Laura Leech

Laura has amassed significant experience in defending in sexual offences cases which includes allegations of Rape, Indecent Assault, Child Sex Offences, Offences Involving Abuse of Trust, Familiar Sex Offences, Indecent Image cases, Human Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation, Grooming, Historical Sexual Abuse, Revenge Pornography and Possession of Extreme Pornography.

Laura is aware of the impact that allegations of this nature have upon those who have been accused of sexual offences and those closest to them, which is why she leaves no stone unturned and is completely discreet when preparing the cases for trial. Also, due to the high-profile and high net worth individuals that Laura represents, she acts in the strictest of confidence and works closely with our reputational management team to protect her clients further.

Laura has defended in many high-profile cases including allegations of murder, kidnap, drug conspiracies, commercial robberies, fraud, and other offences involving serious violence. Her representation extends to the ancillary proceedings such as Proceeds of Crime Act applications and Serious Crime Prevention Orders.

Laura has an excellent network of expert witnesses and specialist barristers which she regularly works with to secure the best possible outcome and her results speak for themselves. 

• R v K: Medical Professional accused of multiple sexual assaults. Client acquitted of all counts after trial.
• R v K: Allegation of Rape. No further action taken following submissions regarding pre-charge engagement with the investigating officer.
• R v S: Religious Practitioner charged with multiple counts of historic sexual offences. Expert witnesses including toxicologists and psychiatrists instructed. Client acquitted of all counts after trial.
• R v W: Care worker charged with multiple allegations of rape and sexual assault against a service user who had mental disorders. Client acquitted of all counts after trial.
• R v B: Prosecution of multiple defendants for human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Following further investigation by the defence, further relevant evidence was uncovered which resulted in lesser charges being offered by the prosecution during the trial.
• R v Y: Client charged with sexual assaults upon his ex-partner’s daughter whilst subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for previous sexual convictions. Client acquitted after trial.
• R v H: Client charged with multiple sexual assaults on her ex-partner’s child. Client acquitted after trial. 
• R v B & K: Both clients charged with controlling prostitution for gain and causing or inciting prostitution for gain following the raid of a brothel. The defence made an application to dismiss and not guilty verdicts were returned.
• R v Y: Taxi driver accused of sexually assaulting a passenger. Client acquitted after trial.
• R v M: Client charged with rape. Acquitted after trial.

• R v W: Allegation of Murder. No further action taken following lengthy police interviews and representations made at a hearing for a warrant of further detention.
• R v R: Multi-handed county lines drugs conspiracy. Significant issues raised in relation to the disclosure process and robust defence raised including the instruction of multiple experts. Client acquitted of all offences at trial.
• R v L: Mother accused of causing serious harm to her child. No evidence offered following written submissions in relation to the relevant case law to be applied. Not guilty verdicts recorded. 
• R v D: Multi-handed murder allegation. Case dismissed following instruction of numerous expert witnesses and submission to the court of no case to answer.
• R v O: Multi-handed allegation of perverting the course of justice. No evidence offered following written representations to the prosecution regarding the Full Code Test. Not guilty verdicts entered for both clients. 
• R v X: Arrest for murder. No further action following instruction of independent defence experts which showed issues in relation to causation.
• R v D: A large, historic, multi-handed Trading Standards prosecution for alleged offences of Fraud. Successful application of no case to answer (which was based on legal issues taken in relation to disclosure) was made and the client was found not guilty.
• R v H: Multiple defendants charged with Entering into a Money Laundering Arrangement. Secured a suspended sentence and nominal confiscation order. 
• R v S: Multi-handed drug conspiracy. Case dismissed at the conclusion of the prosecution case following a successful submission to the court of no case to answer.
• R v M: Multimillion pound VAT fraud conspiracy. Client received a suspended prison sentence.
• R v D: A vulnerable client and her partner charged with murder of their child. Numerous medical experts were instructed including a pathologist and a paediatric pathologist. Following defence submissions made at the conclusion of the prosecution case, the judge made a terminating ruling which brought the case against our client to an end. The prosecution appealed the decision. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal and they upheld the terminating ruling which meant that the client was formally acquitted.
• R v L: Client charged with Conspiracy to supply Class A drugs together with multiple other defendants across multiple jurisdictions. Following representations to the prosecution, no evidence was offered. 
• R v M: Client charged with producing and supplying a psychoactive substance and administering a noxious substance which was linked to the death of another. The prosecution discontinued the offence of administering a noxious substance following representations. The client received a suspended sentence in respect of the other admitted offences.
• R v H: A Senior Civil Servant charged with Robbery of a taxi driver. Acquitted after trial.
• R v K: Client jointly charged with his brother with an offence of wounding with intent (S18) which involved an allegation that he had stabbed another male. Client acquitted after trial.
• R v V: Client charged with an offence of wounding with intent. Self defence raised and the client was acquitted after trial.
• R v A : Client found in possession of a disguised firearm. A firearms expert was instructed and following which the client was advised to plead guilty. A significant mitigation bundle was prepared to argue exceptional circumstances against the minimum tariff of 5 years imprisonment. Client avoided immediate custody and received a suspended prison sentence.
• R v T: Client was charged with possession of a sawn off shot gun. A firearms expert was instructed and a report was prepared. The report undermined the prosecution case and following a review of our report, the prosecution offered no evidence. 
• R v K: Client charged as part of a multi-handed money laundering operation in excess of £500k. Client received suspended prison sentence.