Qualifications
• Called to the Bar 2004 (Inner Temple)
• BVC (Inns of Court School of Law)
• PgDl/CPE
• BSc(Hons) University College London (London University)
Naomi joined Chambers following the successful completion of her pupillage.
Main Practice Areas
• Criminal Law
• Prison Law
• Family Law
Profile
Criminal Law
Prior to practising at the Bar, Naomi was a part of the defence team in the following VHCC cases: R v Barot and others (‘Dirty Bomb’ plot – 1st trial), R v Ul Haq and others, (2nd trial), R v Ibrahim and others (pre-trial) and R v Sarwar and others, (Airline/liquid bomb plot – trial and retrial). She was also involved in the following extradition matters: Abu Hamza and B Ahmed.
Naomi was also involved in the following appeals in the Court of Appeal and ECtHR as part of the same defence team: R v Barot and others , R v Ul Haq, Jalil and others, R v Sarwar (appeal still pending) and R v Ibrahim & others (appeal still pending).
She is briefed in all aspects of criminal law including confiscation proceedings.
Prison Law
Whilst working in the law firm Naomi developed a prison law department, dealing with categorisation, parole, allocation, adjudications, other prison issues and judicial review matters.
Since being in chambers Naomi has advised on prison law issues including the judicial review of a negative prison categorisation decision which was based on risk factors emanating from a conviction in another jurisdiction and allegations of torture thereof.
Family Law
Naomi undertakes all aspects of family law although most of her practice concerns private and public family law. She is briefed and has appeared in the magistrates’ courts and county courts in all aspects of family law and has represented clients in private and public matters in the High Court.
Recent Cases
R v J (2010) Isleworth Crown Court - Successful abuse of process argument concerning a previous implied ‘promise’ by the Prosecution to not prosecute.
R v B (2010) West London Magistrates’ Court – prosecution discontinued their prosecution following abuse of process arguments concerning numerous prosecution delays.
