Areas of law:
Criminal Defence Solicitors, Police Station, Youth Court, Magistrates’ Court, Crown Court, Appeals Against Conviction and Sentence, Criminal Law: Funding, Environmental Law
James Killen is a Solicitor who works in our crime team based in our Milton Keynes branch. James Killen specialises in trial advocacy, with a particular interest in defending clients charged with offences against the police.
James has had many successes where clients have been acquitted because he has successfully argued that police officers were acting unlawfully. As well as appearing in the Magistrates’ Court, James has also appeared in the Crown Court in respect of appeals against sentence imposed by the lower court. In addition to criminal proceedings, James represents clients in what is known as quasi-criminal proceedings. These proceedings take place in the County Court and involve James defending clients against the local police, the latter having made an application to have those subject to an anti-social behaviour injunction immediately committed to prison for allegedly breaching the injunction. This is an area of law James is passionate about, as many of the clients who are subject to these harsh injunctions are struggling with mental health problems or a learning disability.
James is a skilful advocate who is meticulous in his preparation for hearings. He puts his success down to hard work and the fact he cares about outcomes for his clients. He has an intense dislike of any form of unfairness within the criminal justice system and he understands the frustration clients feel in relation to what they see as police dishonesty.
Notable Cases
R v F [2021]: Acquittal after trial of client charged with assaults on police officers because court accepted James Killen’s argument that the officers were acting as trespassers when they entered the client’s home to arrest him following an allegation of domestic violence.
R v W [2022]: Acquittal after trial of client charged with theft because court agreed with James Killen’s submissions that the officers who said they recognised the client from CCTV footage had not followed the correct procedure for identifying those responsible for crimes.
R v M [2021]: Acquittal after trial of client charged with threats to kill made against his then partner despite the fact the threats had been recorded by police officers on their body-worn video. In his summing up, the judge in the trial agreed with James’s submission that the police witnesses had not been able to resist the temptation to overstate their case in an effort to secure the client’s conviction.
R v K [2022]: Ongoing case in which the Crown Prosecution Service, as a result of James raising the issue of modern slavery, has been forced to reconsider prosecuting a youth client charged with possession with intent to supply drugs and having a bladed article.
Thames Valley Police v P [2022]: A county court case in which the judge declined a police application to have the client committed to prison for breaching the terms of his anti-social behaviour injunction. James had been able to argue that the client suffered from a learning disability, which meant he was not capable of properly understanding the terms of the injunction or the consequences of breaching it.
