JOHN HURLOCK
Case reports and selected experience across his practice.
John represented MM in a substantial multi-defendant trial. The defence challenged whether the evidence proved one overarching agreement. The jury acquitted MM of conspiracy to import cocaine and conspiracy to export ketamine. MM had admitted involvement with cannabis and ketamine; the acquittals concern the two conspiracy counts.
John represented K, who was 16 at the time of the alleged offending, in a multi-defendant Class A drugs conspiracy. Supported by expert evidence and safeguarding findings, the defence challenged the decision to prosecute a child identified as a victim of criminal exploitation. The prosecution offered no evidence and a not-guilty verdict was entered.
John represented N in a large-scale Class A and Class B drugs prosecution. The defence reviewed covert recordings that the Crown had not relied on. In cross-examination, the officer conceded that the recordings did not connect N to either the Essex or Holland end of the conspiracy. N was acquitted following a retrial.
Following guilty pleas to drug trafficking offences and conspiracies, John contested the Crown’s claimed benefit of over £20.9 million. The court rejected the alleged hidden assets and determined the benefit at £350,000 — more than £20.6 million below the figure sought. This was a confiscation result following conviction, not an acquittal.
After guilty pleas to drug-supply conspiracies and acquiring criminal property, John successfully challenged the role alleged by the prosecution at a Newton hearing. His client was sentenced on the accepted defence basis. In subsequent contested confiscation proceedings involving UK and overseas property, vehicles and bank funds, no money or assets were confiscated. These results concern sentencing and confiscation, not an acquittal.
A defendant faced drug-supply and criminal-property charges. The defence presented records of abuse and expert evidence about modern slavery and exploitation. The jury returned unanimous not-guilty verdicts.
In a cocaine-supply case, John represented LM at trial and retrial. Legal argument secured the exclusion of EncroChat material; disclosure arguments also resulted in agreed facts favourable to the defence.
A trial involving drugs recovered from a home, phone messages and cell-site material. DB was unanimously acquitted of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs.
John defended allegations including blackmail, supply of Class A drugs, threats to kill and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Following conviction in a lengthy drugs-conspiracy trial, John secured sentencing on a lesser role than the prosecution alleged. The Court of Appeal subsequently declined to increase the sentence on the Attorney General’s reference.
John represented B in a cocaine-supply conspiracy trial involving phone records, CCTV and financial evidence. The jury unanimously acquitted his client.
John defended a bitcoin trader accused of laundering criminal proceeds. Analysis of wallet records and phone data, alongside cross-examination of expert witnesses, supported the defence. The jury unanimously acquitted N.
John represented a client at the Old Bailey in a 14-defendant prosecution involving conspiracy to kidnap, blackmail and false imprisonment. Instructed by Paul Cameron of Bark & Co, he challenged surveillance evidence and disclosure through Public Interest Immunity (PII) proceedings. After two weeks of defence submissions, the prosecution offered no evidence and all 14 defendants were acquitted.
John represented a woman accused of laundering more than £50,000 from a drug enterprise. The defence examined messages, bank transactions and her account in interview. The jury unanimously acquitted her of the money-laundering conspiracy.
At Norwich Crown Court, the jury unanimously acquitted John’s client of money laundering. His client had separately pleaded guilty to an offence involving nitrous oxide; the acquittal concerned the money-laundering allegation.
John represented a former professional footballer at sentencing at Leicester Crown Court, following convictions in the Magistrates’ Court. The court imposed an 18-month suspended sentence. John’s involvement was at the sentencing stage.
At the Old Bailey, John represented a 17-year-old accused of murder and possessing a bladed article. Following a ruling on witness anonymity, the prosecution offered no evidence and not-guilty verdicts were entered.
John represented PG and LK at sentencing for unlicensed dog breeding, having not acted at trial. He secured a suspended sentence without a fine or disqualification from keeping dogs. The prosecution did not pursue confiscation.
In a fraud prosecution alleging investor losses exceeding £3 million, John secured agreement to a £1 million loss figure for sentencing. This avoided a disputed-facts hearing and preserved credit for ID’s guilty plea.
Instructed through Direct Access, John made written representations concerning jewellery seized in a proceeds-of-crime investigation. Police withdrew the forfeiture case and returned items valued at £27,000.
John’s client was acquitted of allegations of assaulting a police officer and an emergency worker after the court accepted a submission that there was no case to answer at the close of the prosecution evidence.
Following Y’s guilty plea to assaulting an emergency worker, John opposed a football banning order. The court declined to impose the order after considering Y’s circumstances and the absence of a connection to football hooliganism.
John represented ZM in an appeal against the revocation of a firearms licence. A challenge to hearsay evidence and written legal argument prompted the prosecution to review the case.
John represented a football manager in disciplinary proceedings concerning FA Rule E3.1, drawing on his experience in football and sports regulation.
THE NEXT STEP
Email him directly about your case or call the clerks at 2 Bedford Row. Evening and weekend attendance is offered, with availability and fees confirmed when arranging instructions.
