Nick Cockrell > Chambers of Richard Pratt KC > Liverpool, England > Barrister Profile

Nick Cockrell

Work Department

Crime

Career

Call: 2005 (Lincoln’s Inn)

Education

Royal Grammar School, Worcester

University of Liverpool LLB (Hons) (2002)
Bar Vocational Course (2005)

Practice Areas

Crime

• General Crime
• Murder and Homicide
• Sexual Offences
• Fraud and Financial Crime
• Drugs and Organised Crime
• Proceeds of Crime
• Money Laundering
• Motoring Law

Books & Articles

Prior to practising, Mr Cockrell was employed by the University of Liverpool as a lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Evidence.  He completed various book reviews of leading criminal texts and was published in the Journal of Criminal Law in October 2004.

As a solicitor, he contributed Criminal Law Updates to the Liverpool Law Society Magazine.  During his time at the University of Liverpool, he delivered guest lectures at the Expert Witness Institute, and visited various schools and universities giving talks and career advice for prospective law students.

Areas of Practice

Mr Cockrell joined Chambers from a leading firm of solicitors where he was head of the criminal department.  He litigated some of the firms most serious cases and regularly represented defendants in the magistrates’ courts.  He spent most of his time, however, in the Crown Court and appeared numerous times in the Court of Appeal.

Since joining Chambers, he has become a Level 3 Prosecutor (Level 2 for Serious Crime, POCA and Fraud) and he has continued to defend clients across the full spectrum of criminal offences.

Notable Cases

Notable Reported Cases

R. v H [2017] EWCA Crim 217: Appeal against sentence for a defendant who had embarked upon a campaign of commercial burglaries of schools and churches.

R. v A-K [2016] EWCA Crim 514: Successful appeal against sentence for a young man who was involved in a conspiracy to commit dwelling burglaries when he was 16.  He was 17 when he entered his plea, and 18 at the time of sentence.  His total sentence of 64 months detention was reduced to 40 months on appeal, resulting in his immediate release from custody due to time served.

R. v D [2015] EWCA Crim 645: An appeal against sentence in a complex and unusual case involving section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.

R. v W [2015] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 36: Representing a defendant charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, threatening behaviour and offences under the Air Navigation Order 2009.  Issues concerned the approach taken to offences committed on board a commercial aeroplane and public policy considerations.  The Appellant had verbally abused cabin crew whilst aboard a flight, threatening to assault one of them, and had committed ABH on a police officer who was attempting to remove him from the plane once it had landed. (See also: Current Sentencing Practice, B2-4.3A and B2-6)

R. v G [2013] EWCA Crim 2402: Successful appeal against sentence for two appellants (Simco & Harkins) where the Crown Court had rejected submissions that the Sentencing Guidelines were being applied incorrectly.   The Court of Appeal agreed with the submissions and quashed the sentences of 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, and 6 years and 4 months imprisonment Ð with terms of 3 years and 8 months and 5 years and 6 months respectively.

Other Notable Cases

R v S: Instructed to defend a man charged with serious offences under the Explosive Substances Act 1882.

R v N & Others: Instructed as led junior for the prosecution in a multi-handed conspiracy to discharge firearms.

R v W & Others: Instructed as disclosure counsel, and thereafter led junior in a multi-handed prosecution relating to historic abuse at a residential school.

R v B: Successfully defended a man charged with an historic offence of cruelty towards his foster daughter (jointly charged with his wife), offences said to have occurred over a 10 year period.

R v P: Successfully defended an elderly man charged with manslaughter as led junior.

R v N: Instructed by the main defendant in a large multi-handed conspiracy to supply class A drugs in the Northwest.

R v N: Instructed to defend a man charged with an offence of rape.  Incident recorded and expert evidence required to determine the issue of consent.

R v S & Others: Instructed as led junior to prosecution a £1million fraud with multiple defendants.  Linked to ongoing civil proceedings in the High Court.

R v B: Defended a man charged with multiple historic rapes and sexual abuse of his ex-partner and step-child.  Acquitted of one rape and convicted of other offences.

R v M: Appeared for the prosecution in the case of a police officer who was charged with multiple offences under the Data Protection Act 1988 and Computer Misuse Act 1990 for unlawfully accessing information from police systems.

R v B: Successfully prosecuted a man charged with threats to kill in respect of his ex-partner.

R v M: Instructed by a defendant charged with section 18 offences against his ex-partners boyfriend.  The defendant was acquitted after trial.

R v R: Represented a defendant charged with three offences of sexual assault and stalking.  The case was withdrawn from the jury at the conclusion of the prosecution case following submissions about the strength of the evidence.

R v K: Successful defence of a man charged with the historic rape of his sister.

R v M & Others: Led junior for the prosecution in a two month trial involving section 18 and conspiracies to blackmail.

R v L: Represented a defendant charged with blackmail and serious sexual offences involving his cousin.  Both defendants in the case (as well as one pro section witness) were deaf and the trial took place with the assistance of multiple sign language interpreters.

R v K: Head litigator for a female charged with murder.  There were complicated legal issues involving causation, notably because a consultant had not seen the apparent fatal injury when the deceased was first admitted to A&E.  The client was acquitted of murder and found guilty of manslaughter.

R v F: Instructed to defend a 17 year old charged with attempted murder and section 18.  There were multiple defendants and various complainants in a three week trial which centred on an argument between two groups of youths.  The defendant was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of section 18.

R v C: Defended a man of previous good character in a two week trial involving money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

R v H: Successfully represented a defendant charged with possession of a firearm.

R v T: Defended a rugby player charged with assault where the primary issue was identification.  After two trial, and two hung juries, the prosecution offered no evidence and a formal not guilty verdict was recorded.