Jordan has a rapidly growing criminal practice. His experience encompasses both prosecuting and defending cases in the Crown Court, covering a wide range of criminal matters, including including serious violence, sexual and drug offences.
Jordan strives to provide exceptional legal representation and support to individuals facing criminal charges ensuring that their needs and interests are protected.
Jordan prioritises the needs and interests of his clients, providing personalised attention, clear communication, and strategic legal guidance throughout the legal process. Further he is committed to protecting the rights and interests of young people facing criminal charges. With a compassionate approach and a focus on fair treatment and positive outcomes for juvenile clients navigating the legal system.
Jordan is renown for his tenacious approach and hard work, which accompanies his broad legal knowledge and advocacy skills.
Notable Cases
R v A, 2023
The Appellant had received a 6-month immediate custodial sentence for an offence of assault on an emergency worker, which had occurred over 3 years previously. Jordan appealed on the grounds that the sentence ought to have been suspended. Having heard oral submissions the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, but also held that due to the current high prison population, and the Government’s announcement of Operation Safeguard, there was a real strain on the prison service. This gives rise to a “further exceptional factor” for sentencers to consider whether to suspend a term of imprisonment, until the situation with the prison population is resolved.
Jordan was instructed by Leila Abdul-Rasool of Lewis Nedas Law.
R v Thomas [2023] EWCA Crim 1157
The Appellant had received a sentence of 5years 4months’ imprisonment for a series of three dwelling burglaries. The Appellant had significant previous convictions for like offences and was subject to the mandatory minimum provisions. Jordan successfully argued on appeal that this was manifestly excessive because the judge at first instance had failed to properly account for totality in ordering one of the sentences to run consecutively. Further, the Judge had erred in awarding too little credit for early guilty plea. The appeal was allowed and a sentence of 4 years 3months’ imprisonment was substituted.
Jordan was appointed to represent the Appellant by the Registrar.
R v A & Others, 2024
Jordan, led by Paul Crampin (Mountford Chambers), was junior counsel to the first defendant in this NCA prosecution. This concerned a large-scale drugs conspiracy in the Essex area. The defendant had previously served 14 years for drug trafficking offences and was under surveillance immediately following release. During the case, Jordan undertook cross-examination of the telephone analyst as well as drafting various legal arguments. Following a 7-week trial the jury were hung in respect of A.
Jordan was instructed by Sonia Weaver of Shaw Graham Kersh.
R v K & Others, 2022
Represented the third defendant in a large scale national Encrochat drug conspiracy at a 4 day sentence hearing. K was deemed to be part of the leadership group of an organised crime network, which supplied industrial quantities of drugs which were in excess of 1 tonne and had links to the biggest importer of cocaine in the country. The gang also laundered over £24million.
Jordan was instructed by Miles Herman of Lewis Nedas Law
R v V & Others, 2022
Jordan, led by Tessa Shroff of chambers, represented one of four defendants charged with a large-scale drugs conspiracy in South London during a 4-week trial. The defendant was suspected to be a key player in the operation. The case involved analysis of several mobile telephones, cell site and co-location between various individuals.
Inner London Crown Court
R v R, 2021
R had been arrested by the police having been in possession of 41 wraps of crack cocaine. R was initially charged with simple possession of class A. R pleaded guilty to this, amongst other offences, and was committed for sentence. Following this, the Crown sought to recharge R with possession with intent to supply class A, for the same drugs. Jordan represented the client at Isleworth Crown Court and argued that the bringing of supply charge was an abuse of process, under the wider principle of autresfois convict. Having heard legal submissions, the Court stayed the indictment as an abuse of process.
DrugsR v M & V, 2024
Jordan was instructed to prosecute a matter involving in a widespread conspiracy to handle stolen goods. This involved the theft and handling of over £7million worth of luxury supercars. The conspiracy was made up of over 50 substantive offences, with vehicles belonging to the rich and famous. Given the in-depth analysis and presentation of the case by Jordan, the defendants pleaded guilty to the conspiracy on a basis making up a significant proportion of the substantive offences.
Jordan was instructed by CPS Hertfordshire.
Financial CrimeR v L & 6 others, 2023
Jordan, led by Jessica Clarke of Chambers, appeared for the Crown in this case which concerned a conspiracy to commit burglary and steal motor vehicles. The Defendants were involved in the commission of over 70 offences, totalling a loss of more than £500,000. The case involved the scheduling of large amounts of telephone, cell site and ANPR material.
Jordan was instructed by CPS London.
R v C & W, 2023
Jordan, led by Jessica Clarke of chambers, appeared for the Crown in this matter of conspiracy to commit burglary. The Defendants were alleged to have committed 11 burglaries in the West London area, in which over £200,000 worth of items were stolen over a sustained period of time. The nature of the Crown’s case was circumstantial and relied upon Flying Squad surveillance, the pattern of behaviour of the defendants prior to and after the burglaries, and cell site. Following a three-week trial the leader of the conspiracy was convicted.
See full article here
Jordan was instructed by CPS London
R v L, H, S & Anor, 2023
Jordan was instructed to represent 3 out of 4 defendants jointly charged with burglary, ABH and criminal damage. Following detailed written and oral submissions at PTPH, all of the charges were dismissed against all 3 of Jordan’s clients.
Jordan was instructed by Andy Hobdell of Lawtons Solicitors.
R v K, 2021
Instructed defence counsel. The defendant was accused of a street robbery in which an expensive watch was stolen. The defence involved identification evidence, alibi, as well as disputing cell site evidence produced by the Crown. Following trial the defendant was acquitted. Southwark CC.
CrimeR v AOC & Others, 2024
Jordan, led by Ignatius Hughes KC, was instructed to represent a 16 year old in a murder and attempted murder trial. The case for AOC centred around the principles of secondary accessory liability, per the case of R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59. Following written and oral submissions the Crown Court found there was no case to answer for AOC on murder, attempted murder and their respective alternatives. This was appealed to the Court of Appeal by the Crown, on a terminatory ruling. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Crown Court and affirmed there was no case to answer for AOC.
Jordan was instructed by Nick Seeley of Lawtons Solicitors.
Read more here
Read judgment here
Murder and ManslaughterR v O, 2024
Prosecution counsel in a matter where the defendant was charged with trespassing with intent to commit a sexual offence and robbery. The circumstances were very close to an allegation of attempt rape and was witnessed by the complainant’s son. The case involved a heavily intoxicated complainant and difficult issues around consent, which developed during trial.
Jordan was instructed by CPS London.
Spain v Q, 2021
Instructed for the requested person who was wanted on an accusation warrant for rape. The link to Q related to forensic evidence held by the IJA. The issue for the extradition hearing centred around the statutory bar of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. Jordan instructed an expert on the Spanish Penal Code and Criminal Justice System, who was able to consult the domestic file. This demonstrated the case was in its infancy and following the serving of the report and submissions the IJA withdrew the Arrest Warrant and Q was discharged.
Westminster Magistrate Court
Rape and Sexual OffencesR v F, 2023
The Defendant was charged with a domestic violence assault. During the course of the complainant’s evidence it was discovered that two of her witness statements had never been disclosed to the defence that went to the heart of the Crown’s case, as well as other disclosure failings. The trial was halted. Following this, Jordan successfully argued that for the Crown to continue would offend the Courts sense of propriety and integrity as an abuse of process.
Jordan was instructed by Leah Connolly of Sonn Macmillan Walker
R v F, 2022
The defendant was charged with Section 18 GBH. The complainant alleged he had been viciously attacked by the defendant unprovoked. The complainant was vulnerable due to mental health issues and therefore required section 28 cross-examination. Jordan was instructed trial counsel from the Ground Rules Hearing. The defendant’s relevant previous convictions were excluded following legal argument. The defendant was acquitted following trial.
Wood Green Crown Court
R v B, 2022
Prosecution counsel for an ABH against an emergency worker, police officer. This involved legal argument about the legitimacy of police powers when executing a stop of a suspect. The defendant was convicted following trial.
Basildon Crown Court
R v G & S, 2021
Prosecution trial counsel in which two on duty police officers were accused of assaulting a teenage girl. The officers had used PAVA spray (in the confined quarters of the back of a police car) and a knee strike to the head of the handcuffed complainant, but maintained their actions were reasonable and proportionate. The case involved cross-examination of two “use of force” experts, who were ex-police officers. Following trial both officers were convicted and have been subsequently dismissed. Folkestone MC.
Read News Article here
R v E, 2021
The defendant was charged on indictment with affray and possession of a bladed article. The case centred around footage of a group of males chasing one another, and at least one of them wielding two machetes. The Crown’s evidence was based on a police officer’s identification from CCTV footage. The defendant was acquitted after trial.
Isleworth Crown Court
R v M, 2021
Prosecution counsel in a trial of issues. This was a domestic armed robbery in which the complainant was threatened with a knife by her son. The defendant had been declared unfit to plead as he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. This trial required careful witness handling of a vulnerable complainant.
Lewes Crown Court
R v AS R, 2021
Defence counsel for an able seaman who was accused of a one-punch ABH against another sailor in a public house. The defendant sought to run a defence of pre-emptive self-defence. Bulford Court Martial.
ViolenceR v X (youth), 2023
Jordan represented a 16-year old charged with over 30 offences to do with snatch thefts. At trial, the Defendant sought to rely upon section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015; that he was the victim of modern slavery. This required the instruction of a psychologist for the Defendant. Jordan also made various disclosure requests which culminated in the disclosure of a voluminous Cris report concerning the known exploitation of the Defendant in the area. This was used in the course of the trial.
Jordan was instructed by Leah Connolly of SWM Solicitors
R v X (youth), 2023
Jordan’s 16-year old defendant was accused of two matters of robbery and attempted robbery. The Defendant suffered with significant learning difficulties, ADHD, PTSD and autism, an intermediary was required for trial. This required adept vulnerable witness handling in the course of both trials.
Jordan was instructed by Leah Connolly of SMW Solicitors
R v X (youth), 2022
The defendant was charged with possession with intent to supply class A drugs. The defendant had admitted that he was intending to supply the drugs. Having taken further instruction from the defendant, the defence sought to rely upon section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Following extensive investigation, the defence were provided with a positive conclusive grounds decision. Jordan drafted a letter of representation to the prosecution. The prosecution offered no evidence, even though this was a case which post-dated the Court of Appeal decision in Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731.
Bromley Youth Court
YouthsNews
View all
Achievements
- Gray's Inn
- Criminal Bar Association
- South Eastern Circuit
- CPS Panel (Grade 2)
- 2013 University of Bournemouth, LLB (Law) 1st class
- 2014 BPP University, London, BPTC (Very Competent)
- 2020 Anne Goddard Scholarship