Michael Brady QC

(Door Tenant) | Called 1992 | Silk 2020

Andrew Tucker

Background

Since taking Silk in March 2020 Michael has been instructed to both prosecute and defend in a number of high-profile murder cases, including R v Skana a case that concerned the killing of a 7-year old girl in a park in Bolton. This case, as with a number of other cases in which Michael has been instructed, involved complex considerations of the defendant’s mental illness.

Education

LL.B (Hons) – Manchester University

School of Law – Inns of Court

Professional Memberships

Criminal Bar Association

Northern Circuit

Michael‘s expertise

Crime

Since taking Silk in March 202 Michael has been instructed to both prosecute and defend in a number of high-profile murder cases, including R v Skana a case that concerned the killing os a 7-year old girl in a park in Bolton. This case, as with a number of other cases in which Michael has been instrcted, involved complex considerations of the defendant’s mental illness.

Other cases such as R v Rowen (aka Glennon), a case where the defendant decapitated his cousin with an axe, have caused Michael’s reputation in Silk to become quickly established. 

Michael also practises from 9 Bedford Row and 18 St Johns Street and looks forward to expanding his practice nationwide.

Michael accepts private work and has successfully represented a number of defendants on this basis.

Equally comfortable defending or prosecuting, Michael has an approachable and down to earth manner enabling him to communicate with clients and juries alike such that the real issues are identified with concision and clarity.

Away from the court room Michael has been asked to, and is in the process of establishing the Northern Circuit Chapter of the Kalisher Trust. This well-renowned Trust aims to help bright youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve their potential through advocacy and to help those with the requisite ability and ambition to develop careers as barristers at the criminal bar.

Notable Cases

  • R v Correia and Others (Murder) – Instructed to defend one of 13 young men alleged to have murdered a 16 year old boy arising from an alleged gang feud. To be tried.
  • R v O’Brien & Others (Murder) – Istructed to prosecute 3 defendants alleged to have stabbed the deceased reportedly before leaving the body in a canal. To be tried.
  • R v Heni (Manslaughter) – Instructed by the Crown to prosecute the defendant alleged to have struck the deceased leaving him incapacitated in the road who was then killed when subsequently run over by a taxi. To be tried.
  • R v Peake and Others (Murder) – Instructed to defend one of 5 defendants alleged to have murdered the victim of a robbery. Ongoing.
  • R v Brown & O’Casey (Murder) – Instructed to prosecute this case in which 2 drug dealers caused the deceased’s death while engaged in a confrontation in the deceased’s home. Ongoing.
  • R v Rowen (Murder) Instructed to defend a seriously mentally ill young man who decapitated his cousin.
  • R v Skana (Murder)  – Instructed to prosecute this tragic and high-profile case that involved the defendant cutting the throat of a 7-year old child in the presence of her mother and father. The trial revolved around issues of the defendant’s mental illness.
  • R v Holden (Murder) – Instructed by the Crown at short notice to prosecute in a case that arose from long-standing animosity between defendant and deceased. Another example of the defendant’s mental illnesses and personality disorders played a significant role.
  • R v Bitton & Dixon (Murder) Instructed by the Crown to prosecute in a neighbour dispute that arose during the Covid 19 “lockdown.”
  • R v Ward & Smith (Murder)Instructed as leading junior for the Crown in a case made difficult by the absence of witnesses and the vulnerability of the defendant Ward who suffered from a range of mental health and learning difficulties. Murder conviction secured.
    It was during this case that that Michael took Silk.
  • R v O’Donnell (Conspiracy to Murder)Instructed to prosecute as leading junior. All 6 defendants were represented by QC and junior. A very significant undertaking that involved appearing at the CACD during the trial to appeal a terminating ruling. The CA described Michael’s performance as “powerful”. Positive comment was also made about Michael’s written submissions which “eased the path of the court.”