Joe Culley > New Park Court Chambers > Leeds, England > Barrister Profile

Joe Culley

+44 (0)191 232 1980 clerks@newparkcourt.co.uk

Work Department

Crime, Civil

Position

Joe Culley has established a busy criminal practice on the North Eastern Circuit. Called in 2010, Joe developed five years’ experience of Civil Advocacy in County Court proceedings. Joe also has experienced in Local Government having been an elected member of Middlesbrough Borough Council between 2015 and 2016. As a Councillor, in addition to assisting local residents with a variety of issues and speaking at public and private meetings, Joe was elected to Chair the Standards Committee and was also a member of the Overview and Scrutiny Board and a Trustee of the Teesside Pension Fund.

Joe left his position with the Council having accepted an in-house pupillage with the Crown Prosecution Service in Leeds in the Spring of 2016, under the supervision of a Principal Crown Advocate. On successful completion of pupillage, he was employed as a Crown Prosecutor based in North Yorkshire.

Joe is a Level 3 CPS Prosecutor and is routinely instructed to appear in contested cases in the Crown Court. Joe also accepts instructions in civil proceedings. Joe regularly prosecutes and defends in serious criminal cases in the Crown Court. He is a member of the CPS General Crime Panel at Grade 3.

Joe remains available for instruction in simple civil proceedings, drawing upon his substantial experience prior to pupillage. Since joining Chambers in January 2018 Joe has continued to undertake civil cases on behalf of Claimants and Defendants. He regularly appears on both the Fast Track and the Small Claims Track.

Crime

• R v M, Teesside Crown Court (Sep 2023) – S.18. Prosecuting at trial a case concerning allegations of s.18 GBH and witness intimidation in which the injury resulting to the complainant, whilst accepted to be very serious, was not that directly intended by the Defendant. Significant factual dispute existed between the parties. Conviction after trial and the Defendant sentenced to 5 years, 8 months.
• R v R, Newcastle Crown Court (Jul 2023) – Robbery. Defending in a difficult case in which the Defendant was unattractive to a jury: admitting to heavy intoxication at the time of the allegation of violent robbery in a dwelling, and with a number of previous convictions for serious violence. Cross-examination of the complainant’s social worker established that she had not seen or noted injuries to him on a date between the alleged incident and first disclosure. Acquittal after trial.
• R v F & F, Newcastle Crown Court (Apr 2023) – Burglary. Appearing for the Prosecution. The two Defendants faced a 30-count indictment concerning a spree of ‘2 in 1’ dwelling burglaries in the Newcastle area. Despite presentational challenges arising from a complex nexus of evidence (deriving from cell sites, text messages, PACE identifications, forensics, and circumstantial evidence) acceptable guilty pleas were eventually forthcoming towards the conclusion of the trial. The Defendants were later sentenced to 10 years, 8 months and 8 years, 4 months respectively.

Civil

• W v West Bay Insurance Ltd, Newcastle County Court (Feb 2023). Defending in a Fast Track claim for PSLA and credit hire charges, issued for over £18,000. Both parties had been taxi drivers at the time of a collision and liability was resolved by the court in favour of the Claimant. The Claimant had entered into hire agreement having been instructed to do so by his employer. Cross-examination of the Claimant on the issue of need for hire established that he had never even seen, let alone used, the vehicle hired to him having been given a replacement vehicle by his employer immediately after the collision. Whilst the Claimant was found to have a valid need for a replacement vehicle, as that need had been met by his employer there was no need for him to incur the considerable credit hire charges and this head of claim was refused in its entirety.
• S v Tesco Underwriting, York County Court (May 2021). Appearing for the Claimant in a Fast Track claim for damages in relation to personal injuries arising from a road traffic collision. Despite the Claimant being cross-examined at length and the Defence advancing an argument that the claim is fundamentally dishonest this is rejected by the court, awarding in excess of £2,000 damages and making criticisms in its judgment of the manner in which the case was defended.
• M & A v Energy Save North-West Ltd, Manchester County Court (April 2021).
  Appearing for the Claimants at disposal hearing, judgment is obtained for the Claimants in excess of £42,000 for losses arising from the negligent installation of cavity wall insulation in a residential property.

Memberships

• CPS Level 3 Prosecutor
• Criminal Bar Association
• Personal Injury Bar Association
• Gray’s Inn