Chris Harper

Chris Harper

Defends and prosecutes in all types of criminal cases
with experience in professional discipline.

YEAR OF CALL 2013

Education

BPP University College, BPTC: Outstanding
City Law School, London, GDL: Commendation
University of St Andrews, MA (Hons), Economics: 2:1
Middle Temple Luboschez Scholarship

Appointments

Legally-Qualified Chair of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (2022)
Recorder (2026)
Level 3 Crown Prosecutor
CPS RASSO list

Memberships

The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple
Criminal Bar Association
South Eastern Circuit

View Privacy Notice

Overview of Practice

Chris accepts instruction in all of chambers’ practice areas with a particular focus on criminal defence and prosecution, asset recovery, restraint and confiscation and professional discipline. He has experience in the Court Martial and at the Court of Appeal.

Practice Areas

Chris has experience of prosecuting and defending in the Crown and Magistrates’ Court, as well as having appeared in the Court of Appeal. He is a Level 3 Crown Prosecutor.

R v HGF

Chris was successful in the Crown Court, and then again in the Court of Appeal in arguing that the failure of the police to obtain CCTV amounted to an abuse of process.

He successfully argued that there was no way in which the jury could be directed to remedy the unfairness. He argued that any direction would be an invitation to the jury to speculate as to what the video evidence would show, so could not lawfully be given.

View news article

R v Amar Bostan [2018] EWCA Crime 494

In one of the first cases on sentencing in “revenge porn” Chris successfully argued that the sentence imposed had been manifestly excessive, and that the activation of a suspended sentence had been unlawful.

View news article

R v P M [2021] EWCA Crim 737

Chris successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that the sentence imposed for breach of a Sexual Risk Order was inconsistent with the evidence, and with his sentencing remarks. The appellant’s sentence was reduced from 34 months to 18 months’ imprisonment.

View news article

R v A (Luton Crown Court)

Chris was leading prosecution counsel in a drugs case relying on the interaction of ANPR data, cell site, bank records, international money transfers and the use of false identities. Chris picked up the case overnight with his junior and got on top of the evidence quickly, securing a conviction.

R v W (Northampton Crown Court)

Chris’s client faced a conspiracy count, alleging theft of over £100,000 worth of vehicles and machinery across 19 incidents.

Chris worked hard to show the defendant could be linked to only a small part of the offending. He pressed for disclosure of phone material which the Crown said did not exist. Receiving it in the middle of the trial, Chris worked through the night to demonstrate an alibi defence, and to draft submissions of no case to answer, and of abuse of process.

As a result, the Crown offered no evidence on the conspiracy charges, accepting a plea from Chris’s client to a single incident of handling stolen goods.

View news article

R v C (Reading Crown Court)

Chris successfully prosecuted an armed robber who attacked a complainant with learning difficulties and threatened him with a weapon so that he would withdraw money from a cash machine and hand it over. The victim gave evidence with the assistance of an intermediary and Chris was praised by the judge for the sensitive way in which he handled questioning of a clearly vulnerable complainant.

R v J (Wolverhampton Crown Court)

Chris successfully defended a man accused of making threats to kill to his mother. Chris robustly cross-examined the complainant and another family member, drawing out the inconsistencies in the account they presented together, particularly when compared with detailed phone evidence supporting the defendant’s account. Notwithstanding the defendant’s previous conviction for a similar offence, the jury unanimously acquitted him.

R v H (St Albans Crown Court)

Chris prosecuted historic sexual offending against a child (who worked for the Defendant) and her friend.

Targeted in his analysis, Chris undermined the defendant’s suggestions there had been no sexual contact, and that the complainants had sought to be paid for sex acts. He relied on a medical records to demonstrate the account of the victim’s was right in a way that demonstrated guilt.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to 49 months.

The trial Judge contacted the CPS to praise Chris for his approach, and hard work.

R v G (Leicester Crown Court)

Chris prosecuted a 33-count indictment alleging sexual offending by a stepfather against his stepdaughter.

Chris dealt sensitively with the family, upset by events and nervous about giving evidence, guiding them through the process.

Chris worked hard to ensure the jury understood the complex indictment and took them through the complex interaction of the various counts, resulting in convictions, on 29 counts, of the defendant who failed to return to court after Chris’s speech.

R v R (Lewes Crown Court)

Chris was led in the prosecution of a former Church youth leader convicted of indecently assaulting two young men in the 1980s. The three-and-a-half week trial involved witnesses giving evidence from Australia, Spain and various UK courts.

View media report

R v P (Cambridge Crown Court)

Chris prosecuted a controlling and coercive behaviour case involving violence and sexual assaults by penetration. Relying on hundreds of pages of messages Chris established the defendant’s hold over his victim, and the extent to which he was willing to seek to threaten her.

He relied on video evidence of one encounter to demonstrate D’s behaviour and to invite appropriate inferences. D was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

R v B (Luton Crown Court)

Chris was instructed to defend a young man accused of exposure.

Chris’s detailed analysis of the unused material revealed a number of areas of missing information. In combination with answers he adduced in cross-examination, he was able to show that the Crown had not conducted the exercise properly and had allowed the complainant to drive the investigation.

He was successful in uncovering several tranches of further information by careful examination of each as it was disclosed, despite assurances to the contrary.

Ultimately, Chris was successful in arguing that to continue to prosecute would be an abuse of process.

R v M

Chris represented a soldier accused of using threatening or disrespectful behaviour towards a superior officer, contrary to s11(4) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

Across a two day court martial Chris cross-examined the officer and a non-commissioned officer on the proper interpretation of disciplinary guidance they had misinterpreted, demonstrating that their approach to the defendant had been defective, providing context for his behaviour.

R v H

Chris Harper represented a non-commissioned officer who pleaded guilty to a single offence of disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind, under s23(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006. The offence took place on a night out. Chris prepared a basis of plea to ensure the defendant’s account of the facts was properly presented, and ensuring his understanding of the actions of others around him was taken into account.

At the sentencing hearing Chris mitigated, relying on evidence of genuine remorse, character evidence and addressing the impact of proceedings on the defendant. He successfully argued that the prosecution had placed the offence into too high a category in the sentencing guidance, and that a significant downward adjustment should be made from the starting point in the lower category. The defendant was sentenced to a fine of 14 days’ pay, and was not dismissed or reduced in rank.

View news article

R v F

Chris represented an airman accused of breaching standing orders by driving otherwise than in accordance with his license on base.

Chris mitigated sensitively, highlighting important personal issues and relied on the defendant’s excellent service record and good character. A fine was imposed and no driving penalty was.

Chris was instructed for several months as part of the disclosure review on Operation Hornet, in advance of a large fraud trial at Southwark Crown Court in which a number of defendants were convicted of large-scale banking fraud.

Chris was also instructed by the Serious Fraud Office for several months in a large disclosure review exercise.

In both cases Chris reviewed several hundred documents for disclosure, in a general sense and also in response to defence statements served in the cases. Chris is familiar with the CPIA and its Codes of Practice, and the Attorney-General’s Guidelines on Disclosure as they relate to both physical and computer material.

Chris regularly appears for the Home Office and Border Force in cash forfeiture and condemnation hearings and has experience of proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

R v W (Guildford Crown Court)

Chris represented a defendant convicted of allowing her partner to use her premises to cultivate cannabis, in subsequent confiscation proceedings. Across three hearings Chris secured an agreed confiscation order reflecting a fairer interpretation of her income than the Crown, applying the lifestyle assumptions, had originally sought.

R v S (Reading Crown Court)

Chris represented the defendant who argued a large part of his unexplained income related to the running of his parents’ cash business. Chris argued over two days that the pattern of cash withdrawals was consistent with the defendant’s account and secured a significant reduction in the benefit figure.

Chris regularly appears for the Home Office and Border Force in cash forfeiture and condemnation hearings and has experience of proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Chris is a legally-qualified chair at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, where he chairs tribunals in fitness to practise proceedings.

In early 2018, Chris spent five months on secondment with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, presenting substantive hearings and review hearings on behalf of the NMC. He has continued to appear regularly at the NMC, presenting cases including a full range of regulatory concerns including health matters, insufficient knowledge of the English language, lack of competence, conviction and caution cases, and misconduct matters including those of dishonesty.

NMC v O

Chris presented an eight-week case involving over 250 sub-charges alleging long-running dishonesty and lack of integrity in record-keeping. Chris successfully defended a comprehensive abuse of process argument, produced several written arguments and cross-examined the Registrant across five days. Wide-ranging charges were proved and impairment of fitness to practise was established.

NMC v W

Chris presented the first 6 weeks of a case alleging wide-ranging misconduct against a midwife arising from her care of three labouring women. Chris managed a number of witnesses with specific vulnerabilities, and dealt with extensive expert evidence on a range of detailed midwifery techniques. He produced a series of written arguments in short order to attempt to maintain the smooth running of the hearing.

NMC v D, S, B, W

Chris presented a four-week case against four nurses accused of causing or contributing to a mental health inpatient’s loss of life. Chris managed several arguments as to the admissibility of expert evidence and the facts of the case, producing a series of detailed written arguments.

NMC v P, M

Chris presented a case in which two nurses were found to have contributed to the death of a patient who was discharged following a surgical procedure and died shortly thereafter. The case contained a great number of conflicting factual accounts between witnesses. Chris dealt with conflicting experts, cross examining the defence expert at length on assumptions contained in the report and information not relied upon in it. The Panel were ultimately satisfied that the NMC expert evidence was preferable and relied upon it in finding both nurses did contribute to the death and their fitness to practice was consequently impaired.

NEWS STORIES