Harry Martin

Barrister

Harry joined the Bar after starting his career as a criminal solicitor advocate. He has extensive experiencing defending Crown Court cases, as sole advocate, for serious offences including aggravated burglary, large scale drug importation, and grievous bodily harm.

Harry initially trained as a solicitor at a magic circle law firm. He worked in the litigation and investigations team, focusing on white collar crime and private prosecution.

After earning his criminal higher rights of audience, he joined a prominent South London criminal defence firm, where he worked as an in-house advocate.

Experience

Harry has garnered experience defending clients in every rung of the criminal justice system – from advising at middle of the night police station interviews, to advocating in Crown Court trials.

Education

Oxford University, Chinese Studies, First Class Honours
Tsinghua University, IUP Advanced Chinese Course
BPP University, Graduate Diploma in Law, Distinction
BPP University, Legal Practice Course, Distinction

Memberships & Qualifications

Criminal Higher Rights of Audience
Police Station Accredited
Duty Solicitor Accredited
Free Representation Unit Volunteer
Member of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn

Languages

Mandarin Chinese

R v B: 7-day PWITS A trial where D’s three previous convictions for the same offence went before the jury, and his phone contained messages asking for drug prices. Acquitted by jury.
R v F: 5-day dangerous dogs trial where both defendants blamed each other for being in control of an XL bully that mauled 5 people. After cross-examination by Harry and Crown counsel, the co-defendant pleaded and the Crown offered no evidence against Harry’s client.
R v R: 3-day bladed article trial where client admitted in interview he carried a knife for general protection. Acquitted by jury.
R v L: successful abuse of process argument in Crown Court case of outraging public decency relating to public masturbation. The 1-day hearing involved cross-examination of a police officer who conceded that he had in fact promised a caution if admissions were made in interview.
R v M: 24-month suspended sentence for s. 18 GBH.
R v R: represented a young mother who pleaded guilty to smuggling drugs into prison. Despite court of appeal case law mandating immediate custody and only allowing suspended sentences in truly exceptional circumstances, she was sentenced to a 12-month community order with no punitive element.
R v F: successful Newton hearing for another young mother who said she was pressured to carry drugs into prison for her partner. Client avoided the usually inevitable custodial sentence.
R v G: 5-day trial where client charged with threatening his partner with a bladed article and committing ABH against her 4 months later. The defendant accepted he had breached his bail by contacting the complainant but denied assaulting her despite the presence of injuries. Acquitted by jury.
R v A: 2-day trial where client was charged with possession of an offensive weapon for having an axe handle with nails stuck into one end behind the driver’s seat in his van. He claimed this was a gardening tool. Acquitted by jury.
R v S: youth court indecent images trial before a lay bench. Harry’s client was acquitted because the Crown were unable to prove he had intentionally “made” the indecent images on his computer.
R v S: the defendant was serving a 46-month sentence for PWITS B. He was then found with £46,000 spice in his prison cell, infused into his own case papers. Harry persuaded the Crown to accept a very favourable basis of plea, and the client was sentenced to 2 months’ custody concurrent, so that his release date did not change at all.
R v K: represented a client who pleaded guilty to importing 92kg of heroin and cocaine over the Dover crossing. Despite case law supporting sentences of 15-25 years, Harry successfully argued that this was a lesser role case and secured a mere 5 years 4 months sentence.
R v M: successfully excluded ID evidence on day of trial due to breaches of PACE Code D. Client acquitted.
R v C: successfully argued at a Newton hearing that the alleged value of criminal damage to Tottenham Stadium was £80,000 less than the figure originally charged, and secured a community order with no punitive element when the Crown sought a 1.5-year custodial sentence.
R v B: successfully argued there were special reasons not to impose penalty points for the client who was driving a higher capacity moped than his licence allowed, and using it to deal cannabis, thereby ensuring he was not disqualified from driving.
R v H, R v B, and R v E: successful written representations to the Crown that prosecution was not in the public interest in cases of dangerous driving, possession of a bladed article, and assaulting an emergency worker.