Vanessa Marshall KC
Year of call
1994
Silk
2018
Instructing Vanessa Marshall KC
For more information please contact our clerks by calling +44 (0)20 7242 3555.
Vanessa Marshall KC is a multi-disciplinary practitioner with a unique practice covering both criminal and civil jurisdictions. Vanessa offers the skills and experience gained as a busy criminal advocate combined with the discipline and attention to detail associated with civil paperwork. She has a particular expertise in complicated medical issues.
Vanessa is highly sought after not only in the Crown Court but increasingly in both the family and civil court, for her expertise litigating issues such as serious physical and sexual violence.
Vanessa has been regularly ranked and commended as a leading Junior and Silk in Crime in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.
Vanessa is qualified to accept instructions directly from clients under the Bar Council’s Public Access Scheme.
Legal Expertise
Crime & Regulatory
Crime & Regulatory
Her practice in crime is split between prosecuting and defending and she is well known as a specialist in rape matters and other difficult, complex sexual offences, including historic allegations and those involving child witnesses. Vanessa possesses fine attention to detail and a strong work ethic, which combined with her relentless tenacity (particularly involving issues of disclosure) and effectiveness as a jury advocate, make her the obvious choice whether prosecuting or defending. It is a testament to this that within a week of taking Silk, she was instructed in the only two murders in the East Midlands by both the defence and prosecuting involving stabbing by young defendants. In short, she always goes the extra mile and leaves no stone unturned, consistently achieving acquittals when defending ‘hopeless’ cases and regularly secures convictions in ‘difficult’ prosecution cases.
Her background as a Registered General Nurse at a London teaching hospital means that she is a first-choice candidate for criminal cases concerning complex medical issues, causation and where there is a psychiatric disorder, including neurodiverse conditions on issues of insanity, loss of control and diminished responsibility. Over the last few years, she has become known for her skill in dealing with abusive head trauma cases (‘baby shaking’) and is often brought in early by the CPS to provide advice. She is currently instructed to prosecute 2 such cases (serious violence and murder respectively) by CPS Wessex, Complex Case work unit.
Having been in Silk for 8 years, she is regularly instructed nationally, in the most serious of criminal offences, including single and multi-handed murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, arson, shootings, robbery & kidnapping, serious sexual violence, modern slavery & high value drugs offences. She continues to prosecute serious sexual offences (RASSO), when a Silk is warranted and has a busy private practice, defending serious sexual and violent offences, including those committed GPs, a practice that she regularly undertook as a junior.
As a junior, she had extensive experience being led in multi-handed murder inquiries for both prosecution and defence, which has given her a wealth of experience when she transitioned to Silk. One of the largest cases she did as a junior was acting for the prosecution on the Hilda Murrell investigation, where her pre-trial work included heading up a police team reviewing 100,000 documents for the purposes of disclosure and PII hearings, as well as covert work involving the security services and civilian informants.
Notable Crime & Regulatory cases
R v Gamberoni (2026)
Defending an Italian national charged with non-fatal strangulation and assault against his wife, complicated by allegations only being made once their marriage had broken down and the wife had been arrested for causing serious injury by careless driving at a time when it is alleged that she was over the limit. To be tried in Southwark Crown Court in 2027.
His Majesty's AG v Anderson and Others (2025/2026)
Instructed to advise a defence solicitor from Jersey in relation to a multi-handed gross negligence manslaughter prosecution, where 10 people died following a gas explosion in St Helier, Jersey.
R v Donachie & Harris (2025)
Successfully defended a client on an application to dismiss a joint charge of murder and manslaughter, where the client had punched the deceased in circumstances where the Prosecution could not prove causation or that he was participating with the co-defendant who killed the deceased with one punch. Pleaded to affray and received a walk-out on sentence.
R v Khan and Others (2025)
Successfully prosecuted this gang shooting case in the CCC, where there were multiple defendants, each of whom were charged with a combination of attempted murder, firearms and assisting an offenders offences. The case involved interesting issues on joint participation and presentation of CCTV and graphics evidence which required detailed preparation and collaboration with the police team. As ever, complex issues of disclosure arose.
R v Paul Saunders (2024 - ongoing)
Defending a piercing artist charged with multiple sexual offences, including rape, sexual assault, assault by penetration and GBH against multiple complainants, where the defence is consent, collusion and contamination. Voluminous amounts of social media and telephone evidence to assimilate and analyse. Awaiting a re-trial in the Autumn, following the collapse of the first trial after 2 months, due to disclosure failings by the Prosecution - 2 fewer complainants now following the Prosecution's decision to abandon their allegations following cross-examination at the trial. The case also involved legal argument concerning the analysis of the definition of consent, following R v BM (2019) and Brown, where the defendant had performed consensual scarification and body modifications on several of the complainants. Appeared before the Lady Chief Justice in the CACD in 10/25 seeking to argue that the procedure of scarification is analogous to tattooing, so as to fall within the Brown exception.
R v Alesbrook and Shemwell (2024)
Instructed by CPS EMSU to prosecute a young mother and her 16-year-old boyfriend for the murder of her 4-month-old baby by shaking. Instructed early to advise on charge and made the decision to only charge the mother with neglect (who although was a dreadful mother, there appeared no evidence that she'd ever harmed her baby) and the boyfriend for GBH and murder. Difficult medical issues on timings and causation, along with a significant amount of telephone traffic and social media material, resulting in the instruction of an expert in the working of 'Snapchat'. The end result was guilty pleas to the counts of neglect and convictions for both GBH and murder, following the pursuit of a 'cut throat' defence. Received a written commendation from the DCA as to way in which the case had been prosecuted at trial.
R v Broomhead and Harris (2024)
Instructed by CPS East Midlands Complex Casework Unit (EMSU) to prosecute a couple charged under section 5 of DVCVA 2004 for causing and/or allowing the serious injury (by shaking) of their 4-month old son in 2018. The defence team challenged not only whether the baby had been shaken but also, the science of shaking. Experts were instructed by the defence in genetics, neuroradiology and neurosurgery. Instructed one month before the trial so the presenting issues were multi-faceted, complicated and required an inordinate amount of work. The Judge in the trial remarked that the medical issues were probably the most complicated that he had ever had to grapple with not only as a Judge but following 30 years at the Criminal Bar. The case subsequently ended up in the CACD in relation to the interpretation of section 5 DVCA 2004 on causing and allowing death or serious injury 0 R v ATT [2024] 2 Cr. App R.10.
R v Selmani & Senia & Dushku (2023)
An interesting case of joint enterprise murder amongst 2 opposing groups of Albanians and 3 separate section 18 complainants, where both principals had fled the jurisdiction and the majority of the incident was captured on CCTV. Despite the fact that Vanessa’s client produced a knife at the scene and chasing people with it he was acquitted of murder and 2 out of 3 counts of section 18 but the jury were undecided on manslaughter. The legal directions were not straightforward.
National coverage >R v Bendall (2022)
A highly sensitive case, where D (client) was charged with four murders, and under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. There were substantial psychiatric issues to untangle, and the case was very widely reported nationwide, as D had killed his partner and their two children, and killed and raped another child. There was significant delay to the case due to D's prison refusing to permit investigations by MRI & PET scanning, to consider the extent to which D might have been suffering from a topical condition (CTE – a degenerative form of dementia), only diagnosed on PMs. Vanessa’s persistence meant she was able to obtain all of these investigations, pre-plea (issue murder/manslaughter). Weekly hearings were required before Mr Justice Sweeney KC in the CCC, and Vanessa also had to persuade the Head of Transport of category A prisoners and Head of Radiology Department to allow scanning to take place, arguing risk/benefit considerations. Extensive analysis of complex scientific evidence and medical records was required, with neurological and psychiatric opinions to consider. In particular, there was an interplay of a possible physical brain disorder and psychosis with voluntary drug taking. Guilty pleas led to 4 life sentences with no minimum term. This was an extremely difficult mitigation to do in such an appalling case in front of all the families and press and has led to a huge amount of global press interest.
National coverage >R v Meadows, Gorton, Grieve, Johnson & Grieve (2022)
Vanessa prosecuted a 5 handed killing, with 2 principals and 3 secondary parties (3 family members in the dock including 15 year old daughter. D1 was the lover of D3 and made a plan to kill D3’s existing partner. This case was complicated by 2 defendants not submitting a defence statement, so the prosecution was put to proof. There was a significant amount of evidence covering telematics, phone data, CCTV, body worn footage, forensic pathology, DNA evidence and difficult witness management, along with voluminous disclosure of unused material, complicated by some prosecution witnesses becoming defendants. The case came to the press’s attention as it was the first murder case to result in all defendants being granted bail owing to the Bar’s industrial action.
BBC coverage >R v Nur (2022)
Prosecution of a young Somalian man who stabbed a drug user who was trying to steal his drugs, 22 times in a residential area in Leicester. His defence was loss of control. After he ran, the investigation involved analysis of CCTV evidence to trace his whereabouts, and trying to rebut the defence of loss of control. Complex medical pathology issues arose. Significant work required considering CCTV and telephone evidence, and deciphering telephone intercepts (in Somalian) from prison.
News coverage >2018 - 2021
Various defence multi-handed gang stabbings (murder) and shootings (conspiracy to murder) in Nottingham.
R v Bramhill - Purchase & Zhou (2018)
Modern slavery prosecution for East Midlands Complex Crime Unit concerning a nationwide conspiracy to traffic and control Prostitutes for gain. Over 10,000 pages of material, including voluminous call, text and internet data and surveillance footage, establishing the recruitment, control and movement of Chinese women in rental properties across the East Midlands. Interpreter required for one defendant. All issues were in dispute. Huge challenge to present the lengthy and complicated evidence, largely in Schedule form. Both defendants convicted.
R v Dr Sharma (2018)
Instructed by the MPS to defend a GP for allegations of sexual assault against a female patient. Difficult issues concerning bad character applications by the prosecution to adduce a previous compromise agreement arising out of a disciplinary action relating to previous (but unproven) allegations of a sexual nature in the hospital workplace, as well as letters of Advice/Warnings from the GMC. Applications successfully opposed. Issue of fitness to plead. Acquitted at trial.
R v Purdy (2018)
Defending a man accused of manslaughter and affray. Interesting issue as to causation of the fatal injury and identity of the individual who inflicted the fatal blow – the defence asserting that the deceased’s girlfriend and another inflicted the fatal blow after the defence had left the scene inflicting no fatal injuries. Damning CCTV footage of the defendant before and after the incident. Hung jury. Re-trial August 2018.
R v Raymond Warren (2017)
Defending numerous allegations of historic sexual abuse and rape by 3 adopted children and 1 foster child. Voluminous unused material concerning educational, medical and social services records, which had to be reviewed and put into chronologies for use with the witnesses and jury. Complicated issues of hearsay, bad character, cross admissibility and contamination/collusion of evidence. Two of the complainants had made complaints previously but had not been prosecuted until other allegations made on a later occasion. Acquitted on all counts on the indictment.
R v Marcin Wawrzyniak (2017)
Polish speaking father accused of GBH ‘baby shaking’, which he claimed was done in necessity as his 5-week old baby stopped breathing. Complicated legal issues on causation and defence of necessity and the reasonableness of the defendant’s actions. Case complicated by discovering mid-trial issues over fitness to plead and stand trial over undisclosed but long-standing cognitive deficit and untreated epilepsy, as well as admissibility of interviews where no appropriate adult provided. Expert Psychiatrists instructed mid trial and Judge found defendant fit. Conviction appealed over failure to discharge jury and directions to the jury in response to a jury question over how to deal with the defendant’s mental age of 12-15. Conviction quashed in the Court of Appeal (November 2017). Reported in Crime Line on 14/12/17 – Judgment: [2017] EWCA Crim 2008.
R v Liffin (2017)
Prosecuting attempted murder by defendant against ex-partner and in breach of a restraining order. Broke into her house, armed with a knife and lay in wait for several hours for the complainant to return home. Upon her return home he severely assaulted her, stabbed her thigh with a knife and tried to strangle her, only stopped by the police attending the property. Trial 1 de-railed when the complainant was ‘kept away’ from court by Liffin and his aunt, Bailey. Further investigation undertaken, discovered over 3000 text messages from Liffin to complainant in breach of restraining order and persuading her not to give evidence. Aunt had taken her to a hotel for the course of the trial. Complicated issues relating to complainant’s mental health, which meant calling at trial 2 would be difficult. Charging advice led to charges and eventual plea to section 18 GBH, breach of RO and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
R v Burgoine & Nepryahin (2016)
Rape of a teacher by 2 post graduate rowers. Burgoine was the under 23 girls rowing coach at Newcastle University and Team GB. The defendants were alleged to have picked up a drunk woman in a nightclub and taken her back to a flat and raped her whilst she was drunk and barely conscious. Parts of the sexual activity were filmed and compromising photographs taken and distributed to a Whatsapp group called the ‘Gruesome Threesome’, along with distasteful messages about the woman and the sexual activity. Highly prejudicial material went before the jury, which made the defence case extremely challenging. Medical and telephone evidence in dispute, lengthy CCTV footage to master. One of the most difficult cases to defend to date. After a hung jury during the first trial, the defendants were acquitted in the re-trial in December 2016.
Covered in The Telegraph >
Family/Abuse Claims
Family/Abuse Claims
Vanessa has extensive experience in inquests and clinical negligence, predominantly acting for claimants, as well as personal injury/abuse claims, predominantly acting for defendants. The balance of her practice means that she has accrued a vast amount of knowledge and experience representing clients both at trial and in mediations, concerning complicated medical issues. Importantly, she has been able to deploy those skills at the criminal bar, especially when cross examining expert witnesses when dealing with, amongst other issues, abusive head trauma (‘baby shaking’) cases.
This expertise is now sought after in other disciplines, and she is increasingly being instructed in the family court, in complex fact-finding hearings, defending individuals alleged to have seriously injured their children or grandchildren. Another example of her readily transferable skills is that a client whom she is defending in al allegation of serious violence in the criminal court, has now asked her to represent him in a related matter in the family court.
Vanessa is currently instructed to defend a well-known social media influencer against a historic claim for damages for trespass to the person (rape), assault and controlling & coercive behaviour, after the CPS declined to prosecute for this alleged behaviour in the Crown court. The trial is listed for a 5-week trial in the Kings Bench Division before a High Court Judge. With her wealth of expertise in defending these claims in the Crown court, Vanessa was seen as the perfect fit to litigate these issues.
Notable Family/Abuse Claims cases
PCC v Mamood, Rehman and Others (2025)
Acted for the grandmother in a 3-week multi-perpetrator fact finding, concerning the poisoning of a 6-week-old baby living within the home of an extended Southern Asian family in Peterborough. The CC abandoned seeking findings against the client by the end of the oral evidence.
CEBC v AA & BB (2025)
Acted for the father of a 21-month-old baby, accused of causing various fractures to the child's limbs. Both parents were in the frame. Listed for a 9-day fact-finding and the County Council abandoned the case after cross examination of the bone expert who had missed various key investigation results which suggested that the baby had a bone disease. Both parents totally exonerated.
LA v AA, BB and Y (2022)
Acted for the father of a 5-month-old baby accused of causing AHT by shaking before Lieven J. Very complicated medical evidence which was heavily contested amongst the experts and concerned the contentious topic of whether babies with large heads and low-level falls could be more susceptible to shaking type injuries from an accidental fall rather than a shake. Despite having to instruct a fresh expert following legal submissions as one of the experts became unwell and said she could not stand by the evidence she'd given; we successfully argued that this was an accidental injury and the father was completely exonerated.
Inquests and Inquiries
Inquests and Inquiries
Vanessa’s practice also extends into the regulatory/disciplinary arena. She has appeared in the Care Standards Tribunal, where she successfully defended a social worker who was challenging the decision to include him on a list of those deemed unsuitable to work with children. Given her clinical negligence experience and the work she does for the medical defence organisations, defending doctors in the Crown Court, she is well placed to represent professionals in disciplinary proceedings and has appeared before the General Dental Council on behalf of a dentist facing allegations of gross misconduct. A good example of her dual practice is that she then represented the same dentist in a civil fraud action bought by the NHSLA in the QBD. She also has experience in prison law, having been instructed in both adjudication and parole board hearings in prisons around the country.
In 2009-10, she was Counsel to the Airedale Inquiry, conducted by Kate Thirlwall QC (now Lady Justice) and instructed by Weightmans Solicitors, which included calling and cross-examining hospital managers, doctors and nurses into the management and practices of Night Nurse Practitioners at Airedale NHS Trust. The terms of reference reviewed nurse prescribing and IV administration of opiates, following a stayed murder prosecution against a senior NNP (she took her own life before the trial) who was believe to have being deliberately administering opiates to elderly patients without authority. It was through her meticulous analysis of the voluminous amount of documentation that Vanessa discovered a file that had been missed by the prosecution team, (showing that she had been trained and authorised to administer the opiates), which wholly exculpated the NNP from any wrongdoing.
Notable Inquests and Inquiries cases
GDC v Govind
Disciplinary tribunal relating to gross misconduct.
The Airedale Independent Inquiry [2010]
In 2009-10, she was Counsel to the Airedale Inquiry, conducted by Kate Thirlwall QC (now Lady Justice) and instructed by Weightmans Solicitors, which included calling and cross-examining hospital managers, doctors and nurses into the management and practices of Night Nurse Practitioners at Airedale NHS Trust. The terms of reference reviewed nurse prescribing and IV administration of opiates, following a stayed murder prosecution against a senior NNP (she took her own life before the trial) who was believed to have being deliberately administering opiates to elderly patients without authority. It was through her meticulous analysis of the voluminous amount of documentation that Vanessa discovered a file that had been missed by the prosecution team, (showing that she had been trained and authorised to administer the opiates), which wholly exculpated the NNP from any wrong-doing.
Instructing Vanessa Marshall KC
For more information please contact our clerks by calling +44 (0)20 7242 3555.
For help or advice please call +44 (0)20 7242 3555 or complete the form below
A member of the Clerking team will help you resolve your request.
Frequently asked questions
Do you have an out of hours number?
Yes, please call Chambers mainline number +44 (0)20 7242 3555 and you will be directed to the out of hours phone lines.
How can I find out whether 7BR can take my case?
As a direct access client, please visit our direct access page and complete the initial form, a member of the clerking team will then be in touch to discuss the next steps.
Will my barrister deal with all the correspondence?
Some barristers have the ability to “conduct litigation” for direct access clients. Our clerks will be able to assist you as to which of our members are trained and accredited to do so.
How do I instruct a barrister?
Please visit our direct access page for the initial steps on instructing a barrister, or contact our clerks on +44 (0)20 7242 3555.