Alex Daymond

Alex has defended many cases involving serious violence and other offences against the person. He also has extensive experience in representing clients charged with serious public disorder often involving multiple defendants and many eye witnesses and CCTV footage. His previous experience as a duty solicitor and insight into police procedures enable him to effectively cross examine police witnesses and deal with identification procedures, police powers on search and arrest and admissibility of evidence under PACE. He has also acted as junior counsel in a number of homicide cases.

Recent Cases:

R V D – Defended a client charged with manslaughter arising from a nightclub fight in a case which attracted much local media attention.

R v R – Acquittal of defendant accused of wounding with intent involving serious and life changing injuries to the victim.

R v L  – Acquittal of a serving police officer charged with assault on a child. The case involved cross examination of a number of child witnesses.

R v G  – Defence of man charged with GBH through trial & re-trial involving a particularly severe incident involving the use of a car as a weapon.

R v G – Defended a football player charged with GBH in a tackle during a football match.

D v DG – Defended a man charges with kidnap and ABH of his partner.

R v LR – Successful prosecution of a masked man charged with aggravated burglary. The victim was beaten multiple times with a bat at their home address and valuables stolen.

R v R – Defended a man charged with aggravated burglary in a case. Involving multiple defendants and extensive police evidence.

Alex has defended a number of serious sexual offences. The cases he has dealt with have involved sensitive cross examination of witnesses about difficult issues, disputed forensic evidence involving cross examination of expert witnesses and dealing with often complex areas of evidence. Alex’s calm approach reassures his clients and enables him to assist his clients to the best outcome for their case.

Recent Cases:

R v B – Acquittal secured for a client accused of rape of his partner. The defence had to deal with disclosure failures by the Crown and in particular social media exchanges. Alex obtained an expert examination of a phone which was able to extract messages and images that the Crown’s expert could not. It was evidence which undermined the Crown’s case and he subsequently used it to obtain an acquittal, by a jury, for his client.

R v S – Acquittal of defendant accused of multiple rapes of a female along with two other males. The case involved adducing hearsay evidence of a witness who had been deported and was unavailable to give evidence at trial.

R v G – Acquittal of defendant with severe learning difficulties and mental and physical health problems accused of male rape of a family member.

R v D – Defended a client accused of multiple rapes within a relationship. The case involved consideration of and subsequent use of in the criminal trial, extensive evidence given by the parties in Family Court proceedings.

R v M – Defended a man charged with kidnap and sexual assault of a vulnerable female. The case involved a difficult sentencing exercise dealing with extended and life sentences.

R v K – Defended male charged with sexual assault on a 3-year-old child.  There was challenged expert DNA evidence and defence expert evidence called.

R v D and R v V – In separate cases defended men charged with multiple, non-recent sexual assaults on their daughters.

R v J – Defended a man charged with non-recent sexual assaults on two separate complainants when the defendant was himself a youth. Subsequently successfully arguing that the sentence should be reduced on appeal at the CACD.

Throughout his career Alex has defended clients charged with large scale theft and fraud offences. He has acted for clients charged with tax evasion and VAT fraud, benefit fraud and frauds by employees and those in positions of trust; he has represented clients charged with conspiracy to burgle and large-scale organised theft. He has also prosecuted burglary and fraud offences and charges of fraudulent disposal of property for the Insolvency Service under the Insolvency Act.

Recent Cases:

R v J – Obtained the acquittal prior to trial of the lead defendant in a large-scale metal theft by an organised group of employees of a rail company.

R v GH – Defended an ex-army Colour Sgt. charged with stealing comrades service medals and selling them on eBay. The case attracted the interest of the national press.

R v G&G – Representation of a defendant tried for murder but convicted of manslaughter and who appealed the sentence imposed. He advised on appeal, drafted and settled the grounds of appeal and represented the appellant before the full court of appeal.

R v Law (Nathan) [2015] EWCA Crim. 5; [2016] W.L.R. 189; [2016] 1 Cr.App.R.13 – defending a prosecution appeal against a terminating ruling in a firearms case.

R v Hunt (Richard Charles) [2006] EWCA Crim.1679 – A case which clarified an area of law as it was then concerning the return to prison of prisoners under license.

R v D- Acted as litigator and conducted a successful judicial review of a CPS decision not to issue a caution to a child for a minor/low value arson offence.

R v LB –  Successfully prosecuted a bankrupt man, on behalf of the Insolvency Service, who had dissipated assets prior to bankruptcy

R v B&H – Defended a farmer jointly charged with a scrap metal dealer with large-scale illegal waste tipping under Environmental Protection Act 1990. The co-defendant was represented by a Queens Counsel in a case which involved disputed expert evidence and a complex regulatory background.

R V B&B – Defended a husband and wife charged with infringing trademarks by importing and selling counterfeit jewellery in a case which involved a fraud in excess of £150,000.

I wanted to take the time to write to you and express my immense gratification for the representation that you gave me during my recent trial and the manner in which you acted.

When we first met I was immediately put at ease by your professional but understanding manner and knowing the chances of a positive outcome were not great, to be able to have confidence in your thorough knowledge of the case and the evidence that was presented, gave me hope that if nothing else, elements of the truth would be exposed through the cross examination process.