Mark successfully acted for the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police at first instance and on appeal in Frugal v Nottinghamshire Police  EWCA Civ 86 – a civil action concerning arrest and detention.
“His ability to win over a jury is incredible”
Chambers & Partners
Experience & Expertise
Mark is very well known and respected in the field of police law having specialised in this field for over 20 years.
He recently had a notable success in the case of Yousif v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis a case where the claimant had alleged that he was the victim of inhuman and degrading treatment whilst in custody.
Click here to see the judgement
He presented the misconduct case against Superintendent Fulcher who did not caution the murderer Chris Halliwell before he took the officer to the place where he had buried another victim.
Click here to see press coverage for this case
He advised the force and presented the fast track misconduct case leading to the dismissal of Superintendent Carr who subsequently pleaded guilty to several counts of fraud and was given a suspended sentence.
Click here to see press coverage for this case
Mark advised and acted for Bedfordshire Police during the inquest into the death of Istiak Yusuf.
Click here to see press coverage
Very recently Mark successfully defended a complex and high value stress at work claim. After 2 days of cross-examination the claimant withdrew her claim. Due to the nature of the officer’s duties at the material time the trial was heard in private.
Cases and work of note
- Yousif v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Walker v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  1 Cr. App. R. 22
- Gregory v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  1 W.L.R. 4253 (mode of trial)
- R. (on the application of B) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court  EWHC 1089 (Admin) (search warrants)
- Osoba v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire  Eq. L.R. 1072 (age discrimination)
- R. (on the application of Hasan) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court  EWHC 2257 (Admin) (search warrants; injunctions)
- Jabang v City of London Police Commissioners  EWHC 461 (Ch) (striking out)
- Hutchinson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  EWHC 1660 (QB) (vicarious liability/costs)
- R (on the application of Evans) v. Chief Constable of Sussex  EWHC 2329 (Fast track procedure)
- R (on the application of French) v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire  EWHC (Admin) (police misconduct)
- Graham v. Chief Constable of West Mercia & Others  EWHC 4 (QB) (reasonable grounds to suspect)
- R (on the application of Sands) v. Chief Constable of Merseyside  EWHC 2698 (Admin) (vetting)
- Roberts v. Chief Constable of Kent  EWCA Civ 1588 (use of police dog)
- Bayode v. Chief Constable of Derbyshire, EAT, 22 May 2008 (race discrimination)
- R (on the application of ‘G’) v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and the DPP  EWCA Civ 28 (interpretation of S.37A Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984)
- Tomlinson v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  EWHC 2810 (admissibility of similar fact evidence)
- Manley v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  EWCA Civ 879 (award of aggravated damages)
- Omar v. Chief Constable of Bedfordshire  EWHC 3060 (Admin) (quashing of a caution)
- R. v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex p Sofola (Richards J) 3 November 2000 (refusal of police to disclose identity of suspect to victim of criminal damage where police believed identification to be flawed)
- Lamothe v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (CCRT/1999/0577/B1 (Bingham LCJ and May LJ) 25 October 1999 (determination of triable issue during interlocutory stage)
- O’Loughlin v. Chief Constable of Essex  1 WLR 374 (powers of entry)
Mark is consistently recommended by both the leading legal directories in both professional discipline and Police law.
Solicitors interviewed by Chambers & Partners note that; “his attention to detail is remarkable and his no-nonsense approach refreshing. His cross-examining skills are excellent, and he is able to explain complex issues in layman’s terms.”
Other recent directory editorial has included the following:
- he is very good in trials, particularly with juries;
- he often gets commended by the judge for his closing speeches;
- he is very robust and a bit of a street fighter. He is very good at getting stuck into witnesses;
- he takes the clients with him, and the witnesses. They feel like he’s fighting in their corner;
- he has excellent knowledge of his cases;
- an excellent jury advocate;
- a very persuasive court technique that certainly goes down well with both judge and jury;
- he is a core player in police disciplinary law;
- has made his name defending an array of civil actions against the police, many of which touch on employment and personal injury issues;
- an excellent trial lawyer;
- stands out for the trust he instils in both clients and judges;
- very knowledgeable, thorough, robust and effective;
- excels in police disciplinary cases;
- provides sensible and pragmatic advice;
- instructed by police forces in controversial disciplinary hearings;
- holds a fine, long-standing reputation for work in all areas of police law;
- an extremely astute lawyer, who is very intelligent and personable;
- his ability to win over a jury is incredible;
- he is incredibly experienced and generally formidable;
- he is someone to use if you want to get a really difficult point of law across;
- a popular choice in front of the police tribunals;
- he is good at dealing with very sensitive and technical cases;
- particularly skilled at inquest representation; and
- a superb all-rounder who is thorough with paperwork, quick on his feet and objective.
A large proportion of the work that I do is adversarial. Although the forum may vary there will usually be a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’. Being a naturally competitive person I enjoy the ‘contest’ but I don’t enjoy losing.
“I like to think that I improve my client’s prospects of success by having more than 20 years’ experience of police cases, introducing a little humour (when appropriate) and having a straight talking ‘no nonsense’ approach”
Of course one cannot win every time (if you do you are probably only fighting the easy cases) but I like to think that I improve my client’s prospects of success by: having a good knowledge of the law; having more than 20 years’ experience of police cases; being approachable and friendly; introducing a little humour (when appropriate); having a straight talking ‘no nonsense’ approach; understanding that I am part of a team; ensuring that I am better prepared than my opponent; and being an effective, persuasive and passionate advocate
For further details of Mark’s practice please click on the links to the left or contact a member of the clerking or client service team.
Bar Council Membership No: 32259
Registered Name: Mark John Ley-Morgan
VAT Registration No: 667692185