact made at the complainant’s behest and social media interactions between the two showed that it was the complainant who was coercive and controlling. Defendant acquitted.
• R v H (2021) — Defendant charged with multiple rapes and sexual offences on nine complainants over a 30-year time-period. Barry was the led junior, although dealt with the cross-examination of four of the complainants. Four week trial.
• R v B (2020) – Barry represented the defendant, who was acquitted by a jury, of raping his natural daughter some 30 years previously. Difficult issues relating to brain injuries and alcoholism.
• R v S (2017) — Allegations of non-recent familial sexual abuse for a man of good character, which necessitated applications for disclosure in the family court and the calling of many family witnesses.
• R v G (2017) — An allegation of acquaintance rape, where both complainant and defendant had borderline learning disabilities, necessitating a very gentle approach to both examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
• R v S (2017) — Allegations of sexual activity with a child, plus violence, arising out of a failed consensual relationship. Defendant with ADHD and paranoid personality disorder.
• R v P (2017) — Allegation of possession of a small amount of indecent images of children amongst over one million adult pornographic images. The issue being whether the Defendant had undertaken any deliberate or intentional acts which would have caused such indecent images to be in his possession. This necessitated expert evidence to resolve.

Fraud, Commercial Crime, Confiscation and other Dishonesty Offences

Barry is regularly instructed to defend people accused of all manner of dishonesty offences, from large conspiracies to common or garden burglaries. His civil experience allows him to marshall large amounts of information quickly.

• P v S (2017-…) — Acting for the police in forfeiture proceedings, where the Respondent is found with over £100,000 cash in his house and has significant links to a substantial OCG.
• R v A (2016) — Converting Criminal Property: The Defendant was accused of being part, effectively, of a conspiracy, whereby his account was used to receive substantial amounts of cash from people from around the world who had been duped into thinking they we going to receive a large amount of cash from a crooked Nigerian lawyer.
• R v C (2017) — Confiscation proceedings arising out of regulatory offences for illegal money lending, where the benefit figure was close to £1,000,000.
• R v W (2017) — Complicated confiscation arising out of conspiracy to defraud dealing with issues of joint benefit, the effect of already compromised confiscation proceedings for co-defendants, the effect of appreciating then depreciating share values and how to properly calculate interest.

Drugs Offences

From runners to principal actors in large conspiracies, Barry is regularly instructed to defend those accused of the full range of drugs offences.

• R v V (2021) – Barry represented the lead defendant in a multi-handed drugs conspiracy, where the defendants were moving multiple kilograms of cocaine from the south-east into Devon over an extended period.
• R v C (2019) – Barry represented one of the defendants in a 12-week drugs conspiracy trial at Liverpool Crown Court. Vast quantities of class A and B drugs were being moved from Liverpool down into the south-west and Wales.
• R v W (2019) – The Defendant was accused of physically and sexually abusing and attempting to rape his natural daughter over the course of many years. Two-week trial.
• R v W (2018) — Defending in a multi-handed heroin and crack conspiracy. Significant use of cell-site analysis, mobile phone and ANPR evidence.
• R v T (2018) — Defending “leading role” in a 500kg+ cannabis multi-handed conspiracy.
• R v C & Others (2018) — Defending multiple runners in “county lines” heroin and crack supply case. One of the Defendants subject to cuckooing.

Driving Deaths & Driving Generally

Barry understands that Defendants accused of driving in a criminal manner are often entirely unaccustomed to being within the criminal justice system and can, as a result, require a particularly sensitive approach.

• R v K (2016) — Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving: A woman of previous good character who lost control of her car and crashed into a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, where it was alleged she was driving in an aggressive manner.
• R v P (2016) — Dangerous Driving: Defendant said to be driving so fast around a corner that tyres lost traction on the road. Defence expert evidence showed that, on a normal road surface, traction would not be lost until speeds greatly in excess of what the Defendant could have been doing.

Corporate Manslaughter, Health and Safety and Regulatory Offences

Barry is comfortable with the often technical nature of regulatory offences, can marshall large amounts of information quickly and does not lose sight of the human story behind the allegations. He is happy to act for prosecution or defence in these cases.
Barry regularly appears for the police on matters of a civil/quasi-criminal nature – firearms appeal, forfeiture applications, applications for SROs etc.

• R v McG (2021) — Barry represented one of three defendants charged in a multi-million pound fraud and trading standards case relating to solar panels, appropriate registration and the provision of feed-in tariffs.
• HSE v H (2017) — Defending. HSE offences relating to a park home redevelopment. Allegation that substantial failures during the course of the redevelopment led to real danger of death or personal injury to workers and those already living on site. Poor record of previous compliance. Opaque financial picture.
• R v C (2017) — Defending. Allegation that a car dealer was acting as a money lender without the necessary permissions and that he was committing sexual offences whilst doing so.
• R v C (2016) — Defending a care worker accused of neglecting a patient with significant disabilities who died whilst having a bath.

Parole Board, Prison Adjudications, Inquests and Enquiries and Police Disciplinary

Barry has reasonably regularly appeared in front of the parole board, in particular seeking release for those prisoners still subject to IPP’s. He understands the different approach to advocacy required in such hearings and is all too aware of the difficulty of trying to prove the negative, that a person no longer poses a risk.