Richard Holland read law at St Anne’s College, Oxford and studied at BPP Law School, Leeds. Called to the bar in 2012, he is a confident advocate who has appeared in legally and factually complex cases, both led and alone, well ahead of his year of call. Commanding respect in court, whilst at ease with lay and professional clients, Richard ensures each case receives bespoke advice and timely attention. Richard has been a member of New Park Court Chambers since September 2015, having successfully completed his pupillage in chambers under the supervision of Nicholas De La Poer.

Richard is experienced in both prosecuting and defending trials in the Crown Court, with a particular expertise in confiscation proceedings. He is familiar with drafting grounds of appeal.

Notable Cases

  • R v CB and others (2021)

    Led by Andrew Haslam QC, Richard defended one of 5 men accused of Murder following an incident in the Town Hall Gardens in Scarborough, in a four week “Covid-secure” trial at Leeds Crown Court before Mr Justice Griffiths.

  • Operation Salvator (2019 – 2021)

    Richard was instructed on behalf of Northumbria CPS to prosecute a series of cases before Newcastle Crown Court arising out of an extensive Northumbria Police undercover operation in Gateshead targeting the suppliers of Class A drugs.  All of the cases involved extensive consideration of forensic scientific, telephone and undercover observation evidence.

    In Phase 1, R v Nathan Graham and others, Richard prosecuted 9 defendants for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and other related offences arising out of the “Nathan” drugs line.  Following the guilty pleas of all 9 defendants, Richard further prosecuted a Newton hearing against the 2 leaders of the conspiracy, Nathan Graham and Dean Joicey.  HHJ Gittins sentenced the defendants to a total of more than 30 years’ imprisonment and, as part of the Judicial Commendations awarded at the end of the case, commended Richard for his part, together with the Police and CPS, for the “detailed and comprehensive preparation” of the case by the prosecution team.

    Further details can be found here: Ringleader behind conspiracy to supply Class A drugs across region jailed | The Northern Echo

    In Phase 2, R v Marvin Hughes and others, Richard prosecuted a further 5 defendants for substantive Class A drug supply offences arising out of the “Marvin” line of drug supply.  Again, following extensive work and preparation, all 5 pleaded guilty and were sentenced by HHJ Prince, with Hughes receiving over 5 and a half years’ imprisonment for his role.

    Richard is due to prosecute with Tom Storey the 4 defendants remaining out of an original 13 in Phase 3 of the operation, concerning a separate alleged drug-dealing line, in a trial in May 2021.

  • R v Jobi Nembhard (2020)

    Richard defended this 18 year old client at one of the first trials in Birmingham Crown Court conducted under Covid-secure conditions.  Mr Nembhard had committed, as a 17 year old, a series of robberies to steal high-value cars with an imitation firearm in a spree of home invasions in Solihull.  Richard was able to secure Mr Nembhard’s acquittal on one of the alleged robberies at the half-time stage during the trial and, at sentence for the remainder, was able to successfully persuade the Court not to impose an Extended Sentence of Imprisonment.

    Further details here: Teen was part of Castle Bromwich home invasion gang who thought they were ‘invulnerable’ – Birmingham Live (

  • R v Mohammed Salayman (2019)

    Richard represented this defendant in a multi-handed trial at Birmingham Crown Court before HHJ Mark Wall QC.  The client was accused, together with his brothers, of kidnapping the complainant whilst masked with a balaclava and attempting to murder him by stabbing him. The Prosecution case was that Richard’s client had been one of those involved in the attack, before taking the complainant to hospital and throwing him out of the car.  The complainant had purported to have recognised Richard’s client as being involved through his mannerisms, gait, voice and prior association, and then through a video identification parade.

    Richard was able to expose, through careful cross-examination of the police witnesses who had attended at the family home in the aftermath of an incident shortly before and during the time the attack took place, and through an extensive and thorough analysis of the telephone and cell-site material, that Richard’s client could not have travelled in a car to take the complainant to hospital after the attack whilst at the same time being sat in his family’s living room with a police officer, throwing the complainant’s identification into doubt.

    Following submissions at the half-time stage, the Judge agreed with Richard’s argument that the complainant’s identification was unreliable and therefore his client had no case to answer, and the Judge directed that the Jury find his client Not Guilty of all charges.

  • Operation Eton (2019)

    Successful prosecution of 6 defendants by Matthew Donkin and Richard Holland, instructed by the Northumbria CPS Complex Case Unit, followed a five-week trial before HHJ Batiste at Newcastle Crown Court.

    The defendants faced charges of conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life, relating to two shootings in the west-end of Newcastle in January 2018. The prosecution were able to successfully prove that all defendants had conspired to shoot through the windows of a house with a shotgun with intent to endanger life on 4 January, and separately that all three defendants who faced this charge had shot through the windows of another house on 8 January, using a rifle and shotgun, as part of an ongoing feud with another faction.

    The case involved the calling of evidence from a wide range of expert witnesses giving evidence on the examination and comparison of firearms and ammunition, DNA and fingerprint comparison, Cell-site and RF surveys, and CCTV image comparison.

    For more details, see here:


  • R v Islam (2018)

    Two and a half week defence trial before Mr Recorder Palmer at Leeds Crown Court, representing one of two defendants, a third defendant having pleaded guilty at an earlier occasion.  Instructed by Abdul Iftikhar of Kamrans Solicitors.  Allegations of conspiracy to defraud – £110,000 fraud against Vodafone to obtain mobile telephones and tablets – and acquiring criminal property – £1.2m of credits from the sale of 5179 items representing £1.3m of sales through  The Defendant was of previous good character.

    The Prosecution contended that the lack of receipts in the possession of the Defendant, together with the fact 25 telephones and an iPad – all fraudulently obtained from Vodafone in earlier incidents – being found at his address, the fact he had not registered for VAT and was selling telephones through the account for an undervalue, led to the irresistible inference that a substantial proportion of the sales represented the laundering of stolen or fraudulently obtained goods.

    Working together with a Forensic Accountant, Richard was able to demonstrate to the jury that the Defendant had an innocent explanation for the fraudulently obtained telephones being in his possession, and that the Prosecution contention that there was an irresistible inference that most of the Defendant’s sales on were from crime was unsafe in all the circumstances.

    Further details of the case can be found here:

  • Operation Cluster (2017/18)

    Led as Second Junior prosecuting a nine-handed modern slavery and people trafficking case. Extensively involved and responsible for the disclosure aspects of the case both before and during the trial. Present throughout the trial, working closely with the police team and leading Counsel in managing the presentation of the case.

    Further details of the case can be found here:

  • R v Ajaz (2017)

    Co-defended in a money-laundering trial before Bradford Crown Court relating to a gentlemen discovered with two co-accused in a darkened car park next to a car containing £50,000 in cash. Defendant gave evidence admitting lying in his police interview and defence statement on several occasions. Acquitted.

  • Operation Rumble (2017)

    Prosecuting, led in a complex ten-handed prosecution before HHJ Tremburg at Hull Crown Court. The Defendants were alleged, over a period of 3 days, to have targeted the elderly to obtain their life savings in a fraud exploiting a fault in the telephone system. Two Defendants proceeded to trial (six pleading at the start of the trial and two earlier in the proceedings). The Prosecution case at trial consisted almost entirely of telephonic and cell site evidence, requiring significant preparation to present an engaging case for the jury to follow and understand. Was responsible for cross-examining the second Defendant.

  • R v Brzezinski (2017)

    Defended, alone, in proceedings against a man alleged to have forced two Polish workers into forced or compulsory labour. Defendant elected to plead guilty before the start of the trial to amended counts negotiated on his behalf.

  • R v Seweryn Szmyt & Others (2017)

    Defended, alone, in a multi-handed conspiracy to subject complainants to forced or compulsory labour, before HHJ Ashurst at Newcastle Crown Court over a period of 7 weeks. The Defendant was alleged to have supported his father (and ringleader) in the trafficking of persons from Poland into the United Kingdom before putting them to work in recycling plants. Involving complex financial and telephonic evidence, Richard successfully broke a telephone attribution made by the Prosecution by careful analysis of the underlying billing material. Was the only Counsel in the trial without a leader.

  • R v AC (2017)

    Richard appeared before the Court of Appeal representing a youth Defendant subject to an extended sentence of imprisonment. The appeal was heard by a panel which included the Lord Chief Justice, and was allowed on both grounds advanced. In the course of their judgment, the Court commended Richard’s submissions as “realistic and economic”, “sensitive and sensible” and “effectively argued”.

    The case was reported under the citation [2017] EWCA Crim 1554

  • R v O’Keefe (2016)

    Defended in a trial before HHJ Mairs on behalf of a Defendant charged with causing grievous bodily harm arising from a one-punch jaw break outside a pub in Huddersfield. Successfully argued the Defendant feared for his safety and was acting in self-defence.

  • R v Nisa Ul Haq, Hajrah Sarfraz & Others (2015)

    Multi-handed conspiracy to traffic persons into the United Kingdom for the purpose of exploitation, acting as a led-junior on behalf of the Second Defendant. The Defendant was alleged, together with her sister and other family members, to have recruited and then exploited tailors brought into the United Kingdom from Pakistan through long hours, withholding pay and forcing complainants to pay “taxes” to remain in the United Kingdom. The trial took place at Leeds Crown Court over the course of 9 weeks before HHJ Kearl QC, with a large number of complainant witnesses giving evidence through an interpreter, and included issues of immigration law and witness intimidation.

Richard takes instructions in regulatory matters, including professional discipline, regulatory compliance, inquests, health and safety and licensing.

Richard prosecutes on behalf of the GMC, including at Fitness to Practise Hearings before the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service.

This practice, together with Richard’s clinical negligence work, means he has a significant cross-over experience in inquests where medical professionals are suggested to have had some role in a death.

Richard is also familiar with the policies and procedures of the SRA and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, including having been led in 2018 in a three-week long hearing relating to alleged overcharging by a senior solicitor. Richard was extensively involved in the preparation, tactical considerations, and pleading of the client’s case, as well as the interlocutory applications that preceded the final hearing.

Richard’s regulatory advice work is esoteric and includes advising, in writing and in conference:

  • A local authority considering prosecution under Health and Safety legislation of a fast-food restaurant where a young employee had been scalded in the course of their duties;
  • The manufacturer of a set of traps for pest-control whether their design complied with the Pest Control Act 1954, the Spring Traps Approval Order 2018 and local licensing requirements for any potential purchasers;
  • A local authority about their options in a prosecution relating to the infringement by the defendants of Planning Enforcement Notices;
  • A company regarding its regulatory responsibilities and the effect of EU Product Safety Directives when importing mobile telephones from fellow EU countries and replacing chargers so that the products could be sold on the UK market.

Richard has an extensive experience of clinical negligence work.  Before joining Chambers, Richard managed his own caseload at Irwin Mitchell solicitors in the clinical negligence and product liability teams, covering cases where quantum ranged from £10,000 to over £200,000. Cases involved representing Claimants in various metal-on-metal hip litigations, representing a Claimant who had received a transplant of Hepatitis E contaminated platelets, and representing a Claimant pursuing damages arising out of the failure of his defective ICD leads.

Richard enjoys a busy practice of clinical negligence work as Counsel, including drafting particulars of claim, schedules of loss, advising on prospects and quantum, and conducting conferences with experts.

Notable Cases

  • KD v A Hospital NHS Trust

    Richard’s client sustained a small bowel obstruction which was improperly treated following his presentation at Accident & Emergency, leading to a perforation of the client’s jejunojejunal anastomosis and a complicated and difficult recovery.  Particular complexities included the extent to which the client’s earlier (non-negligent) surgical procedure may have affected the correct treatment plan and the extent to which his recovery and hospital stay would have been required in any event.  The Defendant denied liability and causation.

    Richard provided advise on quantum and drafted the particulars of claim, including through consultation with the expert instructed on behalf of the Claimant.  Following service of the claim, the Defendant Trust made an appropriate offer to settle the case leading to a successful conclusion.

  • IW v A Hospital NHS Trust

    Richard was instructed in this case to provide advice on quantum, following leading a conference with the lay client’s litigation friend and the Claimant’s instructed Expert Physician and Geriatrician.  Richard’s client had sustained a fractured hip following a fall in hospital whilst an in-patient.  The Defendant Trust admitted liability but disputed causation.

    The case required consideration of life-expectancy evidence and the impact of the Claimant’s already existing mental decline on whether but for the negligent care, he would have been required to be moved into a nursing home as early as he in fact did so.

    Following Richard’s involvement, the case was settled successfully and Richard represented the Claimant and Litigation Friend in the subsequent court approval hearing.

  • SC v A GP Practice

    Richard advised in conference with experts on the prospects of this case, and drafted particulars of claim, where the allegations by the Claimant were that she had for many years received inappropriate prescriptions for medication which had significantly worsened her mental condition and led to avoidable addiction to medication.

    In a factually difficult case, with many hundreds of pages of medical records concerning incidents occurring over a number of years, Richard was able to advise on the merits of pursuing particular general practitioners and whether it was appropriate to sue for damages relating to alleged negligence as part of secondary care.

    The case was ultimately settled in the Claimant’s favour against one of the GPs who Richard, with the help of the experts, was able to identify as being potentially at fault.

Richard is familiar with drafting court pleadings and schedules of loss, and is happy to quickly draft advice in urgent matters.

He has appeared in fast track and small claims’ trials – both for the Claimant and Defendant – including in a variety of credit hire, personal injury and commercial claims.

Richard has a keen insight and understanding into the tactical elements involved in litigation before the issuing of proceedings, strategies involved in successful negotiation, and understands the importance of work both outside as well as inside Court in achieving a successful outcome for the client.

Practice Areas

Appointments & Memberships

  • CPS Level 3 Prosecutor


  • BPTC (Outstanding), BPP Law School (2011-2012)
  • MA (Oxon) Jurisprudence (BA - First Class, Hons), St Anne's College, Oxford University (2008-2011)

Privacy Notice

Shortlist Builder


Select the Practice Areas that you would like to download or add to the shortlist

Download Add to shortlist
Portfolio close
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to email this list.