Bryan Cox QC


About Me

Bryan is the Diversity Mentor on the North Eastern Circuit and a member of Amnesty. For many years before taking Silk he was the bar representative on the management committee of the Harehills and Chapeltown Law Centre in Leeds.

In recent years he has lectured widely on a variety of topics including Disclosure, Public Interest Immunity, Freedom of Information, Hearsay, Abuse of Process., and Loss of Control (defence to murder).

He is the author of “The Law relating to Special Educational Needs” published by Croom Helm (1989)

Why Should a Solicitor Choose Me?

Bryan Cox is consistently recommended in the major legal directories. Recent recommendations describe him as “highly regarded as a leading advocate in his field”, “very, very good”, a “great choice for homicide, fraud or money laundering”, and having an “enviable track record”. It is said that “he commits himself to the case no matter how hopeless”, and “he thrives because he never shirks the task no matter how weighty or hopeless it seems”. A number of the directories commend his skill in regulatory work; he is described  as “outstanding” in Health and Safety cases.


Bryan regularly defends and prosecutes major cases of homicide and fraud. In recent years he has represented a number of juveniles and vulnerable individuals charged with homicide. He has wide experience of conducting cases in which medical issues are foremost, and has defended and prosecuted a number of cases where ‘shaken baby syndrome’ has been an issue, and cases where the cause of death has been the central issue. He is very familiar with the medical debate and literature relating to ‘shaken baby syndrome’, including the neuropathology, paediatric neuropathology and the ophthalmic pathology and has cross-examined many of the leading experts in the field.

In the regulatory field, whilst a junior he was appointed to the Attorney Generals ‘A” list (2002), and gained wide experience prosecuting a number of high profile health and safety cases involving single and multiple fatalities, including train derailment, electrocution, and industrial accidents. In Silk, he has defended a wide of range of entities, including public bodies , charities, and major companies in relation to a range of Health and Safety cases, including a number of high profile cases. In the Environmental field, whilst a Junior he conducted a range of pollution cases, and in Silk has advised in a number of environmental cases, and represented a major international company in relation to a prosecution arising out of a large acid spillage. He has extensive experience defending and prosecuting cases of gross negligence manslaughter, for example, he has recently defended a teacher charged with gross negligence manslaughter and health and safety offences arising from a pupil’s death during  ‘outdoor activities’, and prosecuted a builder in relation to a death arising from the collapse of a wall he had constructed. He undertakes advisory work, and has recently advised in relation to cases of corporate and gross negligence manslaughter in the context of medical negligence.

Before taking Silk he conducted a considerable number of cases involving sexual allegations, especially historic allegations. He is familiar with the learning associated with the medical issues that often arise in these cases, he occasionally accepts instructions in serious sexual cases.

Bryan has considerable experience of appearing at inquests, on behalf of individuals and public bodies. He has, for example, appeared at a number of inquests concerning deaths of children during school outdoor activities, and on school trips.

Notably, Bryan is currently instructed as one of 2 Leading Counsel on behalf of over 20,000 elderly Kenyans who seek damages from the British Government in relation to allegations of torture and other human rights abuses during the State of Emergency in Kenya during the 1950’s. This litigation, raises novel and complex issues, and has been running for a number of years.


Recent Cases

• R v M: defended youngster involved in gang attacks; issues included joint enterprise and blood distribution.

• R v U: connected trial to R v M

• R v Collier: prosecuted builder for gross negligence manslaugher arising from death of baby after a wall he had constructed collapsed

• R v Newton: defended man charged with murder of prostitute. Complex scientific issues concerning rate of body decomposition.

• R v AM: defended Somalian whith limited English and learning difficulties charged with a contract killing.

• R v Cook: prosecuted teenager charged with murder of young child whilst baby sitting. Complex medical issues including medical evidence relating to “shaking injuries”

• R v B: defended 18 year old charged with murder arising from a group attack on a mentally handicapped victim (medical issues re cause of neurological injuries)

• R v Hardacre: defended man charged with sexual abuse and drowning baby in bath. Medical issues relating to cause of bruises and anal injury and drowning

• R V F: young person charged with murder of sister’s boyfriend. Loss of control by reason of boyfriend's abuse of sister

• R v Beesley: defended novel case in which prosecution sought to argue for unlawful act manslaughter where defendant had committed section 4 public order offence.

• R v Daniel: defended in high profile contract killing-cut throat defence (issues - joint enterprise, medical, and blood distribution)

• R v Warner: prosecuted maintenance man for gross negligence manslaughter arising from death of child after fall from high rise flat

• R v N: defended 16 year old charged with murder of relative. Diminished responsibility. Contested medical evidence re diminished responsibility

• R v R: Defended 14 year old charged with 3 counts of murder by setting fire to occupied house. Complex psychiatric issues.

• R v O Malley: high profile strangulation case. Medical issues.

• R v Lu Yao Jai: defended in high profile “2 bodies in 2 suitcases” case. Cut throat defence.

• R v : prosecuted high profile case in which defendant murdered 2 month old baby of woman he met on internet dating site. Complex medical issues concerning neurological damage to baby.

• R v Grant and others: prosecuted a major high profile multi-handed murder case (issues included joint enterprise).

• R v Hutchinson: prosecuted defendant charged with murder of 7 week baby. Complex medical issues, including injuries consistent with violent shaking

• R v Ahmed and others: prosecuted a number of defendants charged with planned turf war shooting (cell site/ballistic/ facial mapping evidence)

• R v Graham: defended man alleged to have killed his wife during the 1980’s when she ‘disappeared’

• R v C : 17 year charged with multiple shooting in context of turf war (cell site/DNA evidence)

• Re D: professional discipline (Administrative Court)

• R v Muirhead: manslaughter, medical issue as to whether cause of death was the injury caused in course of robbery, or paracetamol poisoning in hospital. Contested medical evidence on cause of organ failure.

• R v Gatewell: murder (cell site/DNA evidence critical)

• R v TF: cold case rape (DNA evidence critical as sole evidence)

• R v P: represented senior police officer in relation to police disciplinary and associated matters

• R v Dodds: murder during robbery (medical issues, causation in issue)

• R v The National Museum of Mining: represented the museum in a prosecution by the HSE arising from a fatality in the museum (medical issues concerning cause of death)

• R v Cato : 17 year charged with multiple shooting in context of turf war (cell site/DNA evidence)

• Re D: consultant in relation to professional discipline (Administrative Court)







Practice Areas

Regulatory and Criminal Litigation


Print Details


Criminal Bar Association