At New Park Court Chambers, we do things a little differently. With a total of 74 barristers, including 13 King’s Counsel, our reach and influence stretches far beyond the bounds of our Circuit.
As a Tier 1 Set based in Leeds and Newcastle we are home to a number of high profile and nationally and internationally reputable Counsel.
Michael Brady KC has been instructed to both prosecute and defend in a number of high-profile murder cases, including R v Skana a case that concerned the killing of a 7-year old girl in a park in Bolton. This case, as with a number of other cases in which Michael has been instructed, involved complex considerations of the defendant’s mental illness.
Other cases such as R v Rowen (aka Glennon), a case where the defendant decapitated his cousin with an axe, have caused Michael’s reputation in Silk to become quickly established.
Michael also practises from 18 St John’s Street, 9 Bedford Row and Cornwall Street.
Michael accepts private work and has successfully represented a number of defendants on this basis.
Equally comfortable defending or prosecuting, Michael has an approachable and down to earth manner enabling him to communicate with clients and juries alike such that the real issues are identified with concision and clarity.
Away from the court room Michael has been asked to, and is in the process of establishing, the Northern Circuit Chapter of the Kalisher Trust. Following his work for this well-renowned Trust, Michael has accepted an invitation to become a Trustee. The Kalisher Trust aims to help bright youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve their potential through advocacy and to help those with the requisite ability and ambition to develop careers as barristers at the criminal bar.
Instructed to defend one of 3 defendants in relation to the murder of the deceased in a case of mistaken identity.
Instructed to defend one of 10 defendants in connection with the murder of the deceased who allegedly raped a family member.
Instructed to prosecute 5 young men in connection with the robbery and murder of a random stranger.
Instructed to prosecute the 2 defendants who murdered the deceased, then decapitated and dismembered him before disposing of the body parts in a nearby park.
Instructed to prosecute husband and wife in relation to the murder of a 13-month-old boy they were in the process of adopting.
Instructed to defend one of 13 young men convicted of murdering a 16-year old boy arising from a gang feud.
Instructed to prosecute 3 defendants convicted of murdering the deceased by repeatedly stabbing him before leaving the body in a canal.
Instructed to prosecute the defendant alleged to have struck the deceased leaving him incapacitated in the road who was then killed when subsequently run over by a taxi. Complicated issues of causation arose.
Instructed to defend one of 5 defendants alleged to have murdered the victim of a robbery.
Instructed to prosecute 2 drug dealers who murdered the deceased while engaged in a confrontation in his home.
Instructed to defend a seriously mentally ill young man who decapitated his cousin.
Instructed to prosecute this tragic and high-profile case that involved the defendant cutting the throat of a 7-year old child in the presence of her mother and father. The trial revolved around issues of the defendant’s mental illness.
Instructed by the Crown at short notice to prosecute in a case that arose from long-standing animosity between defendant and deceased. Another example of the defendant’s mental illnesses and personality disorders played a significant role.
Instructed by the Crown to prosecute in a neighbour dispute that arose during the Covid 19 “lockdown.”
Instructed as leading junior for the Crown in a case made difficult by the absence of witnesses and the vulnerability of the defendant Ward who suffered from a range of mental health and learning difficulties. Murder conviction secured.
It was during this case that that Michael took Silk.
Instructed to prosecute as leading junior. All 6 defendants were represented by QC and junior. A very significant undertaking that involved appearing at the CACD during the trial to appeal a terminating ruling. The CA described Michael’s performance as “powerful”. Positive comment was also made about Michael’s written submissions which “eased the path of the court.”
