Natasha Lloyd-Owen

Barrister

Natasha is an experienced junior practising at the intersection of public and criminal law, with a particular emphasis on public inquiries and inquests. Natasha is known for her meticulous approach to preparing cases and her excellent client care.

Public Inquiries

Natasha specialises in public inquiries. She has been involved in several major public inquiries in recent years on behalf of Core Participants and as Counsel to the Inquiry including the Covid-19 Inquiry, the Undercover Policing Inquiry, the Lampard Inquiry and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Inquests

Natasha welcomes instructions in all aspects of coronial law.

She has experience of inquests involving healthcare settings, police detention and domestic abuse.

Natasha has specific expertise working with vulnerable and bereaved people, and as such, welcomes instructions from bereaved families.

Natasha was appointed as a Recorder of the Crown Court in 2024.

Background

Natasha was a local councillor from 2018 to 2025 and is co-chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers Crime Group.

Natasha was a member of JUSTICE's working party on ‘Mental health and fair trial’, chaired by Sir David Latham. The working party reported its findings in November 2017.

Natasha previously lectured on the Transnational Criminal Justice LLM programme at BPP University Law School in London. Her lectures included ‘Human Rights and the Defence of the Accused’ and ‘Extradition and Surrender’.

Prior to joining 25 Bedford Row, Natasha worked at Norton Rose Fulbright as part of the white collar crime team who successfully defended Victor Dahdaleh against charges of international corruption.

She also spent four months at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague, working for the Defence Team of Assad Sabra, and worked at JUSTICE as their Human Rights Policy Intern.

Natasha is trained as a Community Mediator.

Appointments

Recorder of the Crown Court (South Eastern Circuit), 2024

Education

2013: University of Law, Bar Professional Training Course, Outstanding (Top of Year).
2012: University of Law, Graduate Diploma in Law, Distinction.
2011: University of Leeds, BA English Language & Literature, First (Top of Year).

Awards

2013: Buchanan Prize, Lincoln’s Inn.
Invited to give Reply Speech at Lincoln’s Inn Call Ceremony.
2012: Denning Scholar, Lincoln’s Inn.
Hardwicke Entrance Award, Lincoln’s Inn.
2011: Sir Richard Graham Prize for best academic performance, School of English, University of Leeds.
Dissertation published in Leeds African Studies Bulletin.
2010: Dean’s List, Pennsylvania State University.
2009: Ripon Prize for best second year academic performance, School of English, University of Leeds.

Public Inquiries

Natasha is currently instructed in the Lampard Inquiry as Counsel to the Inquiry.
Natasha has been instructed since 2017 by a key core participant in the Undercover Policing Inquiry.
Natasha was instructed for the UK Health Security Agency in the Covid-19 Inquiry.
Natasha was instructed as Counsel to the Inquiry in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (Module 4), specifically investigating the response of Category 1 and 2 responders and central government in the immediate aftermath of the fire, as against the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its associated framework.
Natasha has undergone vetting.

Inquests

Notable cases:
Inquest touching upon the death of Leighton Dickens (Article 2 inquest): instructed to represent the mother of the deceased. The jury found that missed opportunities by South Wales Police to detain Leighton under s136 MHA contributed to his death. More information: here.
Inquest touching upon the death of Aston Mclean-Williams (Article 2 inquest): instructed to represent the mother of the deceased in relation to opposing applications for police officer anonymity. More information: here.

Led Junior

R v Anon (Ongoing): Representing a 16 year old defendant accused of murder. Led by Matthew Butt KC.
R v Anon: Represented a 17 year old defendant accused of murder. Found not guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter. Led by Paul Keleher KC.
Operation Kedah: Represented a defendant charged with multiple counts of rape and, alongside his wife, counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, controlling prostitution for gain and money laundering. The case flows from a joint investigation by the Romanian and UK authorities and involves a vast quantity of Romanian intercept material.
R v GB: Represented a defendant charged alongside his wife with multiple counts of theft and fraud relating to their supplying care services to vulnerable adults and overcharging for those services and stealing money from them.
R v KH: Represented a defendant who was acquitted of perverting the course of justice in the context of a murder investigation. Six-week trial involving extensive forensic evidence concerning DNA and blood markings at the crime scene.

Junior Alone

R v SI: Represented one of five defendants charged with affray in the context of an inquest into the death of a baby. Five-week trial, cut-throat defence with bad character and hearsay applications. Natasha’s client was the only defendant acquitted.
Operation Radium: (Ongoing) Representing a defendant charged with a courier fraud whereby elderly victims are targeted by persons over the telephone pretending to be police officers.
R v FC: Represented defendant charged with third-strike drug trafficking. Trial involved lengthy legal argument regarding bad character where the defendant’s previous convictions for drug trafficking pre-dated the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and, as such, the section 45 defence had been unavailable. Evidence regarding exploitation of teenagers in “county lines” was admitted and the defendant was acquitted on all counts.
R v CL: Represented defendant charged with unlawfully and intentionally seriously interfering with the operation of a ship, contrary to 12(1)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (a charge requiring consent of Attorney-General). The trial involved a successful two-day voir dire concerning the admissibility of the defendant’s interview account, cross-examination of the Captain and Second Officer of the ship and a submission of no case to answer. Prior to acquittal, a jury note was received stating that “the jury unanimously felt that trial should not have proceeded to court and was potentially a waste of public resources.”
R v RT: Represented a defendant charged with conveying cannabis into prison. Natasha secured a suspended sentence, despite the defendant having a recent previous conviction for the same offence.
R v HG: Represented defendant charged with attempting to cause or incite a person under 18 to be sexually exploited, following exchanges with a Parliamentary and Diplomatic protection officer who had created an alter ego to exchange explicit chat with other men online.
R v PI: Represented a defendant accused of having attempted to de-fraud the GMC, by pretending to be a medical doctor.
R v DM: Represented defendant whose committal for sentence to the Crown Court had been unlawful. The defendant’s case was returned to the magistrates’ court for sentence. The resident judge requested a copy of the defence Sentencing Note for use in the training of Recorders in relation to committals for sentence.
R v OG: Represented a defendant charged with multiple counts of ill-treatment by a care worker. Conducted section 28 recorded cross-examination of vulnerable complainant with learning disabilities. The defendant was acquitted on all counts.
R v MA: Represented a former prison officer charged with misconduct in public office.
R v MD: Represented a defendant charged with fraud by abuse of position as a donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney in respect of a neighbour with dementia.

Mental Ill-Health

R v NS: Represented a defendant charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s18) in a domestic incident involving a kitchen knife and a hatchet. The defendant was found unfit to plead and stand trial. Following legal argument, the Judge stayed the indictment as an abuse of process.
R v JB: Represented a defendant charged with wounding with intent (s18) during an incident in prison. Following submissions regarding the admissibility of expert psychiatric evidence on specific intention and delusion and self-defence, the Crown accepted a guilty plea to wounding (s20) and the defendant received an 18-month community order.
R v MR: Represented a defendant with learning difficulties and brain injury, charged with sexual assault at a hospital. The defendant required extensive special measures, including the support of an intermediary and a Jamaican Patois interpreter throughout the trial. Defendant acquitted.
R v Anon: Represented defendant in youth court charged with assault occasioning ABH. Following written submissions regarding the defendant’s inability to effectively participate in proceedings, unavailability of a guardianship order, abuse of process and the defence of insanity, the Crown reviewed the case and no evidence was offered.
R v AM: Represented a defendant charged with assaulting his former psychiatrist. Following lengthy submissions and cross-examination of the defendant’s consultant psychiatrist, Natasha successfully resisted the imposition of a s41 restriction order against the defendant. argued that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a s41 restriction order was necessary to protect the public from serious harm Successfully resisted the imposition of a hospital order with a restriction order, following cross-examination of the defendant’s consultant psychiatrist.
R v MI: Represented a defendant charged with threatening with a bladed article on a school premises and religiously aggravated common assault. Natasha successfully persuaded the prosecution to reduce the 7-count indictment to a single count of simple possession of a bladed article. Following a trial, the defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity and given a supervision order by way of disposal.

Extradition & Mutual Legal Assistance

Ireland v AI: Instructed in Certificate for Advocate case on behalf of AI, who was sought for extradition on an accusation warrant alleging murder. Submissions were made concerning the compatibility with ECHR rights under Article 3.
Government of the Republic of Rwanda v Brown et al [2017] ALL ER 203; [2017] EWHC 1912 Admin: Second Junior acting on behalf of N in a second attempt by Rwanda to extradite in relation to allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and related offences allegedly committed during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Extradition refused on the grounds that N would face a real risk of an unfair trial, if extradited.
USA v IB: Instructed on behalf of IB, who was sought for extradition by the USA following a grand jury’s decision to indict him in relation to a $1 million credit card fraud.
R (City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court) v BM: High Court. Instructed to apply for judicial review of the District Judge’s decision not to discharge the claimant, pursuant to section 47(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
France v SA: Instructed in Certificate for Advocate case on behalf of SA, who was sought for extradition on an accusation warrant alleging that the defendant had ‘facilitated the entry of foreigners’ into the United Kingdom from France. Submissions were made concerning absence of prosecution decision, forum and compatibility with ECHR rights under Article 8.

Licensing

Fenland District Council v NS: Successfully appealed against the decision of the Fenland District Council licensing authority, rejecting an application for a new premises licence for the selling of alcohol in a cumulative impact zone. The District Judge concluded that the committee’s decision had been wrong and ordered the respondent council to pay NS’ costs in full.

Health & Safety

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham v B: Represented a limited company due to plead guilty to offences of failing to permit good food hygiene practices and failing to ensure that the premises were kept clean and maintained in good repair and condition. Following representations to the prosecutor and Environmental Health Officer, the case was discontinued and the charges were withdrawn.
London Borough of Brent v A: Represented the proprietor of a café in relation to health act and tobacco regulation violations.
London Borough of Brent v CR, TA & BS: Represented a limited company and its directors in relation to alleged health act and tobacco regulation violations. The case required a detailed, technical analysis of whether shisha pipes utilising ‘steam stones’ constitute ‘smoking’ within the Health Act which resulted in the Council withdrawing all charges against one of the directors, charges 2 and 3 against the remaining director and limited company and to the court imposing a financial penalty limited to £250.

Environmental

London Borough of Havering v AA: Represented a business owner accused of knowingly cause controlled waste to be deposited without an environmental permit.

Trading Standards

London Borough of Southwark v MB: Represented a business owner accused of selling products in contravention of provisions of the EU cosmetics regulation.