Bryan Cox QC

The core of Bryan’s practice is defending cases of homicide, often involving allegations of baby shaking or gang crime. In addition he has experience of defending and prosecuting cases of corporate manslaughter, and his background prosecuting health and safety cases whilst appointed to the Attorney General’s ‘A’ list equips him well for such cases. In recent years he has represented a number of juveniles and vulnerable individuals charged with homicide. He has wide experience of conducting cases in which medical issues are foremost, and has defended and prosecuted a number of cases where ‘shaken baby syndrome’ has been an issue, and cases where the cause of death has been the central issue. He is very familiar with the medical debate and literature relating to ‘shaken baby syndrome’, including the neuropathology, paediatric neuropathology and the ophthalmic pathology, and has cross-examined many of the leading experts in the field.

A Sample of Recent Homicide Cases

R -v- M
Defended youths involved in “gang attacks” in which there were difficult issues of joint enterprise.  Scientific issues concerning blood distribution.

R -v- Newton
Defended man charges with murder of prostitute.  Complex scientific issues concerning rate of body decomposition.

R -v- AM
Defended Somalian who had limited language charges with contract killing.  Difficult client requiring sensitive handling.

R -v- Cook
Prosecuted teenager charged with murder of young child whilst babysitting.  Complex medical issues including medical evidence relating to “Shaking injuries”.

R -v- B
Defended 18 year old charged with murder arising from a group attack on a mentally disabled victim. Difficult medical issues as to causation of neurological injuries.  Issues relating to blood distribution.

R -v- H
Defended man charged with sexual abuse and drowning baby in bath.  Medical issues relating to causation of bruises and anal injury and complex issues as to length of time that child must have been held under water.

R -v- H
Prosecuted defendant charged with murder of 7 week baby.  Complex medical issues. Case based almost entirely on medical evidence relating to the “triad” and skull fracture.

R -v- F
Young person charged with murder of sister’s boyfriend.  Loss of control by reason of boyfriends abuse of sister.

R -v- B
Defended novel case in which prosecution sought to argue for unlawful act manslaughter where defendant had committed section 4 public order offence.

R -v- D
Defended in high-profile contract killing. Cut throat defence.  Issues of joint enterprise, medical and blood distribution.

R -v- N
Defended 16 year old charged with murder of relative.  Diminished responsibility.  Contested medical evidence re: diminished responsibility.

R -v- R
Defended 14 year old charged with 3 counts of murder by setting fire to occupied house.  Complex psychiatric issues.

R -v- O Malley
High-profile strangulation case.  Medical Issues.

R -v- Lu Yao Jai
Defended in high profile “2 bodies in 2 suitcases” case.  Cut throat defence.

R -v- N
Prosecuted high profile case in which defendant murdered the 2 month old baby of the woman he met on an internet dating site.  Complex medical issues concerning neurological damage to baby.

R -v- G Others
Prosecuted a major high profile multi-handed murder case.  Issues included joint enterprise. 

R -v- A and Others
Prosecuted a number of defendants charged with planned turf war shooting.  Cell site, ballistic and facial mapping evidence.

R -v- G
Defended man alleged to have killed his wife during the 1980’s when she ‘disappeared’.

R -v- M
Manslaughter, medical issue as to whether cause of death was the injury caused in course of robbery, or paracetamol poisoning in hospital.  Contested medical evidence on cause of organ failure.

R -v- G
Murder where cell site and DNA evidence critical.

R -v- C
17 year old charged with multiple shooting in context of turf war (cellist/DNA evidence).

R -v- MJ
Defending parent inched shaking case with complex medical issues concerning ‘the triad’, and histopathology concerning bone fractures.  Cross examined leading experts.

R v Huntley Mount Engineering

Corporate manslaughter where the allegation was that a trainee was dragged into a machine

R v G

Defended mother charged with causing or permitting the death of her child by suffocation, Complex medical issues concerning cause of death, including neuropathology, sudden infant death experts, and odontology

R-v-J

Defended baby killing where defendant was alleged to have shaken the baby, and caused numerous fractures. Evidence relating t dating of fractures was important, and leading experts in paediatric histopathology gave evidence

R v B

Defended mother charged with the murder of 2 of her children and attempted murder of her other 3 children. Medical issues . Although she ultimately pleaded guilty to murder, complex argument as to whether whole life term appropriate

R v K

Defended man charged with murder of his partner by pushing her down the stairs. Issue was whether she fell or was pushed. The pathological evidence and scientific evidence concerning the blood distribution was crucial.

R v R

Defended one of three men charged with murder in a cut throat defence. The pathology and scientific evidence was was critical, and the subject of close cross-examination

Before taking Silk Bryan regularly defended cases involving serious sexual allegations, especially historic allegations.  

As a Recorder he is appointed to sit on cases requiring a Class 2 Serious Sexual Offences ticket.

In silk, his practice is to accept private instructions in cases involving sexual allegations, and his extensive experience in cases involving medical issues makes him an excellent choice in such cases.

In recent years Bryan has represented parents in a number of complex care proceedings; his expertise addressing medical evidence – especially in the context of injuries to babies and infants – makes him ideally suited to lead in care cases where there are allegations of causing serious injury to a child. Equally his experience defending in sexual cases, and cross-examining young children and vulnerable adults well equips him to represent parents facing findings of serious sexual abuse in child care cases. He is very familiar with, and adapts to, the differences in approach between the criminal and family courts, but his particular experience in the criminal courts makes him well suited to undertake the transition.

In recent years he has appeared in the family court in a number of fact finding hearings, and is currently instructed to represent parents facing allegations of serious sexual abuse in a major fact finding hearing.

The particular nature of Bryan’s work in the criminal courts makes the crossover to the Care Court a natural one. Much of his criminal work consists of defending cases involving ‘shaken baby syndrome’, so that he is very familiar with the medical debate and literature relating to ‘shaken baby syndrome’, including the neuropathology, paediatric neuropathology and the ophthalmic pathology.  

He has cross-examined many of the leading experts in the field, and is well placed to advise in relation to the instruction of suitable experts. His criminal cases frequently involve issues concerning the dating of injuries, including fractures, and he is familiar with issues and relevant literature concerning the highly specialised field of histopathology. He has defended in a number of criminal cases involving allegations of strangulation, drowning and asphyxiation of babies and infants.

He occasionally accepts private instructions in child custody cases

The legal directories comment Bryan as “highly rated for serious crime”, and a “great choice for fraud or money laundering”.

Over the course of his practice, as a junior and in silk, he has considerable experience defending in a wide range of major fraud cases including mortgage fraud, VAT fraud (including tied oil fraud), election fraud and carousel fraud

A number of the commendations in the legal directories refer specifically to Bryan’s skill conducting health and safety cases.
He has prosecuted and defended numerous high profile health and safety cases. As junior counsel he was appointed to the Attorney Generals “A” list. He has a wide experience of representing public bodies and corporate clients in relation to health and safety and environmental cases.

His extensive experience includes prosecuting and defending health and safety cases arising from fatalities in quarries, train derailments, electrocution and construction site incidents. Before taking silk he regularly defended pollution prosecutions brought by the Environment Agency, and has recently defended a major international company in relation to a prosecution arising from a massive acid spillage.

Bryan has considerable experience of appearing at inquests on behalf of individuals and public bodies. He has, for example, represented members of the teaching profession at a number of inquests concerning deaths of children during school outdoor activities, and on school trips. He has recent experience of representing medical professionals in relation to disciplinary proceedings at disciplinary hearings and (on appeal) in the High Court and Court of Appeal.