Back to Barristers

Call and Inn: 2002 Lincoln's Inn

Degree: LLB (Hons) Wales, M.Phil (Cantab)

Scholarships & Awards:

Thomas More Bursary and Kennedy Award, Lincoln's Inn

Affiliations:

Cayman Islands Criminal Defence Bar Association

Nicholas is an experienced criminal defence and commercial law practitioner currently seconded to the litigation team at the Cayman Islands office of Mourant Ozannes, a leading off-shore law firm with more top tier legal directory rankings across their locations than any other offshore law firm (Chambers Europe, Chambers Global, Legal 500, International Financial Law Review, PLC Which Lawyer, 2012).

Mourant Ozannes's clients include many of the world's leading financial institutions, public companies, corporations and fund promoters as well as high net worth private clients.

In his criminal defence work, in the Cayman Islands, Nicholas has defended clients charged with grave criminal offences including homicide, firearms offences, bank robbery, major drug importation, sex offences, and financial crime at all levels, and has regularly appeared before the Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands).

In his civil litigation practice, Nicholas advises and represents insurance companies, and much of his work is in medical negligence. Nicholas also undertakes regulatory work, and advises and represents a local utility company.

In his commercial work, Nicholas advises United States Attorneys on Cayman Law, and is presently working on cases involving international civil fraud in the hedge fund industry.

Nicholas's cases have been regularly reported in the Cayman Islands Law Reports.

Reported Cases

R v Whorms [2008] CILR 188

Dio and RV5 Trust Limited v R [2010] (1) CILR 339

 

Case Summaries

 R v Whorms [2008] CILR 188

 (Cayman Islands)

It was held that the then new bail law (which purported to prohibit bail for certain offences) would be interpreted so as to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dio and RV5 Trust Limited v R [2010] (1) CILR 339

(Cayman Islands)

The Court held that a Proceeds of Crime Law restraint order could not be varied to allow the respondent access to his funds for the purpose of legal representation, but that the lack of provision of legal aid may result in a breach of art. 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.