Call: 1991

David Holborn is a former senior Police Officer. He has extensive experience of major investigations as a Detective. Furthermore, he has particular experience in covert policing, having been seconded to the Special Operations Section at New Scotland Yard. He was accredited to investigate serious and complex frauds by the Home Office, and investigated a number of major frauds whilst a member of the Fraud Squad.
 
He prosecutes and defends and has led for the Crown and the Defence in a number of serious cases. He has co-defended with and appeared against Queen's Counsel either alone or as a leading junior in the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal. As well as bringing his police experience to bear in cases involving undercover policing methods, he has also appeared for both the Crown and the Defence in trials involving serious sexual offences and allegations of serious abuse on children. He appeared for one of the main defendants in the Stansted Aircraft hijack.

As a former prosecutor before the Bar Council Disciplinary Tribunal and subsequently a member of the Bar Standards Board Complaints Committee he has considerable experience in disciplinary tribunal matters. He has represented Police Officers at disciplinary hearings.

David was appointed a Recorder of the Crown Court in 2005.

David is a Fellow of the Institute of Continuing Professional Development.
 
Lecturing

From 1990 to 1992, he was Lecturer in Law and member of the Board of Examiners of the University of Essex. He lectures to medical practitioners on the presentation of expert evidence in court and local authority lawyers on the prosecution of criminal cases. He is involved in the training of Child Protection Unit Officers and undercover police officers at a national level.

He has appeared as leading Junior Counsel for the Crown in a number of murder cases:

Regina v Sayid (2009)
Regina v Reilly (2009)
Regina v Pearson (2009
Regina v Clifton and Knight (2007)
Regina v Tammy Fletcher (2007 Trial and Court of Appeal)
Regina v Lee Sullivan (2007)
Regina v Darren Cullen (2004 Court of Appeal and retrial)
Regina v Jamal James (2001)

Cases of Note

R v Steven Phillips
25.08.2004, Court of Appeal, [2004] EWCA Crim 2288

The defendant's conviction for indecent assault and burglary was upheld as there had, overall, been no unfairness. Although the prosecution had not produced evidence before the trial to establish continuity of DNA evidence, the state of the continuity evidence at the end of the trial was such that a jury would be properly satisfied that the issue had been made out. A sentence of eight years' imprisonment was not in the circumstances manifestly excessive.

Attorney General's Reference (No. 1 of 2004)
30.04.2004, The Times, 30 April 2004

In this case the defendant was acquitted on the basis that the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be read down to impose an evidential burden only. The common law and the fair trial provisions in article 6 of the ECHR both permitted derogation from the presumption of innocence to allow statutory legal burdens of proof to be imposed on a defendant in relation to certain issues in the appropriate circumstances. Courts should rely strictly on the full guidance given in this case and on Lord Nicholl's speech in R v Johnstone [2003] 1 WLR 1736.

R v Cullen
12.09.2003, Court of Appeal, [2003] EWCA Crim 376

The victim was beaten to death by Cullen, in his flat, in a sustained and deliberate attack using cricket bats.

Cullen had admitted at trial that on the relevant evening he had had a fight with the victim in his flat. However, Cullen had claimed that when he left the flat the victim was still alive and not badly injured. It was said in his defence that someone else must have visited the flat after his departure and inflicted the very serious injuries from which the victim died. The evidence of the trial pathologist was to the effect that his findings were inconsistent with a separate attack upon the victim conducted by a different person with different weaponry at a later stage. After the trial a complaint relating to the trial pathologist's work on an unrelated case had been referred to a disciplinary tribunal. The Crown then disclosed that other cases in which the trial pathologist had been involved had given rise to concern and one had been considered to be unacceptable.

Held that the fresh evidence demonstrated that the sequence of the injuries could not be resolved on the available medical evidence. Consequently it was necessary to order a retrial. The retrial took place and the defendant was convicted.

R v Claydon and ors
13.06.2001, the Court of Appeal, The Times, 13 February 2004, [2001] EWCA Crim 1359 [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1575 [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 36

In fraud or other complex or long cases, where it was thought appropriate to hold a preparatory hearing, the court had the power to decide, as part of the preparatory hearing, questions of evidence such as typically arose under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and which would have to be decided in the absence of the jury. Accordingly, rulings made in that context could be subject to appeal.

• 1989 - LLB (Hons) Essex
• 1991 - Called to to the Bar, Inner Temple
• 2006 - Recorder

• Bar Standards Board Conduct Committee
• Bar Standards Board Qualifications Committee
• Essex Bar Mess
• Essex Criminal Justice Board Bar's Consultee
• South Eastern Circuit