Dr. Anthony Richardson

R v ST and Another 2026

Dr. Anthony Richardson, in quick succession, successfully resisted and defeated the Prosecution’s Bad Character Application and won a No Case to Answer Application against the Prosecution, after a five day trial at Stoke on Trent Crown Court on 26th March 2026. Affirming Dr. Richardson’s No Case to Answer Application, the Court directed the jury to find the Defendant (and the Co-Defendant) not guilty of robbery.

R v AD, 2026

Dr Anthony Richardson secured unanimous Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity verdicts at the Old Bailey for a defendant charged with serious assault offences. This followed a two-day trial, with the jury deliberating for just over an hour before returning their verdicts. In light of the facts of the case and the verdicts reached, the judge ordered an absolute discharge.

R v HA and another, 2025

Dr. Anthony Richardson secured two not guilty verdicts at Winchester Crown Court for his client who was charged with one count of attempted robbery and one count of grievous bodily harm. After a week-long trial and after deliberating for over seven hours, the Jury came back with the two not guilty verdicts. The case shockingly involved a complete lack of forensic evidence, thereby allowing Dr. Richardson to use simple logic to assert his client’s case and to attack and tear apart the Crown’s case. Dr. Richardson’s knowledge of the Rules of Evidence, especially in relation to their practical and tactical application, was crucial and effectively deployed during this trial.

R v AO, 2025

Dr. Anthony Richardson secured a non-custodial sentence for his client, who was convicted for the offence of burglary in which they used a crowbar to enter a vacant house at night, at Guildford Crown Court.

During legal arguments, the prosecution argued that the single offence of burglary warranted a sentence of four years (Category 2 of the Sentencing Guidelines). However, Dr. Richardson successfully argued, with the Court agreeing with him, that the warranted sentence should be one of 18 months (between lower level 2 and upper level 3 of the Sentencing Guidelines).

With 18 months being the starting point, Dr. Richardson then argued the sentence heavily ‘downward’, relying on factors specific to the defendant, thereby successfully ensuring the defendant received an 18-month non-custodial Community Order.

R v RF, 2024

Dr. Anthony Richardson has secured a non-custodial sentence for a defendant charged with the offence of handling stolen goods at a sentencing, held at Woolwich Crown Court on 30 October 2024. The case concerned the theft of a large amount of assorted goods from a van owned by a well-known retailer that supplies very expensive electronic goods.

Due to the nature and large amount of the goods found by the police at the defendant’s home, the Court suggested that the sentencing range should be, as a minimum, Category 2A of the Sentencing Guidelines – one to four years. Had the Court placed the offence in the Category 1A of the Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant would have been subject to a hefty sentencing range of three to eight years.

When Anthony asked the Crown for the value of the goods, they shockingly replied by saying that they did not have a valuation. The Crown was given time, by way of an adjournment, to obtain a valuation but this proved unsuccessful.

As a result, Anthony was able to successfully argue and convince the Court that the appropriate categorisation ought to be at the very bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines – a non-custodial Community Order.

R v KB, 2024

Dr. Anthony Richardson secured, on 21st May 2024, unanimous acquittals for a defendant charged with the offences of: rape of a female, assault of a female, sexual assault of a female, and engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child. This was after a 5-day trial at the Stafford Crown Court. Dr. Richardson used the evidence of the Crown’s own witnesses to undermine their own credibility. He also relied on an unused medical report, which did not support the Crown’s case, to successfully challenge the rape and sexual assault allegations. The Defendant had no previous convictions for like offences.

The events giving rise to the trial occurred between 2013 and 2018.

R v MM, 2024

Dr. Anthony Richardson secured, on 5th February 2024, a unanimous acquittal for a defendant charged with the single offence of robbery. This was after a 6-day trial at the Old Bailey (Aldersgate). It was alleged that the Defendant broke into the office of a gentlemen’s club, attacked and tied a staff member to an office chair, and made off with a sum of money.

Dr. Richardson successfully attacked and undermined the methodology used for compiling the Crown’s Expert DNA evidence. Dr. Richardson, by way of three direct questions, gave the Crown’s DNA Expert three opportunities to defend his research but he refused. Dr. Richardson also highlighted the fact that there was unexplored DNA evidence, from an unknown person, found on the staff member’s arm. For unknown reasons, prior to the Defendant being charged, the Crown’s DNA Expert failed to try and determine the identity of the unknown person’s DNA.

The trial concerned primarily: ID evidence, cell-tower evidence, financial/ bank transaction evidence and DNA evidence. The events giving rise to the trial occurred in 2019.

R v JD and Another, 2023/2024

Instructed in a matter where the Defendant, along with his co-defendant, has been charged with three counts of defrauding a charity of large sums of money. The matter requires the assessment of the law of charities, trust agreements, and several expert forensic reports, bank statements and tax statements.

R v RM, 2023

Secured three unanimous acquittals for a defendant charged with three Joint Enterprise offences: Racially Aggravated Fear or Provocation of Violence, Robbery, and Attempted Theft. This was after a 7-day trial at Aylesbury Crown Court. Joint Enterprise charges are extremely difficult to disprove and, for this reason, acquittals are rare. The Defendant and his three Co-Defendants were jointly charged with committing the offences, against a taxi driver, after leaving a nightclub in the early morning hours of April of 2019. The Crown’s case relied on CCTV and medical evidence which required detailed analysis.

Instructed by Solicitor Riccardo Pagano of Walker Law Ltd. Solicitors.

R v YJ, 2023

Anthony secured two unanimous verdicts for a defendant charged with one count of burglary and one count of theft, following a 3-day trial at the Old Bailey Crown Court.

R v DG, 2023

Anthony secured two unanimous verdicts for a defendant charged with one count of assault occasioning bodily harm with intent and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, following a 4-day trial at the Old Bailey Crown Court.

R v ME, 2022

Instructed in a matter where the Defendant has been charged with possession of cocaine with intent to supply and possession of diamorphine with intention to supply.

R v WF, 2022

Instructed in a matter where the Defendant has been charged with two counts of modern slavery and two counts of possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply.

R v RD, 2020

Dr Richardson was counsel for the defendant who entered a plea of guilty to a charge of criminal damage (broken window and frame valued at 640.00 pounds).

The Crown asserted that this guilty plea caused the defendant to be in breach of a previous Suspended Sentence Order and now liable for a term of imprisonment. Dr Richardson countered this assertion by inviting the court to look at the actual date each matter came before the courts and argued that there was no such breach as the suspended sentence matter was moved in front of the current criminal damage matter by the Crown. In other words, the Defendant cannot be punished because the Crown decided to prosecute itʼs matters, related to the same defendant, out of sequence. The court accepted his arguments and refused to activate the suspended sentence matter. The court thanked Dr Richardson for preventing a miscarriage of justice.

R v S, 2006

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant who was charged with being in possession of Class B drugs. The defendant’s motor car, while parked in a bowling alley parking lot, was found to have with it small packets of Class B drugs shoved inside the small, unlocked door cover for the petrol tank. As the defendantʼs motor car was parked in a public place, a bowling alley where patrons of the bowling alley freely walked between the parked motor cars (the parking lot had no walls, fencing or barriers restricting access), Dr Richardson successfully argued that anyone could have placed the Class B drugs inside the unlocked door cover for the petrol tank and, this being the case, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of the offences charged. The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

R v GL, 2005

Dr Richardson was Junior Counsel for the defendant, over a period of approximately four weeks, where the defendant was charged with the offence of murder.

The defendant caused the death of his ex-girlfriend by stabbing her over twenty times with a butcher knife, in broad daylight at a petrol station, in front of several witnesses. The defence put forward was one of not guilty by reason of insanity, relying on expert evidence

R v HE and Ors, 2005

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant who was charged with, along with others, unlawful wounding and being in possession of an offensive weapon (a machete). At first instance before the Magistrates Court, the presiding Magistrate declared that the Crown had failed to provide the necessary paperwork to allow the matter to be submitted to the Crown Court for trial and, in consequence, no longer had jurisdiction to detain the defendant and his co-defendants. Still, the Magistrate refused to Order the Defendant’s release or to release him under Bail conditions. In 2005 Bermuda did not have statutory law or case law that would allow for the detention of a defendant under these circumstances. Dr Richardson determined this to be an obvious lacuna in the law/that the defendant was being unlawfully detained. On the instruction of the defendant, Dr Richardson commenced an immediate habeas corpus application in the High Court for his immediate release. After several hours of legal argument by me, relying simultaneously on constitutional law and criminal law and procedure, the Court ruled in favour of the defendant and ordered his immediate release (the Crown later withdrew the unlawful wounding and possession of an offensive weapon charges during the arraignment session of the Court).

R/Bermuda Regiment v B (A Private), 2005

Courts Martial/Abuse of Process.

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant Private, in relation to a string of offences charged against him which included assaulting an Officer. After successfully obtaining a conviction against the Private for a previous matter, the Bermuda Regiment (Bermudaʼs local Defence Force at the time was a mostly conscripted Force) sought in error to bring a duplicate prosecution of the Private some three plus years after the purported offences were said to have occurred. He argued that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The court found in favour of the defendant Private and thanked Dr Richardson for spotting the error and for preventing a miscarriage of justice.

Medical Service Provider, 2023

Instructed by a Medical Service Provider in Bermuda, by way of Direct Access, to draft and advise on common law employment and service provider contracts involving million-dollar intellectual property subject matters.

M.P & CG (A Bank), 2006

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the claimant property developer and buyer, who alleged that the defendant Bank was negligent by failing to consider his bid for a property, valued over one million Bermuda Dollars/ US Dollars, due to an oversight by employees of the Bank. The defendant Bank sought to strike out the claimant’s claim by arguing that this was a case where the legal doctrine of ‘battle of the forms’ applied.

In response, he argued that the claimant needed first to be in the ‘battle’ in order for this legal doctrine to have effect. Rejecting Dr Richardson’s arguments, the High Court found in favour of the defendant Bank. On appeal the Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of the Bank and accepted Dr Richardsonʼs arguments. This matter was settled out of court between the parties immediately after the appeal hearing.

LMWS (A Firm) v MP1, MP2, MP3 (the Defendants), 2006

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant companies who sought to stop the efforts of the claimants to have them declared insolvent and, as a result, wound up. The claimant alleged that the defendants owed them over $250,000.00 Bermuda Dollars/ US Dollars in unpaid service fees and accrued interest. The claimant also sought to enforce the penal notice attached to a Chambers Summons against one of the directors for failing to attend a Chambers Hearing in relation to the same matter. By methodically and successfully attacking the faulty financial statements, invoices, timesheets, and attendance notes, and supporting affidavits submitted by the claimant, he demonstrated that there was ‘No Case’ to answer by the defendants. The Court found in favour of the defendants. The Court also refused to enforce the penal provision against the director as the method of service was determined to be defective.

R v V (A ship), 2002

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant Cruise-Ship being charged with oil pollution while berthed at the City of Hamilton pier. At the time of the alleged offence the Cruise-Ship was berthed, along with other ships and marine craft, at the City of Hamilton pier. Although an oily substance was clearly visible on sides of all the ships and marine craft, Marine Police determined that the Cruise-Ship was responsible for the alleged oil spill. At trial, no evidence was put forward by the Crown specifically linking the Cruise-Ship to the oil spill other than there being an oily substance on the Cruise-Shipʼs sides. Dr Richardson put forward a ‘No Case’ submission arguing that the Crown failed to provide the necessary fingerprints from the Cruise Ship, such as test sample results from fuel carried by the ship/ its bunkers, specifically linking it to the oil spill. The court found there was ‘No Case’ to answer and acquitted the Cruise-Ship.