M: 07931364820

E: r.bhamm@tankjowett.com

SOLICITOR & PARTNER 

Rajesh qualified as a solicitor in 1998 and has specialised in criminal defence work since then. Initially training in commercial law and undertaking fraud cases, at the stage of a trainee solicitor, he has over 20 years’ experience practising criminal law. In 2001 he joined Baljit Tank and Simon Jowett as a partner in Tank Jowett Solicitors. 

Rajesh has defended in some of the most serious and complex cases in the country. He is regularly instructed in drugs, murder, fraud and money laundering cases as well as in cases involving organised crime. Rajesh routinely deals with fraud cases involving pharmaceuticals/medicines (MHRA), post office frauds, company frauds, VAT fraud and tax evasion. Over the years he has dealt with many sexual offences, concerning historical and recent rape allegations, possession of indecent images, paedophile allegations, sexual abuse and other domestic related matters. Rajesh is also regularly instructed in allegations involving firearms and armed robberies.

Rajesh has a meticulous approach to case preparation and is outstanding in his understating of forensic issues and tactical considerations.  He has been involved in cases in which disclosure failings by the prosecuting authorities have been unmasked.

Rajesh’s practice covers all parts of the country and all levels of the criminal justice system, including pre-arrest and pre-charge advice through to representation at the Magistrates Courts, Crown Court (jury trials), and appeals against conviction and sentence. The investigation stage of a police enquiry can be very lengthy and stressful for the suspect in question. Rajesh is proactive in engaging with the investigating authority and has on many occasions persuaded the prosecution not to bring charges against his clients, by making representations challenging the evidence in the case.

Rajesh is a tough advocate, and has had substantial success fighting his own trials. He is experienced in cross examining police officers, expert witnesses and vulnerable witnesses. He is further experienced in dealing with inadequacies in the prosecution case and challenging non-disclosure.

Rajesh recognises the stress and anxiety that clients face, when subject to serious allegations, and how their personal and business lives can be affected. He prides himself on his ability to assist clients on how to navigate through these difficult circumstances. Rajesh only ever defends clients who face criminal allegations and never prosecutes. His clients come from all walks of life. Rajesh has advised company directors, accountants, city traders, and members of the medical profession to name but a few examples. He is committed to fighting injustices faced by his clients.

Rajesh is regularly recommended to clients by other professionals including barristers, accountants and other solicitors, because of his reputation for thoroughness, empathy and determination to achieve the very best outcome for all his clients. 

Rajesh instructs a broad spectrum of barristers in the Crown Court. He ensures that he selects the most suitably qualified and experienced barristers for each case, with his client’s approval. Rajesh very often works with the most talented Queens Counsel in the country, such as Narita Bahra QC, and leading juniors.

Notable cases: -

Rajesh has been a qualified solicitor in excess of 20 years. The following is just a short selection of the many cases that he has been involved with, over the years that he has now practised:-

Murder

R v NS  - Northampton Crown Court – 2017 – Murder - Following a 26 day murder trial at Northampton Crown Court, NS was unanimously acquitted of murder. This case was four-handed and became cut throat with NS co-defendant’s heaping the blame on each other.  The Crown served expert evidence showing all four co-defendant’s leaving Northampton in tangent, moments after the death of the deceased.

R v MH – Crown Court – Murder. This case involving a defendant who had a previous conviction for manslaughter in very similar circumstances. Whilst the Jury convicted after 18 hours deliberation, Rajesh launched a successful appeal against sentence – The sentencing judge had imposed a minimum term of 33 years, but Rajesh appealed on basis that judge erred in invoking schedule 21 as a consequence of which the starting point should be 15 years and accordingly reduced the minimum sentence to 27 years. Rajesh instructed Sam Stein QC of Nexus Chambers in this case. 

R v T – Old Bailey – 2004 – Double Murder. Rajesh was the solicitor with conduct of this most serious and complex double murder case within the Sri Lankan community. The trial lasted 9 months and involved many prosecution witnesses, tens of thousands of pages of prosecution evidence and a wide range of difficult issues involving identification evidence, admissibility of prosecution evidence, alibi defences, cell-site evidence and joint enterprise.

R v B – Nottingham Crown Court – 2005

Rajesh was instructed in a three handed murder. Rajesh's client allegedly lured the victim from his residence in order that the co-defendant (gunman) could shoot and kill him. A great deal of preparation was undertaken in the case including door to door enquiries with members of the public, following which Rajesh secured the acquittal of his client from the murder charges faced. William Coker QC was instructed in this case.

R v AM – Islewoth Crown Court – Attempted Murder. Whilst Rajesh's client was initially charged with attempted murder, following defence representations the charges were reduced to s.18 GBH. The complainant suffered life threatening injuries as a result of AM’s alleged use of his car as a weapon (the case was heavily aggravated by this act). The complainant having been involved in an argument with AM, AM had driven the car deliberately at oncoming traffic in order to dislodge the complainant and cause him maximum injury. The complainant fell out of AM’s car after colliding with a stationary Transit van at around 50mph. The entire incident was caught on CCTV from two different angles which bore out the complainant’s account. The Jury was 'hung' (could not reach a verdict) after the initial trial. At the retrial following negotiations with the Crown on the ‘basis of plea’, a favourable sentence was obtained for AM.

Fraud

R v D – Southwark Crown Court - 2018 – Prosecution by Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The Defendant was alleged to have been one of the ringleaders running a sophisticated and lucrative shipping business, with the aim of importing prescription only medicines, unauthorised medicines and Class C drugs from India to the UK, for onward sale across Europe. Over 50,000 pages of evidence had to be considered.

R v K Crown Court – Prosecution by Royal Mail Revenue Protection Department.

Allegations of a conspiracy to defraud the Royal Mail of £33million, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Our client was represented by Queens Counsel and was acquitted of  all charges. There were four defendants charged. Rajesh met with the client pre-charge, had detailed conference with Queen’s Council, at that stage provided complete continuity for the client, in the police station stage, the Magistrates Court and then in the Crown Court. Eventually securing a complete acquittal in relation to all charges.

R v P – Kingston Crown Court – 2005

 This case involved Rajesh defendant a defendant who was one of thirteen defendants. This case was described (at the time) as one of the largest prosecutions in the country. This was a multi-jurisdictional case, involving Mexico, Singapore, India and China. There were hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence served in this case (VHCC). Rajesh had to consider this material, ultimately taking the client through the same, extracting his detailed instructions. A favourable outcome was secured for the client.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v X - 2019

 X was a person of good character and a trainee solicitor of a reputable corporate practice. X was alleged to have used her sisters blue badge fraudulently, having parked in a disabled bay without her sister present. X had made full admissions in a roadside interview under caution with the fraud inspector. At trial, Rajesh successfully put forward that although X had parked in the disabled bay without her sister being with her, as she was going to drop her sister home some hours later, no offence had been committed. The trial largely hinged on the successful cross-examination of the fraud inspector, who admitted that his note of the roadside interview was not verbatim. If convicted, X would have almost certainly have been denied onto the roll of solicitors, as the offence is one of dishonesty.

Police v EC – Staines Police Station – 2020

 Wrongful retention of credit - EC was a trainee teacher at the time of her arrest. EC was accused of being a money mule, following over £20,000.00 of fraudulent bank transfers entering into accounts in her name. EC account was successfully put forward that she had no involvement in the illicit transfers and no further action was taken against her.

Drugs

R v R – Northampton Crown Court – 2018

This was a large scale county lines drug conspiracy. Rajesh was instructed by a defendant, who was said to be highly involved in the said conspiracy with twenty-two co-defendants. The case concerned mobile cell-site evidence, identification evidence, child witnesses and legal arguments concerning issues of admissibility of evidence and disclosure.

Domestic Violence

R v OS – Reading Crown Court – s.18 GBH and common assault. Rajesh represented a male who was alleged to have broken his ex-partners jaw and assaulted both of her parents in a drunken attack. The Crown Prosecution Service called our client’s ex-partner, her parents and their teenage daughter to give evidence at the trial. All four witnesses said that they saw our client punch his ex-partner and that he caused her broken jaw. Our client was acquitted of all counts following a five day trial at the Reading Crown Court. We had successfully put forward our client’s defence that the cause of the complainant’s broken jaw had not been established and that the defendant had acted in self-defence against her parents. 

EncroChat

R v TH –

Rajesh represented a male who is said to have been a member of a organised crime group.

M: 07866 441575

Email: s.collingham@tankjowett.com

BARRISTER

Simon Collingham is a Road Traffic Barrister. He was called to the Bar in 2011 and is a Member of Inner Temple. Simon was a mature entrant to the Bar, having completed over 30 years’ operational experience as a Police Officer in various disciplines, predominantly in Roads Policing and further complemented by working as a Litigation Executive for DAC Beachcroft solicitors, defending motor prosecutions associated with serious road traffic collisions. He brings vast experience and expertise in investigations, forensics, disclosure and PACE within criminal law.

Simon is a highly regarded road traffic specialist. He has considerable knowledge of Road Traffic Law complemented by a unique practicable experience in this area. He can offer an invaluable insight into the investigative and technical processes and has been frequently approached by other counsel to give advice in this field. He is a particular specialist in cases involving Drink and Drug Driving, Speeding and Failing to Provide Driver Details (s.172) offences.

Simon has built a reputation for his well prepared, realistic and persuasive advocacy in this challenging area. His personable and very approachable manner means he is a popular barrister with both the clients he represents and the firms that instruct him. With a depth of life experience, Simon is able to provide exceptional client care in pressured situations. 

Simon is accredited under the Bar Standards Board Public Access Scheme for direct public access instructions and to conduct litigation.

M: 07958137744

E: c.george-stone@tankjowett.com

Christina has over a decade of experience in Criminal Defence. She always commits to a high level of involvement in all stages of her cases to ensure her clients are guided through the legal procedures they face with all the information they need to make informed choices. Her aim in every case is for her clients to feel supported from beginning to end of their matter.

Most of christina's cases come from referrals and recommendations. She is committed to securing the best results for her clients and about her work and well-know for her down-to-earth approach and excellent client care

She has conducted a wide range of cases but has a particular interest in the vulnerable and young people.

M: 07841717359

E: a.hussain@tankjowett.com

PARTNER AND SOLICITOR ADVOCATE

Adnan is a strategic, efficient, and technologically skilled Lawyer who has worked on some of the most complex cases within the Jurisdiction. He is described by members of the Legal 500 as a “star” and works alongside some of the leading QC’s in Chambers, on cases which regular appear in the national press.

Adnan has extensive experience on high profile cases where investigations have been brought by various enforcement authorities, including the following; Serious Fraud Office, Economic Crime Unit, Financial Conduct Authority, HM Revenue & Customs, Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency (MHRA), Health and Safety Executive, Trading Standards, National Crime Agency (NCA), Crown Prosecution Service, Environment Agency and their overseas equivalents.

Adnan’s clients come from all walks of life. He has advised company directors, accountants, city traders, teachers, government officials, military officers and members of the medical profession.

His phenomenal results and level of instruction are testament to his work rate and winning strategies. Below are just a handful of the cases he has worked on.

Notable Cases:

Fraud and Financial Regulation

R v P: Multi-Million pound Conspiracy to Evade Excise Duty on Tobacco on an international scale, involving in excess of 18,000 pages of evidence.  The case involved analysis of vast quantities of electronic data and exposing weakness and inadequacies of HMRC disclosure processes and protocols.

R v S:  Multi- Million pound Conspiracy to Defraud Central Clearing banks.

R v A: Multi-handed Fraud involving Luxury motor vehicles,  described as a “complex and highly-organised" operation.

R v S:  Multi- Million pound Fraud involving exportation of construction plant machinery and prestige motor vehicles to Dubai. Proceedings were brought under Proceed of Crimes Act 2002 involving millions of pounds of hidden assets.

R v V: Multi- Million pound Fraudulent Trading with an International Element. Acted for the Financial Director of the company.

R v V: Multi- Million pound Money Laundering allegations involving proceeds of crime into a high value business.

R v R: Conspiracy to make/ distribute and sell counterfeit clothing on an industrial scale, involving the following brands; UGG, Timberland, Mackenzie, Adidas, Lacoste, G- Star and Henleys.

R v N: Director of a Los Angeles based Film Company, charged with Cheating the Public Revenue for a vast amount of money.

R v M: Multi-Million pound Trading Standards Prosecution. Described as the largest counterfeiting fraud operation ever uncovered on Ebay.

R v R: £40 Million MTIC (Missing Trader Intra-Community) Fraud / Carousel Fraud.

R v K:  Multi-Million pound Conspiracy, involving the supply of illegal immigrants to companies in the construction industry, and associated money laundering charges.

R v S: £20 Million Mortgage Fraud. Acted for an Accountant in the conspiracy. 

R v K: Multi-handed Serious Fraud Office Prosecution of Corruption, Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering within a County Council.

R v M: Banking Fraud. Allegations of defendants acting as Police Officers from Scotland Yard. The case also appeared on BBC CrimeWatch.

R v C: Charges brought for money laundering which involved a Mortgage Advisor at a leading Corporate and Investment Bank, who it was alleged bypassed security measures to assist transfer criminal property.

R v M:  Acted for managing director of a company in a complex multi-million pound solar panel fraud. The case involved the instruction of a forensic accountant who was able discredit the prosecution case.

R v A: Acted for a banker in a multi handed complex banking fraud. The operation was described as orchestrated by a sophisticated network. It was alleged bogus invoices were created to falsely represent trading agreements.

R v R:  Acted for a university professor involved in a large-scale conspiracy relating to a mortgage fraud. It was alleged that someone had impersonated the owner of the property in a sophisticated operation to obtain a large sum of funds. The proceeds thereafter were transferred between various individuals and companies.

R v B:  Complex pharmaceutical fraud involving a senior dispenser who failed to note a large volume of medication in the controlled drugs register.

R v R:   Acted for a legal advisor based at a high-profile solicitors firm in Chancery Lane who faced an allegation of fraud by position.

Homicide

R v T: Acted for a director of a building and dismantling company in a corporate manslaughter case. This prosecution was brought by the health and safety executive. Allegations centred on breaches of safety of workers and failing to ensure work is planned regulated and monitored in a way which ensures it is carried out without risk to safety. Complex case involving expert evidence and sub-contractors also present at the demolition site which led to a cut throat trial.

R v F:  Historic Conspiracy to commit murder of political cartoonist who was shot in central London in 1987.  It was alleged the assignation was by members of ‘force 17 group’ which was an off shoot group of the PLO due to an offensive cartoon image depicting Yasser Arafat.

R v V:  Conspiracy to commit murder. Contract killing which had taken over 6 months to discover the body. The murder squad described it as one of the biggest jigsaw’s they have had to piece together.

R v A: 12 handed conspiracy to commit murder. Complex case with over 30,000 pages of evidence served.

R v W:  Cut-throat murder case in which the defendant and his partner each blamed the other for the murder The case attracted national media attention (“The baby on the bus” case).

R v M: Murders of three generations of one family commonly referred to by the media as the “Clydach Massacre”. It sparked the biggest hunt in Welsh criminal history.

R v S:  Murder of a high profile figure in the West Midlands. The case involved complex cell site evidence. It was the biggest case ever investigated by Warwickshire Police.

R v B: Multi- handed Murder of a Director in the telecommunications industry.

R v A: - Death by dangerous driving involving a head on collision.  Case involved instructing a forensic collision investigator who able combat some of the allegations put forward by the police expert.

R v U:  13 Defendant conspiracy to commit Murder. The cases involved the shooting of a local businessman in the underworld in the West Midlands. A turf war spiralled out of control with reprisal attacks. The case involved complex cell site and ANPR evidence.

Drugs

R v I:  Conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Complex encro -chat case involving the supply of 1000 kilos of cocaine, allegedly supplied in just a few month period.

R v A:  Multi handed Conspiracy to import and supply 40 kilos of cocaine and ammunition. The sophisticated cocaine supply network stretched from Mexico, the USA, and Canada to the streets of London. This conspiracy, involved organised drug distributers based in Mexico City using British Airways transatlantic flights and a sophisticated team of distributors in London.

R v Z: Multi -Million pound drugs trafficking case involving a sophisticated organised criminal group with allegations of the defendants owning 11 production factories within the UK. The defendants were described as having close links with “respectable members of Beijing society”.

R v M: £6 million Conspiracy to supply Class A across Canterbury and the south coast. Described as a ‘sophisticated operation’ and “business- like crime run in open daylight”.

R v R: £22 million Conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. International drugs ring described as distributers for a much larger operation that sourced and supplied drugs across the UK.

R v S: Multi- Million Conspiracy to supply Class A Drugs. Described as a “highly organised” operation with various storage locations around the country.

R v H: Multi- Million-pound Conspiracy to import Class A Drugs from the Caribbean. A well-established logistics company was alleged to be involved in the international operation.

Other Serious Crime

R v H: Alleged leader charged with conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice. Allegations arose out of the grant in 1995 of the Royal Pardon by the then Home Secretary (Michael Howard). The case generated 2 books, a documentary and various investigations by Parliament into informant handling. There were over 30,000 pages of evidence served and allegations of corruption throughout the Criminal Justice system.

R v J: Charges brought under the Official Secrets Act against a British army interpreter, who worked for the head of NATO forces. The client was accused of spying for Iran while serving in Afghanistan.

R v C: Complex confiscation proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002, where the Crown estimated the benefit figure to be over a 6 figure sum. Successful negotiations reduced the figure significantly.

R v M: Multi handed Conspiracy to facilitate the commission of a breach of UK immigration law by orchestrating sham marriages.  The case involved a West Midlands lawyer and a corrupt police officer.

R v H: Multi handed conspiracy to import and supply firearms.

R v L: International multi-million-pound modern slavery case alleged involving the exploitation of foreign workers in the construction industry.

Other areas of practice

Adnan’s experience includes cases involving the regulation and internal governance of professional associations.

Furthermore his experience extends to Cash and Asset Forfeiture and Restraint orders.

Research

Impact of Public Policy and Causation on Public Authority Negligence Claims.

Media

Formed part of legal teams featured and quoted in The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, BBC News, The Mirror, Sky News, The Independent, Sunday Mail, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, London Online, Mortgage Strategy, Sheffield Telegraph, Liverpool Echo, Military Times and various numerous journals and news services.

Languages

Understanding of Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi.

Stephan Harhots

M: 07908669052

E: s.harhots@tankjowett.com

Stephan has undertaken the Legal Practice Course, following a university law degree. Ukranian born, Stephan is fluent in Russian, Ukranian, Hugarian and English, and attracts clients from numerous jurisdictions facing a multitude of various criminal legal issues.

Stephan prepares cases for trial, attends prison visits around the country, and is a safe pair of hands in any criminal defence case matter.

Stephan has a background in finance, having worked in asset management and product development for JP Morgan, and is experienced in preparing fraud cases for trial. He has substantial experience in communication with the Financial Conduct Authority.

He is currently preparing defence cases in the following areas:

• Encro chat prosecution involving firearms and drugs matter at Southwark Crown Court
• Manslaughter case involving death of an individual following a fight
• Burglary of commercial premises
• Death by dangerous driving prosecution

M: 07968543358

E: s.jowett@tankjowett.com

SOLICITOR

Simon qualified as a solicitor in May 1997 and in late 1999 made the decision to start Tank Jowett Solicitors with Baljit Tank, his colleague from university, both of whom shared a passion for criminal defence work. 

Throughout the years, Simon has taken on cases in all aspects of criminal law, from low level criminal offences up to the most serious of crimes. 

Simon has defended in countless serious and high profile cases throughout his career, including over 20 murder cases leading to a crown court trial - one every year on average, fraud, drug importation on a large scale, and blackmail to name but a few, including many cases in the Court of Appeal. Simon has given numerous media interviews and his name is regularly quoted in newspapers as representing defendants in serious cases. All of Simon’s serious and high profile cases have come from recommendations and referrals, a testament to his diligence and hard work. Simon has taken on cases at various stages of the prosecution from being the lawyer in the police station interview, to being called in to take over the case in the middle of the trial. 

Simon has been defending clients with great success for 25 years. That has allowed him to build up a work ethic and practice in maximising the chances of success in a case. His rules of running a case are as follows:

1. “There is a direct link between the amount of work the lawyer puts in to a case and the result”. Simon has achieved for clients what many other lawyers have failed to do, but in many cases it comes down to honest hard work. As he says, “Many lawyers give up too easily. They think there is no point, or they can’t be bothered, perhaps because they may be working for a fixed fee, or they switch off at 5.30pm. It’s at that point that you are really letting your client down. You have to see the result you want, and not give up until you achieve it, which could include a not guilty verdict, or the case being dropped.”
2. “Instruct the best barristers, but don’t depend on them”. You have to take responsibility for the case. If you are using a barrister, make sure he or she has a good track record, and cares about your client’s case. But you can’t just leave the case to them. You have to make sure the case is fully prepared, before it goes to the barrister.
3. “Every case is equally important”. Simon has defended in countless murder cases, but often relishes defending in small cases as well. Why? Often the smallest criminal case will be, to the client, the biggest most important issue in their life at that moment in time. As Simon says, “criminal cases, including small cases, such as a harassment case, or a theft matter, can destroy careers, split up families, ruin businesses, and cause irreparable damage to people’s lives. Even if the penalty as low, the client could lose his whole business, his job, or his career. He goes on, “I have walked into the office having just come back from an Old Bailey murder trial, and seen a professional client wrongly accused of harassment. The case may seem minor. But, the chances are, he hasn’t slept for a month. His stress levels are through the roof. That case is a must win. The client is depending on you. Don’t let him down”.
4. “Remember the responsibility on your shoulders”.The alleged victims have the support of the police and the whole system. But the criminal defendant? Who may very well be innocent? He or she gets one lawyer to fight for them. Never forget, as a criminal lawyer, just how much responsibility is on your shoulders.
5. “Just because your client is innocent, or only played a minor role in the commission of an offence, does not mean that the Prosecutor will see it that way”. The system can be grossly unfair on your client. Many prosecutors, especially in large conspiracy type cases involving tens of thousands of pages of evidence, get lost in their own evidence. The danger is that they create a false inaccurate picture of what your client did, because they don’t understand their own case. Getting the Prosecutor to change his or her mind can be sometimes almost impossible. But in many cases it is achievable. The criminal lawyer must never relax, until the result is achieved, such as a not guilty verdict, the case being dropped or a low sentence. The Prosecutor must be educated as to why your client is innocent, if you want him to drop the case.
6. “Remember the value of expert evidence”.Simon regularly instructs experts in the form of forensic accountants, psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, drugs experts, and road traffic experts to name but a few. Expert evidence can bolster your client's case in a way that could prove decisive, and should always be explored.
7. “Always explore the possibility of preventing your client from being charged”. Very often, clients are placed on police bail, pending further enquiries, but the vast majority of lawyers do nothing to prevent their client from being charged, preferring to sit back and wait for a case to materialise. This is however missing a golden opportunity to advance your client’s interests. Work on preventing your client from being charged, by obtaining as much evidence as possible, and making representations to the police and prosecutors that there is no realistic prospect of conviction, or that the case is not in the public interest, the two tests that prosecutors must apply before authorising a charge.
8. “Hire the best staff”. Simon has employed hundreds of would be lawyers over the years. Many of today’s solicitors in London trained under Simon. Simon nowadays has the following message: “Nowadays, I only take on people who have demonstrated a clear passion for the law, and criminal law at that. I need efficient hard working people to help me with my work. In 2008 I was running a murder trial, a spying case, the Royal blackmail case and a conspiracy to obtain a Royal pardon, all at the same time. But the solicitors I had working with me were exceptional, and together, we gave the clients the service they deserved.”

CASE HISTORIES

R v Kenneth Noye 2013   Simon was instructed to act in appeal proceedings, and made huge efforts to achieve justice for Kenneth Noye fighting against continuous unwarranted adverse publicity and groundless prejudice and bias. Simon travelled internationally in his enquiries in this case including spending time trawling through the archives section of the High Court in Madrid.

R v ZS  2015   This client was recommended to Simon and faced charges of conspiracy to traffick prostitutes and control prostitutes, one of 10 defendants. In a huge case lasting over a year, with 15,000 pages of evidence, the client was eventually found not guilty, the only defendant to be acquitted. This case involved travelling around Europe taking statements and gathering evidence to secure the client’s defence. 

R v Ronald Arthur Biggs 2009   Simon was instructed by the former ‘great train robber’ to secure his final release from prison, taking on the Home Secretary in the High Court, winning the first stage of a Judicial Review, before securing his release on compassionate grounds. 'Ronnie' Biggs went on to live in Barnet, North London, for 4 years, before finally passing away in 2013. As Simon says, 'the decision to keep Ronnie in prison was purely for political reasons - the government could not afford to be seen to be weak on crime. But 45 years had passed since the original offence, and Ronnie had served his time -  justice required that he be released.'

R v NW 2014    Simon was approached by a client in Wales wishing to change his lawyer facing charges of Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs and money laundering. The client had already been advised to plead guilty by his former lawyers. Had that client been convicted, he would have faced 10 years in prison. But the further Simon looked at the case, the more it became apparent that the Crown Prosecution Service had largely constructed a case out of circumstantial evidence and hearsay evidence. The potential impact on the client was horrifying, as he was the sole carer of a 10 year old boy. After 4 months of instructing drugs experts and forensic accountants, and detailed representations, the Crown Prosecution Service eventually agreed to drop the main charge, and the client pleaded guilty to low level cannabis supply. The result? A suspended sentence.

R v TS 2012    After the client sacked his lawyer and instructed Simon in August 2011, Simon took on an immense but flawed HMRC prosecution involving over 40,000 pages of evidence, alleging Cheating the Public Revenue. The livelihoods of TS and his coaccused had been destroyed by an ill thought out investigation, and when Simon took on matters, the client was at a low ebb. Fifteen months later, after Simon involved expert forensic accountants to help pull apart the Crown’s case, and only 6 weeks before a 3 month long trial was due to start, the Crown finally bowed to pressure and dropped the cases against all 3 defendants.

R v Ian Strachan 2008   'The Royal Blackmail'    Simon represented one of two persons charged with blackmail on a member of the Royal Family, the first case of such a kind for over 100 years, and reported on the front page of every national newspaper. Huge public resources were invested in prosecuting the defendants, and Simon worked tirelessly for 9 months on the case, battling against the weight of a well funded prosecution machine.

R v FF 2005   Simon defended a young Somali man facing murder charges over a 12 month period, advising him over 3 days of interviews in the police station, obtaining bail for him in extraordinary circumstances, before eventually, on the eve of the trial, persuading the Crown Prosecution Service to discontinue the charges, in what was a tremendously stressful period for the young man, who to this day remains thankful to Simon for his hard work and support and recommends clients on a regular basis.

R v JH  2008 Simon represented the lead defendant in a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice case, where it was alleged that the Defendants had conspired together to obtain a Royal Pardon for two convicted drug dealers in 1995. The case involved allegations of corruption throughout the Criminal Justice system from customs officers to judges and even the then home secretary, and with 30,000 pages of served evidence, and five months to prepare after the Defendant sacked his lawyer and asked Simon to represent him, it was a huge undertaking.

The above are just a small number of the serious cases Simon has dealt with. He has secured numerous acquittals for his clients over the years, and is thanked by clients and their families for the tireless effort and energy he puts in to cases. No case is too big, and no case too small. Each criminal prosecution is tremendously important to a client. Whatever the criminal charges his clients face, his approach is to take on the matter as if it were his own, and devote all his resources to achieve the best possible outcome he can. As one City of London police detective recently begrudgingly said to Simon in the middle of a £8million mortgage fraud confiscation case – ‘If I ever got into trouble – I’d use you!’

Simon regularly takes on cases on either a private or legal aid basis and can be contacted directly as above.

TESTIMONIALS

Ian Strachan

I was arrested by 32 anti terrorist police officers, faced the entire might of the Metropolitan Police force, and was prosecuted by the No 1. prosecuting barrister in the country all for what I will always claim was a misconceived and false blackmail allegation by a member of the Royal Family. Despite that, Simon was the rock of my defence. He was totally unfazed by the press obsession with the case, or the prosecution resources levelled against me, and worked tirelessly to achieve justice for me. I will forever be grateful to him for his efforts and would always recommend him.

TS

Where do I start? Without Simon I would probably have been wrongly convicted and would have been spending the next 10 years in prison, so misconceived were the allegations against me. Simon’s insight into the case, and his involvement of an expert forensic accountant destroyed the case against me. The Judge finally saw things from my perspective, and the Crown were forced to drop the case, not just against me but also against my co defendants. I was finally able to start getting my life back on track after a horrendous 3 years. Simon achieved this for me, no question about it, and I will forever be grateful to him for what he did.

Kenneth Noye

I needed a lawyer to fight my corner properly, recognise the bias and prejudice throughout my case, and help me fight for justice. I wish I’d used Simon from the start. He understands my position, and doesn’t give up. I would recommend him to anyone serious about their defence in criminal proceedings.

M: 07507768003

E: o.marku@tankjowett.com

Ornela has a degree in law and politics and a post graduate diploma in legal practice. She is following the path to qualification as a solicitor.

Ornela is fluent in Albanian, and regularly takes on cases from that community, and has substantial experience in drugs, murder, prostitution, fraud and extradition cases, assisting the main solicitor in preparation of the case in all ways.

Ornela regularly attends prisons and takes instructions on cases.

In any given week, she will also advise a number of persons at the police station arrested for a variety of offences, and is regarded as having solid judgement in complex matters. 

She has developed a niche in the field of repatriation cases where prisoners seek repatriation to their home country to serve their prison sentence there.

Ornela is an extremely hard working, dedicated member of the Tank Jowett team, and is committed to achieving the best possible outcome on the cases she takes on.

M: 07775535734

E: jeffrey@jeffreyshinelaw.co.uk

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE & PARTNER 

Jeffrey qualified as a solicitor in 1975 and has dedicated his professional career to the services of clients facing a variety of legal issues. Jeffrey has specialised in a number of areas of law over the years, including criminal defence, including extradition, conveyancing, wills and probate, family law and civil litigation. Jeffrey opened Gordon Shine and Company Solicitors in 1980, the firm becoming Tank Jowett Solicitors in 2020, after 40 years of successfully operating.

Nowadays Jeffrey spends the majority of his time focussing on criminal defence and extradition cases.

Jeffrey is qualified as a higher rights courts advocate, and has conducted over 100 trials in the crown and magistrates courts and has been described as a thorough, meticulous and tenacious advocate.

Jeffrey is particularly knowledgeable as a criminal practitioner, and uses his skills to maximum effect when defending his clients.

As well as his criminal law experience, Jeffrey can point to extensive experience in the areas of probate, family law, and civil litigation.

M: 07968543357

E: b.tank@tankjowett.com

SOLICITOR & MANAGING PARTNER

Baljit Tank qualified as a solicitor in 1996 in Birmingham, and was instrumental in setting up Tank Jowett Solicitors in January 2000. 

Nowadays Baljit focuses on representing defendants across the full spectrum of criminal law, from complex corporate crime through to murder cases in different courts across the country. 

At any given time, Baljit’s cases are in the Crown Courts all around England and Wales, and are regularly reported in the news.

He has given interviews to the media regarding some of his more high profile cases, offering a wealth of experience to the clients that he represents, and is responsible for the management of countless teams of lawyers on different complex and serious cases at any given time.

Baljit can point to his particular experience in the following areas:

• Murder cases: each year Baljit takes on the representation of a number of defendants facing the gravest of cases.
• Terrorism cases: Baljit has taken cases to trial and secured acquittals in this field.
• Serious fraud cases: Baljit has wide ranging experience in a variety of frauds, including MTIC frauds, HMRC prosecutions, company frauds, and other complex paper heavy cases.

M: 07507768004

E: g.tabaei@tankjowett.com

Golnaz qualified as a solicitor in 2018, and since that time has dedicated her professional life to succeeding as a criminal lawyer.

She appears in court and the police station, attending clients in custody and advising in police station interviews on most days. She has appeared as advocate in a number of trials and secured acquittals.

She has a general practice in all types of criminal work, and has prepared the most serious of cases throughout her career so far.

M: 07930375031

E: s.uppal@tankjowett.com

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE 

Sona is a Senior Solicitor-Advocate in Crime having appeared regularly in the Crown Court since 2003.  Additionally, Sona has also argued appeals in the Court of Appeal.

Sona covers matters as straightforward as theft to more complex assaults and  murder.  Sona has appeared in a number of notable cases including:-

- a nine month pharmaceutical fraud which had extensive international elements to it;

- an “Honour-based” killing, where her client was found not guilty of the murder of his niece and serious assault of her then boy-friend;

- cash-point armed robberies – where two of the alleged robbers were shot dead by the police;

- conspiracy to supply class 'A' drugs in the Suffolk area;

- causing death by dangerous driving;

- numerous sexual offence cases including rape, sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years

Sona has extensive experience in drug matters, firearm offences, serious assaults, benefit fraud, motoring matters and more recently Sona has successfully defended in a number of sexual offences including rape.

Sona has extensive experience in police stations and as a result brings her personal knowledge of the workings of the police to her crown court advocacy, thus ensuring there has been no untoward conduct by the police in their investigations.

Whilst not at the Crown Court or at Police Stations Sona spends her time in the Magistrates' Court.  Here, Sona has specialist knowledge in motoring and youth matters.

M: 07788205901

E: j.ward@tankjowett.com

Jack Ward has degree in Law, and is undertaking the legal practice course, on the path to qualification.

Jack has been with the firm since 2018, and assists in the preparation of serious and complex criminal cases. He has gained extensive experience in criminal law, and is trusted part of the team. 

Jack regularly attends the police station and advises suspects detained facing criminal allegations. Each week he advises several clients in police interview for a wide variety of matters, many very serious, and is a strategic thinker in the delivery of quality advice in the most difficult of cases. 

Jack has prepared cases for trial for clients charged with murder, fraud, drug supply, modern slavery, theft, sexual offences and other serious matters. 

As well as advising suspects in the police station, Jack regularly attends Crown Courts, prisons and conferences. 

He is a very capable hard working individual dedicated to achieving successful results for his clients.