Alex Jamieson

Barrister

Alex has been consistently recognised as one of the country's leading junior barristers in multiple areas across his specialism including: Fraud, Inquests, Regulatory law, and Crime.
He one of the Attorney General’s panel of Special Advocates, and has the necessary security clearance to represent individuals in closed proceedings, whether before SIAC or any other tribunal.

Directory Recommendations

"He has a controlled and measured approach to advocacy." Legal 500 2020

"Hardworking, with a brilliant brain." Legal 500 2020

"A poised and persuasive advocate." Legal 500 2020

"He knows his cases inside-out and impresses with his attention to detail." "He is very bright and tactical, clients like him because of his relaxed manner." Legal 500, 2018

“He exudes confidence in an understated way” Legal 500 2017

“He has an eloquent and uncompromising approach, combining genuine legal acumen with a practical touch.” Legal 500 2016

Alex is an astute tactician and powerful advocate. The hallmark of his practice is assisting those who find themselves on the wrong-end of significant State intervention.

He often called upon to represent interested persons in inquest proceedings (both families and those under scrutiny). He represented the family a young soldier who died at the notorious “Deepcut” barracks both before the High Court and at the re-inquest, and has been retained to represent the families of many of those killed in the bombing of the Ariana Grande Concert at the Manchester Arena.

Alex has heavy experience in fraud and general criminal cases, particularly where factually and legally complex allegations are concerned. He often appears for those accused of causing fatalities whilst driving.

As well as providing courtroom representation, Alex advises individuals and corporates, particularly in the areas of regulatory compliance and investigations. Recent clients have included international sporting bodies and household-name corporates.

Alex can accept Direct Public Access instruction.

Selected Lectures and Publications

Human Rights and Benefit Calculations – Address to the Criminal Law Friendly Society
Unexplained Wealth Orders – 25 Bedford Row Fraud Group Bulletin
Impairment, Sanction & the Public Interest – Address to the General Dental Council
Approaching the Inquest from the Regulatory Perspective - Address to the Royal College of Nurses
The Regulation of Health & Social Provisions Bill
The Criminal Liability of Companies – for PLC

Professional Memberships

Young Fraud Lawyers
Fraud Lawyer’s Association
Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers
Criminal Bar Association
CyberCrime Practitioners Association

Education

MA (Cantab) in Law, Jesus College, Cambridge

The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms

HMRC v XYZ FC Ongoing instruction to advise and to represent a sporting regulatory body, directly concerned with the investigation. The allegations at issue concern direct VAT and income tax fraud in the transfer of premier league football players, and have already been considered both by the High Court and the Crown Court.
ABC Ltd Advising an SME in relation to allegations of bribery and corruption, arising out of a successful tendering exercise with a well know high-street retailer. Oversight and direction of an internal investigation, advising the corporate and directors on the issue of self-report to law enforcement.
R v RK (Central Criminal Court) defending an NCA prosecution described as the biggest money-laundering prosecution undertaken by the agency. The allegation was of a professional and expert organisation layering tens of millions of the proceeds of organised crime, and transferring those proceeds to havens outside of the jurisdiction. Diligent defence work uncovered endemic flaws within the Crown’s case to the extent that all defendants were ultimately acquitted when the Crown accepted they could no longer properly prosecute the matter.
SFO v Bank PLC Advising the SFO investigation concerning allegations of illegality in a credit-raising exercise conducted by a well-known UK High Street Bank.
R v AJ (Canterbury Crown Court) – Acted for the first defendant in Operation Drayman, a multi-million pound alcohol diversion fraud and associated money laundering.
R v LD (York Crown Court) – Instructed alone to represent a subject of Operation Bryson, a Trading Standards Investigation alleging a multimillion boiler-room fraud. The case focuses on the alleged misselling of trusts and other legal instruments by solicitors and corporates, marketed as avoiding liability to pay for social care.
R v A, B, C and Others (Southwark Crown Court) - Case concerned multi-million pound excise-evasion fraud prosecuted by HMRC. Instructed to advise on any necessary disclosure and amenability of proceedings to a stay as an abuse of process, arising from alleged prosecution irregularities in pre-trial restraint of assets.
R v OO & Others (Wood Green Crown Court) –Led junior for the first defendant in a large-scale mortgage and banking fraud. The case involved allegations of complex criminality, multiple false identities and the defrauding many international lending institutions).
R v SA – Junior alone defending allegations of multi-million banking and cheque fraud on the Post Office and a High Street Bank

RFU v JG: Instructed to advise and represent a Premiership coach in relation to his interim ban from participation in rugby related activity. Negotiated return to practice agreed with the Union after detailed representations on the merits of the case.
FA v AG: The case concerned allegations that a professional footballer had placed bets on the outcomes of matches in competitions in which his team participated, including the FA cup and Football League matches. The case concluded with a modest financial penalty, and no ban from football related activity.
GDC v TA: Defending in a notorious case before the GDC, the registrant was a former dentist to the rich and famous, and the UK’s foremost provider of ‘Invisalign’ invisible orthodontic teeth aligners. He was alleged by the GDC to have continued to accept payments for treatments which were impossible for him to perform since he had ceased making payments to the manufacturers, and had instead diverted funds from the practice. The case required 60 sitting days spread across many months.
GDC v XY: Instructed in a serious and novel case, where the Registrant is alleged to have put the public at risk of infection of serious disease by wilful refusal to accept either his own diagnosis, or proper treatment for it.
R (XYZ) v Commissioner of the Metropolis: Instructed by the Royal College of Nursing, Alex brought judicial review proceedings of the Met Commissioner’s refusal to quash a criminal caution imposed on a nurse. The application was successful with the caution quashed, and the nurse’s record expunged.
GDC v MS: Junior alone in a case concerning complex allegations of clinical incompetence and financial impropriety in the operation of the DenPlan capitation scheme.
NMC v DG : A harrowing case: The Registrant – a senior nurse in charge of a secure mental health facility – was accused of violently assaulting, beating and attempting to smother a series of vulnerable patients in her care. The matter had been prosecuted criminally, but when the CPS did not proceed with the case, the NMC brought the same allegations before the Conduct and Competence Committee. Four apparent eyewitnesses to the abuse (care staff working on the ward) were called to substantiate the allegations. However, in the course of cross examination, it became apparent that the allegations had been made only when one of the four (all close friends) was herself under suspicion for serious misconduct, and had feared the Registrant was about to be a witness against her. In the panel’s words, their evidence was shown to be inconsistent, weak and not worthy of belief. At the close of the Council’s case, a submission of ‘no case to answer’ was granted on each of the counts, with the Registrant entirely exonerated.
NMC v SV: A case of alleged criminal sexual assault and unrelated poor clinical practice. The sexual assault element was found not proven after complainant was discredited in extensive cross-examination. The clinical issues – admitted at the outset – resulted in a caution, and the Registrant was ultimately able to return to practice without restriction.
NMC v AB and XY: Appearing alone for two Registrants in a case arising out of the notorious Parkside Nursing Home Scandal. The allegations were of systematic lack of care and neglect across multiple areas of daily life for vulnerable Residents with complex care needs. The result was one of the longest and most complex single NMC fitness to practice cases, with the substantive hearing listed for 7 consecutive weeks and involving complex, contested expert evidence and thousands of pages of primary material.
NMC v RB: A serious case that arose from the Mid Staffordshire Trust scandal, with the allegations including that the Registrant had been unaware of a patient’s decline and death, since she had been shopping for clothes on eBay. At the conclusion of this contested case, the Registrant was able to return to practice immediately, and subsequently all restrictions upon her practice were removed.

Homicide

R v JG and others: An allegation of joint enterprise murder, prosecuted in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Jogee. The Crown offered no evidence on the murder allegation on the first day of trial and accepted a plea to burglary following submissions before the Court.
R v RI & others: concerning an alleged gangland revenge killing firearms and murder.
R v SA Central Criminal Court - One of the most serious allegations of vehicle homicide to come before the Court in recent times. SL was alleged to have consumed very large quantise of alcohol as well as cocaine, before driving a defective motor vehicle in excess of 55 mph in the 30 mph zone. 7 children were struck and injured by the vehicle before it collided with parked cars at the side of the road, one tragically losing her life at the scene. Further details.
R v CG Central Criminal Court - A case of causing death by dangerous driving in the context of a police pursuit. Following sightings of a drone being flown above HMP Wormwood Scrubs in the early hours of the morning, the defendant embarked upon a 90mph police chase through central London. He lost control of the vehicle and collided with a lamppost, killing his girlfriend who was the other occupant of the car. A drone was recovered from the wreckage of the car, together with drugs and phones. Further details.
R v SL and Another: The defendant faced trial for his part in a serious motorway pileup, which caused the death of another motorist. He was ultimately accepted to have neither been responsible for the fatality, nor to have driven dangerously. The co-defendant received a lengthy prison sentence. Further details.

Trafficking

XX v & others: Presently embargoed. This case involved the most serious allegations of rape, torture and trafficking by an organised group of males, and concerned highly vulnerable complainants. The defendant was acquitted of all charges following submissions at the conclusion of prosecution case.
R v TS and others: (Central Criminal Court) trial. Appearing as led junior for the first defendant, the case concerned conspiracies to traffic Roma women into and within the UK for exploitation and sexual exploitation. The case concerned the making of the Country’s first Modern Slavery prevention orders. In relation to that issue, Alex led the complex legal arguments on behalf of the defendants, which touched upon issues of human rights, extra-territoriality and the proper ambit of enforcement by extradition.
R v JD and another: Appeared alone for the first defendant in an NCA modern slavery prosecution. The case concerned allegations of international trafficking of vulnerable Slovak Roma and subsequent forced servitude throughout the United Kingdom. The indictment spanned many complainants and spanned more than a decade.

Drugs

R v KJ and others (Liverpool CC) Instructed alone to defend a subject of Operation Manhattan investigated by TROJAN and prosecuted by a team led by Queen’s Counsel. The case involved a 30-defendant drug supply network of national reach, said to have deployed sophisticated counter-surveillance technology and techniques over an operative period of several years.
R v RA and others (Maidstone CC) A case deriving from the the English Channel interception of a private yacht, which when examined was found to secreted throughout it more than a ton of high-purity cocaine.
R v ML and others (Basildon CC) Appearing alone against leading and junior counsel for the Crown, Alex defended the first defendant and principle subject of Operation Sunset, a joint prosecution mounted by the Metropolitan Police and Essex Serious and Organised Crime Division . The case concerned a two-year police undercover investigation into the national, multi-kilo cocaine distribution operation of an organised crime group, said to be headed by ML. At the conclusion of the two month trial, ML was acquitted of all charges and released.
R v AS (Wood Green CC) AS was said to have been the head of two different drug supply conspiracies, each concerning in excess of 50kg of heroin. He had absconded from bail and left the country, and so was not present at the initial trials of each conspiracy, each of which resulted in comprehensive convictions. He was arrested upon his return to the country several years later, and Alex appeared alone at the trial of both matters before the same jury, who also heard of his previous conviction for an identical offence. At the conclusion of the trial, Mr AS was acquitted by the jury of involvement in either conspiracy.
R v RP and others: (Central Criminal Court) Defending an NCA prosecution, concerning the ‘King of Benzocaine’, and revolving around alleged multi-ton drug conspiracies and the industrial-scale supply of cutting agents. After a month-long trial, Alex’s client was the only defendant acquitted of all charges by the jury. Further details
R v SC & Others: Appearing alone for the first defendant at trial in this large scale and complex drugs and money laundering conspiracy. The money laundering aspect of the case turned upon the proper construction of section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and has been reported in the Court of Appeal.

Other Serious Organised Crime

R v MM & Others: Instructed for the first defendant in relation to an allegation of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The charges had arisen following 2 years of detailed investigation into the robbery of commercial premises in Putney. MM was the manager present in the premises at the time of the robbery, and had initially been interviewed as a witness. Detailed cell-site, telephone, forensic and ANPR investigations had led to his identification as the mastermind of the crime, and to the arrest of his confederates. At trial, MM was acquitted at the direction of the Judge. The remaining defendants were each convicted by the jury.
R v JB & Others: Defending in a 20 defendant conspiracy to riot and rob, arising out of the London Riots in 2011. The case involved an organised mob descending on cafes in the St John’s Wood area and acting in concert to rob and riot. Served evidence included extensive phone and cell site evidence, expert video identification and contested DNA and fingerprint evidence. JB faced an overwhelming case (being obviously visible on camera wearing a motorcycle helmet, running from police, changing his appearance, and refusing to answer questions in interview). One of 3 defendants acquitted at the conclusion of a 5 week trial during which he did not give evidence.
R v AP & Others: Defending the first defendant in eight-handed criminal proceedings arising from “Operation Canopus”, a year-long covert investigation into an organised crime gang operating in and around Croydon. The allegation was that the defendants had stolen to order dozens of high-powered motorcars, used those vehicles to commit a string of commercial burglaries, and deliberately engaged the police in high speed pursuits through residential streets, often discharging powder fire extinguishers out of vehicle windows in order to facilitate their escape.
R v MB: Possession of firearm with intent, following the discovery of three firearms at his property in the circumstances of his having allegedly threatened his neighbour with a gun. Acquitted