Philip Romans

Crime

Philip now exclusively defends in cases involving:

• fraud (UK and international);
• money laundering and counterfeiting;
• large-scale drug importation, trafficking, supply and production;
• murder, manslaughter and other serious violence including armed robbery;
• firearms;
• rape and other sexual offences;
• child cruelty and neglect;
• asset forfeiture and confiscation.

Cases

• R v M (Southwark CC) – serious benefit fraud.
• R v T (Norwich CC) – multi-handed case involving large-scale cannabis production in Norfolk.
• R v O (Basildon CC) – two week multi-handed trial involving fraud carried out on vulnerable householders: these elderly people were defrauded out of money for gardening and landscaping work which was never carried out.
• R v B (Reading CC) – B acquitted of rape and attempted rape after a two week trial: complainant was cross-examined at length about a number of messages on social media. 
• R v R (Maidstone CC) – two week trial involving a particularly unpleasant aggravated burglary in which the inhabitants were subjected to violence and high value property was stolen.
• R v D (Winchester CC) – A former employee of a set of barristers’ chambers faced multiple counts of theft from clients: the Crown alleged that she falsely purported to be qualified to offer advice on immigration law.
• R v L (Basildon CC) – L acquitted of causing GBH with intent, having been accused of pushing an elderly disabled woman down a flight of stairs and breaking her arm and her leg (which may need to be amputated), despite his ‘admissions’ of guilt recorded on body-worn video.
• R v A and another (Canterbury CC) – two week trial of a husband and wife accused of assisting illegal immigration by an individual to an EU member state, featuring over 15,000 pages of phone evidence to examine and analyse.
• R v HB and others (Nottingham CC) – HB acquitted of involvement in a £1.3 million multi-handed fraud after the defence requested further statements from the first defendant – who had pleaded guilty to organising the criminal operation – which confirmed that HB had played no part in the unlawful enterprise: seven defendants accused of making numerous false claims for ‘signing’ support work purportedly carried out for the deaf, with five still facing a two month trial.
• R v U (Snaresbrook CC) – two week trial concerning the large-scale supply of class A drugs and firearms, with voluminous phone contact evidence.
• R v T and others (Isleworth CC) – two week trial of three sisters accused of the violent kidnap and false imprisonment of a young woman, with a considerable amount of phone contact data to analyse.
• R v RH (Snaresbrook CC) – RH charged with a £100,000 benefit fraud and acquitted after the defence produced evidence that properties the Crown alleged she owned in fact belonged to her former partner.
• R v P (Portsmouth CC) – two week trial involving the possession of a large number of extreme pornographic images and indecent images of children, with expert reports to consider and utilise.
• R v PR (Guildford CC) – PR faced an allegation of buggery dating back 35 years.
• R v N (Inner London CC) – two week trial of a young mother facing a number of allegations of child cruelty to her stepchildren and neglect of her own infant daughter.
• R v A (Isleworth CC) – A acquitted after a five day trial of importing a large quantity of class A drugs into the UK.

Other cases

• R v HR (Central Criminal Court) – HR (a nightclub doorman) acquitted of manslaughter after a trial involving the  single punch killing of a customer, with expert evidence playing a significant role.
• R v TR (Central Criminal Court) – Crown accepted TR’s plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility after he had been charged with the murder of a fellow hostel resident by stabbing him in the heart, cutting his throat and battering him over the head with a hockey stick 35 times.
• R v T and others (Derby CC) – three week multi-handed trial involving a conspiracy to rob a number of security vans, featuring a significant amount of cell-site evidence.
• R v AH and others (Central Criminal Court) – four week trial of a number of men charged with attempted murder and GBH during incidents of serious Tamil gang violence, featuring extensive CCTV evidence.
• R v M and others (Harrow CC) – two month, six handed trial concerning an extensive credit card fraud.
• R v S and others (Snaresbrook CC) – five month multi-handed trial involving the large-scale importation of class A drugs from Holland hidden in a consignment of dog food.
• R v D and others (Luton CC) – D acquitted of murder after five month, ten handed trial involving the killing of a young man attacked by a large group of males.
• R v DR (Southwark CC) – two trials involving advance fee frauds targeting businessmen from Scandinavia and Africa.
• R v VB and others (Wood Green CC) – four month multi-handed trial centred on a multinational fraud carried out against victims in Africa and the Far East.

Family

Philip has an established practice specialising in care proceedings and adoption, contact, residence and other private law disputes over children, international child abduction, domestic violence applications, divorce and financial relief orders.

Cases

• A v S (Stockport Family Court) – represented at final hearing a father applying for direct contact with his children in spite of an ongoing police investigation into allegations that he had raped the mother and subjected her to persistent domestic abuse: advice also provided on judicial review of the CAFCASS report in this case and their policies on domestic abuse and of the court’s orders, as the District Judge had refused to consider direct contact until the father admitted rape.
• LBH v S (Barnet Family Court) – acted for a mother resisting a local authority application for a Supervision Order in relation to her son at a three day final hearing which featured cross-examination of expert witnesses.
• S v T (Leeds Family Court) – acted for a mother at a three day fact finding hearing concerning allegations against the father of rape, domestic violence and abusive treatment of their children.
• K v D (West London Family Court) – represented a mother at a three day fact finding hearing concerning her allegations that the father assaulted and threatened to kill her, their child and members of her family, as well as the father’s counter-allegations of her violence towards him, including an attack with a kitchen knife.
• Y v LBL – acted for 14-year-old Eritrean child who had just arrived in the UK and had not been provided with accommodation by a local authority as required by the Children Act 1989: advice and draft documents prepared for judicial review of the borough’s failure to carry out its duties.
• A v B (East London Family Court) – acting for the solicitors’ firm formerly instructed by a mother in a contact dispute who had been ordered to show cause why they should not pay the father’s costs incurred because of their negligent advice.
• M v B (Watford Family Court) – represented a father at the hearing of the mother’s application for a Child Arrangement Order: the court allowed him regular weekend contact with his children.

Employment & discrimination

Philip has considerable experience in the areas of unfair dismissal, redundancy and racial and disability discrimination.

Cases

• K v B (Croydon Employment Tribunal) –  represented the former employee of a nationwide pharmacy chain at the two day hearing of his claim for unfair dismissal: his case was that he had been subjected to racial discrimination and unfairly dismissed because of unsubstantiated allegations of sexual impropriety with other staff members.
• K v LBBD (East London Employment Tribunal) – acted for the disabled employee of a local authority in his discrimination claim: the issues in dispute included:
  • whether the claim had been brought in time
  • the nature of the claimant’s disability and its effects
  • the exact discrimination suffered by the claimant
  • the basis for the borough’s original decision to make a ‘reasonable adjustment’ by funding the claimant’s support worker
  • the support the claimant required to carry out his duties
  • the borough’s decision to withdraw its funding
  • the ‘substantial disadvantage’ to the claimant resulting from this withdrawal of funding
  • the borough’s victimisation of the claimant
  • the claimant’s ‘protected disclosures’.
• I v IDS – acted for the employee of an organisation who had offered him an inadequate redundancy package: advice provided on voluntary/involuntary, unfair and constructive dismissal.

Housing

Philip has experience of cases involving occupancy and condition/disrepair of properties.

Education

• MA in Jurisprudence – University of Oxford
• Called to the Bar – Gray’s Inn 1982

Hobbies & interests

Philip enjoys watching football, cricket and rugby and reading modernist novels and poetry.