Diana Ellis QC

Barrister

Diana Ellis QC initially practiced in general common law but for many years has worked exclusively in the field of criminal law. She is a hugely experienced and committed criminal defence barrister with a substantial domestic practice. She specialises in the most serious criminal offences: murder, armed robbery, sexual abuse, fraud, slavery and extradition. She has extensive experience in International Criminal and Humanitarian Law and during the last 20 years has worked in a number of international courts and has led defence teams in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes cases.

Sources are in awe of her "expert understanding of international criminal law and her strong, uncompromising representation of her clients.Chambers UK

She has had extensive experience in extradition and international mutual legal assistance, representing individuals. She regularly works with lawyers outside the UK on national and international criminal cases assisting with strategy and legal challenges.

Domestic experience includes handling serious criminal cases at both trial & appellate level including fraud and conspiracy, homicide offences, organised crime including drug trafficking and armed robbery, sexual offences and the most serious child abuse cases. Diana Ellis is praised for her sensitivity and expert handling of vulnerable witnesses.

Appointed Recorder of the Crown Court.

Associated Work

European Human Rights Advocacy Centre
- Pro-bono work assisting Russian lawyers in their applications to the ECHR.
Kurdish Human Rights Project
- Advises on cases.
- Recently submissions have been made to the ECHR in respect of displacement of families and destruction of their villages and other Human Rights abuses.

Professional Memberships

UN Appointed Counsel for ICTR.
Authorised counsel for International Criminal Court.
Member of the Cambodian Bar May (2008)
Admitted as counsel to the Kosovo Specialist Chamber
Criminal Bar Association
European Criminal Bar Association
International Bar Association
Liberty
Bar Pro-Bono Unit
Kurdish Human Rights Project
Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (ARDL)
Member of the South Eastern Circuit

Recent Directory Quotes

"Diana has incredible presence and poise in court. Judges, juries and witnesses all warm to her. This is an enormous asset to those she represents." Legal 500 Crime 2022
"Tenacious and has vast knowledge on international criminal law." Legal 500 2022 Civil Liberties and Human Rights
"She is an excellent advocate and brilliant lawyer. She is master of all the material in the cases in which she is instructed. Her knowledge of practice and procedure in international tribunals is second to none." Legal 500 2022 International Crime and Extradition
"Experienced at handling international trials and contempt work." Chambers UK 2020
"She is very forensic, extremely thoughtful and good when it comes to strategy." Chambers UK 2020
"Extremely thorough and incredibly persistent." Legal 500 2020
"Tenacious and has vast knowledge on international criminal law." Legal 500 2020
"A highly impressive silk." Legal 500 2020
"Meticulous in her preparation, her knowledge of the law and procedure is comprehensive." Legal 500 2018
"Hugely respected and admired for her skill and expertise in international criminal law." Legal 500 2018
"Unfailingly impressive and tenacious in her approach to the cases she undertakes." Legal 500 2018

Training

Has trained Judges and lawyers from other jurisdictions in International Criminal Law and International Humanitarian Law and in fair trial standards and human rights.

Other

Working knowledge of French.
Co-authored several Criminal Bar Association working papers.

Homicide and Serious Violence

R v Hassan & Another (2017) - Represented main defendant accused of murdering his girlfriend in a carefully planned attack in which he lured her to premises by a trick and killed her. He then removed the body to his home address and cut his wrists. The main issue was whether the killing was done as part of a suicide pact.
R v Peter Doran & Others (2017) - Modern slavery case involving communities of travellers in the Midlands. Vulnerable individuals were picked up and promised work and accommodation and then put to work for long hours and generally forced to live in appalling conditions. Also charged with related fraud offences.
R v Reece Chaplin & Others (2017) - Instructed to represent the first defendant. All three defendants were young and vulnerable. They were charged with conspiracy to murder. The first defendant had serious mental health issues and was assisted by an intermediary throughout the trial. Evidence relied on by the prosecution derived from numerous communications through social media.
R v Anon (2017) - 16 year old girl charged with attempt murder of a school teacher. Case involving a very young and vulnerable defendant with multiple mental health issues.
R v Adams & Others (2016) - Represented the first defendant who was charged with murder and firearms offences. He was known as the ‘superbike assassin’ in a planned contract killing of a member of a rival gang in Manchester in which he was said to be the gunman. Prosecution case relied extensively on telephone data and cell site evidence, CCTV and covertly recorded conversations complex expert evidence on voice identification . The defendant had the assistance of an intermediary throughout the 3 month trial at the conclusion of which the defendant was acquitted of the firearms offence and the jury failed to agree on the murder.
R v Dayaparan & Others (2016) – acquitted of murder following a massive altercation between two rival gangs.
R v Nykolyn (2016) – defendant viciously attacked a stranger on Wimbledon Common at a time he was suffering from an undiagnosed psychotic illness. He was remanded in custody and killed his cell mate. Sentenced to a S.45a order under the Mental Health Act after a protracted period during which his mental health issues were investigated. More than 10 psychiatrists provided reports on the defendant. The case involved highly complex medical and mental health issues.
R v Kongola & Others - Charged with murder and violent disorder during an incident in a night club. The prosecution case was based on telephone data, blood found at the scene and identification evidence. Detailed analysis of telephone data was essential and a grasp of the complex scientific evidence concerning blood. The defendant was acquitted after a successful submission of no case at the conclusion of the prosecution case.
R v Jeffrey & Others - Main defendant in a conspiracy to shoot a night club doorman in revenge for his perceived disrespect during a previous incident. The defendant was said to have been instrumental in planning the murder and recruiting the other participants. The prosecution case comprised telephone data, cell site evidence, ANPR, identification evidence.
R v Collender & Others - Joint murder charge which arose out of an altercation between two groups. The victim suffered head injuries from which he died. Complex medical issues.
R v Ellerbeck - High profile case of a banker accused of murdering his wife by strangulation. Very complex medical issues explored to determine time of death and whether death could have been accidental. The defendant was acquitted of murder.
R v Smoured & Others - Jointly charged with the murder of an innocent young girl of 16 in a shooting incident referred to by the media as ‘The Chicken Shop Murder’. Expert evidence regarding guns, telephone data and cell site analysis. Identification issues.
R v Kika & Others - High profile murder - Kika and two others were charged with the murder of Ben Kinsella in North London. He died from multiple stab wounds in a revenge attack following an incident in a local club in which one of the defendants felt humiliated by associates of the deceased.
R v Husean Hasan & Others - Conspiracy to murder and related offences arising out of a feud between two gangs of Somalis. Hasan was acquitted of conspiracy to murder but convicted of conspiracy to wound with intent. This conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal who accepted the submission that critical admissible evidence had been wrongly excluded.
R v McPherson & Others - Instructed to represent one of nine gang members involved in a drug related murder.
R v Shah & Others – represented the main defendant accused of the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky and the attempted murder of her colleague. The case received nationwide publicity in the press and on television. The officers had gone to investigate an armed robbery and were shot when they disturbed the defendants as they tried to escape. The evidence relied on by the prosecution included telephone data and cell site evidence; ANPR CCTV footage; eye witness evidence and identification evidence. The defence successfully challenged the correctness of the identification of Shah as the man who the fatal shots. The ballistics evidence was complex; the weapons were a Mac10 and pistols.
R v Alecu & Others - Widely reported as the “Ambulance Murder”. Represented the leader of a Romanian gang who chased a member of a rival gang into the back of an ambulance and beat him to death. The revenge attack arose out of a turf war between the two groups who were involved in ATM fraud. The case relied heavily on telephone data and cell site evidence.
R v Durrani - Acted for a man accused of murdering, in a vicious and sadistic manner, a well known literary agent who had befriended him. Case involved complex mental heath issues. The case attracted considerable media attention.

Significant Appeals

R v Vincent Hickey and Others (The Bridgewater Case) - Court of Appeal. A notorious case heard in 1978 in which the appellant and three others were convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater. The convictions were quashed 19 years later by the Court of Appeal.
R v James - Court of Appeal. A five Judge court was conveyed to determine whether a decision of the Privy Council could in any circumstances be relied upon when it was in conflict a decision of the House of Lords. The matter in issue was the direction on provocation.
R v Vincent Brown, Emmanuel Nteziryayo & Others
R v Clarkson & others (HoL)

Serious Sexual Offences

R v Broughton - Instructed to represent defendant who was charged with a range of grave sexual offences against family and non- family members spanning nearly 30 years. Cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses on highly sensitive issues.
R v Campbell - Historic serious sexual abuse over a nine year period by father on a family member which commenced when she was 4 years old. The complainant was one of five children of the family, three of whom were killed by the defendant whilst she and another were seriously assaulted. Complaint of abuse came 35 years after those events.
R v Burrell - The defendant was charged with the rape of a woman working in the Department of Constitutional Affairs
R v Pervez - Accused of multiple rapes carried out over a period of 15 months. Raised issues concerning the Pakistani culture.
R v Goldie - School head teacher, who was accused of sexually abusing a number of severely disturbed children in his care over a period of many years.

Child Abuse

R v Hemmington - The defendant was accused of murdering a baby by suffocation. Involved consideration of complicated medical issues.
R v Jasmine Schmitt - The defendant was a nanny accused of assaulting a number of babies whilst they were in her care over a period of several years. Complex medical issues particularly in relation to the cause of noted head injuries.
R v Langford - Defendant accused of attempting to kill his two young sons by dousing them with petrol and hitting one over the head with a jack
R v Gamor - A mother accused of killing her two young children. The case involved complicated mental health issues.

Other notable cases

R v Nicholson & Others - Animal rights activists charged with conspiracy to blackmail secondary and tertiary companies dealing with Huntingdon Life Sciences. Massive police investigation spanning many years and employing covert surveillance. The defendants were described by the Judge as “Urban Terrorists”. The case involved Article 10 and Article 11 issues of the ECHR.

Prosecutor v Augustin Ngirabatware -Instructed as co-counsel to represent Augustin Ngirabatware, the Former Minister of Planning in Rwanda before the Appeals Chambers of the UN IRMCT in connection to his conviction for genocide offences arising out of events in 1994. The case was a Review of the Appeal Judgment (fresh evidence appeal) in light of the four key prosecution witnesses to the indictment informing the Tribunal that they had all lied at the original trial. The hearing concluded in late 2019. Currently retained on a pro bono basis.
In the Case Against Radeta & Jojić - Instructed in 2010 by the Registrar of the ICTY as an Amicus Curiae Investigator to conduct a complex and lengthy investigation into whether there were sufficient grounds to instigate contempt proceedings where there were allegations of systematic and widespread interference with prosecution witnesses in the case of The Prosecutor v Vojislav Šešelj, accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Subsequently, instructed as Amicus Curiae Prosecutor to prosecute in contempt proceedings against a number of individuals. It is a complex case involving jurisdictional issues. Proceedings are ongoing at the Mechanism (formerly ICTY).
ICTY (2009 – present) - Initially appointed by the court as an Amicus Curiae Investigator to conduct an investigation into the possible corruption of the trial process by means of large-scale witness interference by members of the defence team in a very important war crimes case arising out of the war in Former Yugoslavia. Led a team of lawyers on a complex and lengthy investigation which was highly confidential. Reported to the judges that there was evidence sufficient to prosecute certain individuals. Then asked to be Amicus Curiae Prosecutor in the proposed contempt proceedings. Currently warrants have been issued for the arrest and surrender of certain persons. There have been reports to the UN Security Council; international arrest warrants have been issued. The case raises jurisdictional points touching on ICTY law and Serbian law.
The Prosecutor v Ieng Thirith & Others ECCC (Khmer Rouge Tribunal) (2007-2015) - Represented the Minister of Social Affairs in the Khmer Rouge Government of Democratic Kampuchea led by Pol Pot before the ECCC - a hybrid court. The charges included genocide and crimes against humanity as well as offences under Cambodian Law; the case involved complex human rights and fair trial issues. Those on trial were alleged to be the senior surviving members of Pol Pot’s government and were held responsible for the death of in excess of 1.7 million fellow Cambodians during the era of Democratic Kampuchea between 1975 and 1979. Diana Ellis QC successfully argued on two separate occasions that the defendant was unfit to stand trial due to her mental/medical state. It was the first time a Cambodian Court had recognised the concept of unfitness. The defendant died in 2015 thus terminating the proceedings against her.
The Prosecutor v Professor Ferdinand Nahimana ICTR (2000-2003 and 2007) - This was the first trial to take place before an International Criminal Court in which the role of the media in the commission of the crime of genocide fell to be considered. The defendant was convicted in 2003 of genocide and crimes against humanity. In November 2007, the Appeals Chamber quashed a significant number of the original convictions and the sentence was reduced. Ms Ellis was retained to continue to represent the interests of the defendant and worked on applications for a review of the conviction and parole. Professor Nahimana is now released from prison. Currently retained on a pro bono basis.
ICC (2017) - Legal Adviser to witness in the case of Ongwen arising out of the war in Uganda with the Lord’s Resistance Army where there was extensive use of child soldiers.

Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance

Emmanuel Nteziryayo & Others (2006-2009) First Proceedings - Extradition of Requested Person sought by the Government of Rwanda for genocide, crimes against humanity and related offences allegedly committed during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The extradition order was discharged by the High Court where it was decided, after consideration of a number of issues, that there was a real risk that the Requested Person would be denied a fair trial if returned to Rwanda.
Emmanuel Nteziryayo & Others (2013-2017) Second Proceedings - Following a number of changes in Rwandan law and decisions by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and other national jurisdictions to transfer cases to Rwanda for trial, a second attempt was made to extradite the Requested Person (RP) for the same offences. The Senior District Judge declined to order extradition finding that there was a real risk that the RP would be denied a fair trial in Rwanda. The Government of Rwanda appealed her decision and the RP cross-appealed on a number of points. The decision at first instance was upheld by the High Court who also decided in favour of the RP that his extradition was barred on the ground of double jeopardy. Interpolated in the second proceedings were hearings in the Divisional Court and the Supreme Court on the issue of whether RPs could call evidence in a Closed Material Procedure. The case was voluminous and complex in terms of the evidence and involved, inter alia, considerations of material from many different jurisdictions.

R v McIntosh & Others - Multi million pound carousel VAT fraud operating over several years. The defendant was centrally involved in the organisation of the fraud and in laundering the proceeds of the fraud.
R v Jacek Kowalczyk & Others - The defendant was jointly indicted on charges of fraud and manslaughter arising out of a staged car collision organised for the purposes of making a fraudulent insurance claim (Cash for Crash). This was the first case in which anyone had been indicted for a death caused in such circumstances.