Neil Griffin

Neil Griffin

A superb advocate with extensive experience who instils confidence in clients.



LL.B (Hons) – University College London (1991-95)
Universite d’Aix-Marseille III (1993-94)


South Eastern Circuit (Committee member)
Surrey & South London Bar Mess (Isleworth Crown Court Representative)
Criminal Bar Association
Fraud Lawyers’ Association


CPS Advocate Panel at Level 3
Gray’s Inn Advocacy Trainer

Other languages spoken

French, Spanish, basic Italian and very basic Punjabi.

Overview of Practice

Neil Griffin is a specialist criminal advocate, with experience in prosecuting and defending a wide range of serious criminal offences, including  murder and attempted murder, offences of serious violence, kidnapping and blackmail, firearms offences, sexual offences and drugs offences. He also has experience in high value fraud trials. He has appeared alone and as a leading junior in trials involving some of the most serious criminal offences.

He is also available to be instructed to appear as an advocate for both lay and professional clients in professional disciplinary and regulatory tribunal hearings.

Neil has regularly been instructed privately to represent clients appearing in the Magistrates’ Court accused of  road traffic offences, minor offences of violence, including domestic violence and breaches of protective orders. Past clients have included sports personalities and high-wealth and some well-known individuals. He has also appeared in the Crown Court to represent clients accused of being drunk on an aircraft or endangering an aircraft.

He has defended companies and private individuals accused of breaches of Health & Safety and Fire Regulations, and also in private prosecutions brought against them.

He has also been instructed by local authorities, Royal Mail and OfCom.

Neil has been described by professional colleagues in the following terms:

“A superb court advocate, with a formidable court presence. An accomplished, natural and effortless ability to skilfully cross examine, exposing weaknesses and inconsistencies in the evidence.  Juries and clients adore him in equal measures. His ability to put clients at ease is second to none, resulting in consistent positive feedback from clients.”

A.G. – Criminal Solicitor, London

“I have instructed Neil Griffin on many serious and complex cases. He is able to build a rapport with all clients and make them feel at ease. He has great flair in the courtroom and before a jury, making him an excellent advocate.”

H.G. – Criminal Solicitor, West London

“Neil Griffin’s preparation ahead of trial, means that at trial he is able to break down witnesses and cause them to falter, substantially damaging his opponent’s case and strengthening his own. Whether Neil is mitigating, giving a closing speech or making legal submissions, he is able to convey his thoughts fluently. He instils confidence in clients; it is clear he is respected by the judiciary and more senior peers.”

S.M. – Criminal Solicitor, West London

“Everything you would expect from a barrister; meticulous, adaptable and charming. Exceptional cross-examiner and known for the persuasive powers of his submissions and final speeches.”

N.P. – Criminal Solicitor, London


Below is an illustration of some of the cases in which Neil has appeared. They reflect his diversity and ability to both prosecute and defend in the most serious criminal trials.

R v. JW – Reading Crown Court, 2017. Represented a serving British Army soldier prosecuted for the attempted murder of a fellow soldier who had become the partner of the defendant’s wife after the defendant had been compelled to leave the family home and move into barracks.

R v. RP – Isleworth Crown Court, 2016/17. Privately instructed to defend a man accused of sexual assault of a relative by marriage. Client acquitted in re-trial after the first jury could not agree on a verdict. Effective cross-examination of prosecution witnesses whose evidence differed from their evidence at the first trial.

R v. GS – Reading Crown Court, 2016. Represented defendant in his 80’s who admitted historic sexual offences against underage boys in the early 1970’s. Issues included recognition of complainants from over 40 years before offences and serious ill health of an elderly defendant.

R v. NF – Isleworth Crown Court, 2016. Successfully prosecuted man for defrauding his elderly father out of hundreds of thousands of pounds in property. Defendant convicted and imprisoned.

R v. DP & others – Isleworth Crown Court, 2016. Successfully prosecuted 4 defendants for armed robbery in someone’s home. All 4 defendants considered dangerous and given extended prison sentences.

R v. WC – Guildford Crown Court, 2016. Represented defendant prosecuted for sexual offences against underage boys.

R v. HH – Isleworth Crown Court, 2016. Successfully prosecuted defendant for a particularly violent attack on a vulnerable woman with mental health issues. Defendant went on within weeks of the violent attack on the vulnerable adult victim to murder an infant.

R v. FE – Reading Crown Court, 2015. Represented a man tried for attempted murder. Involved the use of a loaded shotgun against the defendant’s former wife’s new partner.

R v. TJ – Camberwell Green Youth Court, 2015. Represented a teenage defendant accused of sexual offences and knife point robberies against other teenage boys. Involved sensitive handling of defendant and his family and some publicity surrounding the offending.

R v. AC – Isleworth Crown Court, 2015. Defended a Sikh client accused of repeatedly raping his new wife. Crown offered no evidence to all charges, following written representations on behalf of the defendant.

R v. JF – Isleworth Crown Court, 2015. Prosecuted successful businessman for inflicting GBH on his girlfriend. Expert evidence of causation successfully challenged. Defendant convicted and imprisoned.

R v. BP & others – Luton Crown Court, 2014. Led junior in a conspiracy to murder trial. Represented the hired gunman. Focused on Crown’s firearms expert and cross-examined to establish gunman not aiming to kill. Adverse verdict nevertheless. Also involved several hostile prosecution witnesses and Crown relied heavily on cell-site evidence.

R v. SH – Reading Crown Court, 2013. Defended a serving British Army soldier accused of raping his wife (acquitted) and possession of live ammunition (convicted). Client was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following active service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

R v. Clarke-Dilly – Reading Crown Court, 2013. Led junior in murder by motor vehicle. Involved expert evidence concerning direction of travel and speed of car approaching and upon impact with the deceased.

R v. Kapoor & others [2012] EWCA Crim 435. Appealed successfully against convictions in the Court of Appeal. For the purposes of s.25(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, an immigration law is a law which determined whether a person was lawfully or unlawfully either entering the UK, or in transit or being in the UK. If a person with the necessary knowledge or reasonable cause to believe then facilitated the unlawful entry or unlawful presence in the UK of a person who was not a citizen of the European Union, he committed the offence. If the Crown’s submissions were correct, then s.25 would include within the definition of “immigration law” a vast amount of rules laid down in primary and delegated legislation, breach of which could result in a maximum term of fourteen years’ imprisonment. The court substituted convictions for conspiracy to commit the offence under s.2 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 and reduced the sentences accordingly.

R v. Kapoor & others – Isleworth Crown Court, 2010/11. Defended in an 8-week multi-handed trial involving facilitation of unlawful immigration offences. Convictions subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal and substituted for lesser offences and shorter prison sentences. See above.

R v. Mahil & others – Central Criminal Court, 2011. Led junior in murder trial involving religious issues, honey-trap element and a love triangle. Client acquitted of murder, convicted of GBH, despite the death of the victim. Other defendants convicted of the killing.

R v. KS – Central Criminal Court, 2010. Led junior in a one-punch murder trial. Client acquitted.

R v. SJ – Reading Crown Court, 2010. Defended man prosecuted for raping a teenage girl. Cross-examined teenage witnesses. Have also defended in other sexual offence cases involving young or vulnerable witnesses with special needs.

AB v.  Large residential freeholding company – Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, 2010. Defended client company against a private prosecution brought by a tenant alleging harassment and criminal damage. Client acquitted.

R v. Roberto Parchment & others – Central Criminal Court, 2009. Led junior in re-trial for murder. Main prosecution witness was former fellow gang-member turned super-grass, who gave evidence pursuant to SOCPA 2005 against all defendants. As junior, dealt exclusively with the extensive expert cell-site evidence and cross-examined the expert.

R v. Whyte & Parchment [2009] EWCA Crim 1309. Court of Appeal, 2009. Led junior representing a man whose conviction for murder was quashed and a re-trial ordered. The case centred on the use by the Crown of the first Operation Trident super-grass who had entered into an agreement with the Crown to give evidence against his former fellow gang members, pursuant to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The new evidence from the super-grass enabled the appellant to argue that his original conviction was unsafe. Arguments also involved what could amount to “new and compelling evidence” (s. 78 Criminal Justice Act 2003) which would be sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to quash an acquittal, as was also sought unsuccessfully by the Crown in relation to others.

R v. F & B [2008] EWCA Crim 1868. Acted for one of the respondents in the Court of Appeal in an appeal brought by HMRC, concerning money laundering and transferring of criminal property, offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The case restated the principle in R v. Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354, that the Crown is not restrained to having to allege the type of criminal conduct involved, rather that the jury is entitled to look at the circumstances in which money or other property has arisen or been handled, which may in turn lead to an inference of criminal conduct.

R v. Sofroniou & others – Reading Crown Court, 2006. Led junior defending in 3-month multi-handed trial concerning production and supply of significant amounts of class A drugs. Client acquitted.

R v. Austin & others – Winchester Crown Court, 2005. Led junior defending in a 6-month SOCA prosecution of a conspiracy to import substantial quantities of class A drugs. Evidence including bugging abroad, covert surveillance in the UK, PII & admissibility issues. Client acquitted.

R v. Khaleel – Southwark Crown Court, 2004. Led junior defending man tried for murder. Focus on expert evidence re blood splattering.