Alex Benn

Email
Direct phone

“This is an excellent set that has worked hard to secure a well-deserved position amongst the leading sets at the Criminal Bar.”
Chambers UK Bar, 2022

Personal profile

Alex Benn appears on behalf of people accused of crimes. Recent cases have seen Alex defend those charged with armed robberies, causing death by dangerous driving, causing grievous bodily harm, serious sexual offences, fraud by abuse of position and computer hacking.

In cases that are legally significant or high-profile in nature, Alex has been counsel for:

• the claimant in the first and only claim for judicial review to succeed in the law of bail appeals (R (Molina) v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2024] EWHC 816 (Admin); [2024] WLR 183 (DC));

• the defendant who accepted having thrown an egg at Charles III and who received a fine of £100; and

• the academic acquitted of harassing a member of the clergy, a case that involved the Bishop of London and an application to the Attorney General for a nolle prosequi, led by Riel Karmy-Jones KC.

Alongside appearing in court, Alex regularly advises (as sole or led counsel) defendants or other parties in relation to allegations of serious crime, including murder, terrorism and money laundering.

Before starting to practise, Alex achieved the highest results in law at the University of Oxford. Now a lecturer at University College and St Catherine’s College, Oxford, Alex’s academic work concentrates on the law and the theory of discrimination, particularly the issue of classism. With this profile, Alex is often instructed in cases involving difficult points of law and where the criminal law meets other areas of the law.

Alex usually uses ‘they/them’ pronouns and, when necessary, the gender-open title, ‘Mx’.

Crime

Selected Cases

Current instructions include allegations of causing grievous bodily harm, adult and child sexual offences, witness intimidation, outraging the public decency, supply of drugs and violent disorder.

R v D (2025) Southwark Crown Court
Defended a person charged with attempting to cause GBH with intent to do so (OAPA 1861, s 18) and other offences. The defendant was alleged to have tried to stab his former partner in the throat with a knife or meat cleaver. The complainant’s evidence was that he had attempted to murder her. During the incident, her dog had attacked him, which led to a knife piercing the dog’s eye. The eye had to be surgically removed. The jury unanimously acquitted the defendant in twenty minutes. (Court News UK.)

R v T (2025) Canterbury Crown Court
Appeared on behalf of a defendant who had pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The defendant had inadvertently hit an eleven-year-old child at a pedestrian crossing. The life-changing injuries included brain damage and a fracture to the base of the skull. Given the delicate circumstances, the mitigation and a submission about the correct interpretation of the sentencing guideline’s reference to ‘a known medical condition’, the court imposed a suspended sentence order. (Kent Online.)

R v H (2025) Canterbury Crown Court
Appeared on behalf of a defendant who had pleaded guilty to a series of acts tending to pervert the course of justice. Over a sustained period, the defendant had made false statements and fabricated evidence, including by inflicting alleged injuries and creating online accounts. The defendant alleged that a former partner had made threats towards her, broken into her house and stabbed her. The police calculated that the allegations wasted 120 hours of time. Despite the seriousness of the offence, the court imposed a suspended sentence order, due to the significant mitigation.

R v L (2024) Luton Crown Court
Defended a person charged with violent disorder. The allegations stemmed from children playing a neighbourhood game of ‘knock a door run’, which escalated when a neighbour stabbed the co-defendant with a machete. The incident ended with a car hitting two people, including the defendant, who suffered serious injuries. On the ninth day of trial, the jury acquitted the defendants.

R v A (2024) Cambridge Crown Court
Appeared on behalf of a defendant charged with a set of armed street robberies. The defendant was alleged to have robbed people with a machete and stabbed one of them, while co-defendants had used other weapons. The case involved legal argument about identification evidence and a number of voir dires. The judge accepted a submission of no case to answer in respect of all charges and the defendant was acquitted.

R v C (2023) Peterborough Crown Court
Appeared on behalf of a defendant accused of both wounding another with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and aggravated burglary. The defendant had allegedly hit a neighbour over the head with a brick, fracturing the skull. The prosecution offered no evidence.

R v M (2023) Luton Crown Court
Represented a defendant who had pleaded guilty to committing acts tending to pervert the course of justice. Over a period of five months, the defendant had made a number of claims to the police and employment tribunal, including accusing his colleagues of attempted murder by poisoning him. He had signed false statements and fabricated evidence to that effect. The court imposed a suspended sentence order, a rare outcome in cases of this kind.

R v H (2023) Isleworth Crown Court
Represented a defendant tried for armed robbery. The complainant alleged that the defendant had stabbed him with a serrated knife and then robbed him of hundreds of pounds in cash. The jury unanimously acquitted the defendant.

R v S (2023) Cambridge Crown Court
Defended in a case alleging armed intimidation of a witness in upcoming criminal proceedings. Legal argument included the exclusion of a lip-reader’s expert evidence and the elements of accessorial liability. The jury unanimously acquitted both defendants.

R v C (2023) Southwark Crown Court
Appeared on behalf of a defendant in a section 28 case (special measures by video-recorded questioning). The allegations included an assault on a young child, as well as coercive and controlling behaviour towards another.

R v M (2023) Westminster Magistrates’ Court
Defended in a widely publicised case, subject to the Chief Magistrate’s special jurisdiction. The defendant received a fine for having thrown an egg at Charles III. (BBC News.)

R v A (2022) Wood Green Crown Court
Led by Riel Karmy-Jones KC, represented a defendant in a case that raised issues of mental illness, abuse of process and an application to the Attorney General for a nolle prosequi. The prosecution offered no evidence.

R v H (2022) Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court
Defended in a case alleging violence and public disorder. The case involved an application for the case to be stated for an appeal to the High Court. The trial judge accepted having erred in law and expunged the wrongful conviction (and sentence) from the defendant’s record.

R v H (2021) Central Criminal Court
During pupillage, assisted Riel Karmy-Jones KC and Marcus Rickard, who appeared on behalf of the defendant in the widely publicised murder trial concerning the deaths of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman (BBC News.)

Judicial Review

Selected Cases

R (Molina) v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2024] EWHC 816 (Admin); [2024] WLR 183 (DC)
Acted for the claimant who sought judicial review, with permission, of determinations by the Resident Judge of Snaresbrook Crown Court. The case concerned the requirements for a prosecution to appeal a magistrates’ court’s decision to grant bail to a criminal defendant, as set out in the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, and the lawfulness of a Crown Court judge’s decisions about bail. The Divisional Court (Davies LJ and Bennathan J) granted the claim on all grounds. (Judgment; Lawyer Monthly; New Law Journal.)

Private Prosecutions

Selected Cases

United Voices of the World (2024)
Advised a trade union in a case about the criminal law relating to industrial action, instructed by the Public Interest Law Centre. As a result of the representations made, agency staff were not used to replace striking workers.

Drugs Offences

R v O (2023) Snaresbrook Crown Court
Represented a defendant who had pleaded guilty to supplying approximately 7.6 kilogrammes of MDMA, with an estimated street value of £1,300,000.

Sexual Offences

R v Anon (2024) Bexley Youth Court
Defended a child (with a certificate of counsel) charged with distributing images of child sexual abuse. There had been substantial delay and the child had been subject to the same form of exploitation, but the prosecution initially refused to discontinue the case. After the defence used the pre-action protocol for judicial review claims, the prosecution discontinued the charges.

R v A (2024) Reading Crown Court
Represented a defendant charged with sexual assault of a fellow university student. A delicate case, it involved an intermediary for the defendant for the whole trial, vulnerable witnesses, a number of psychiatrists and legal argument about the admissibility of previous complaints of alleged sexual offending by others. The jury acquitted the defendant on the fifth day of trial.

R v Anon (2024) Luton Youth Court
Defended a young person, having been granted a certificate of counsel due to the seriousness of the allegations and the sensitivity required. After a multi-day trial, the young person was acquitted of both assault by penetration and sexual assault.

R v D (2023) Luton Crown Court
Represented a defendant who had pleaded guilty to arranging a sexual offence involving a child. The case saw successful legal argument as to the correct linked offence for the purposes of sentence. (ITV News.)

Contempt of Court

R v K, M and H (2022) Oxford Crown Court
Represented three people said to have been in contempt of court as reluctant witnesses in an attempted murder trial, for which the defendant had been sentenced to over twenty-eight years’ imprisonment. (ITV News; Oxford Mail.)

Cyber Crime & Data Protection

R v D (2022) Kingston Crown Court
Appeared on behalf of a teacher accused of computer hacking and breach of data protection law. The prosecution offered no evidence after defence representations.

Business Crime & Fraud

R v T (2023) Southwark Crown Court
Represented a defendant charged with fraud by false representation. The prosecution offered no evidence on receipt of an application to dismiss based on the absence of the intent to gain or cause loss.

R v S (2022) Norwich Crown Court
Defended in a case subject to the Chief Magistrate’s special jurisdiction, involving an employee accused of stealing from the police force. Having received representations, the prosecution offered no evidence.

R v M (2022) Holborn Crown Court (Nightingale)
Defended a person against allegations of money laundering, arising from blackmail by threats to distribute intimate photographs. The jury unanimously acquitted the defendant.

Education

Law (Jurisprudence, BA), St Catherine’s College, Oxford: first-class honours
Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL), University College, Oxford: distinction

Awards

Wronker Prize (for best overall performance in law), University of Oxford
Gibbs Prize (for best combined performance in contract, land, tort and trusts law), University of Oxford
Slaughter and May Prize in Criminal Law, University of Oxford
Red Lion Chambers Prize in Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Oxford
Planethood Foundation Prize in International Criminal Law, University of Oxford
Law Faculty Prize in Comparative Equality Law, University of Oxford
Wronker Prize in Tort Law, University of Oxford
Wronker Prize in Jurisprudence, University of Oxford
David Blank Scholarship, St Catherine’s College, Oxford
Graduate Scholarship, University College, Oxford
Lord Denning Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

Memberships

Criminal Bar Association
Lincoln’s Inn
Grade 2 Advocate Panel (Crown Prosecution Service)

Publications

Book Chapters and Journal Articles

‘Besting Monarchy: The Anti-Classism Argument’, 2023, The Political Quarterly
‘The Loss or Destruction of Evidence’ in D Young, Young, Corker and Summers on Abuse of Process in Criminal Proceedings, 2022, 5th edn, pp 80-118, with D Young
‘Classism as Hate Crime: Proposing Class as a Protected Ground in Criminal Law’, 2021, 10 Criminal Law Review 809
‘The Big Gap in Discrimination Law: Class and the Equality Act 2010’, 2020, 3(1) Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal 30

Journal Case Notes and Comments

‘Causing a Public Nuisance: R v Smith’, 2025, 1 Criminal Law Review 45
‘Electronic Messaging: Cobban v DPP’, 2024, 12 Criminal Law Review 858
‘Henry VIII Power: R (Liberty) v Home Secretary’, 2024, 9 Criminal Law Review 653
‘Manslaughter (Diminished Responsibility): R v Calocane’, 2024, 9 Criminal Law Review 667
‘Loss of Control: R v Drake’, 2024, 4 Criminal Law Review 265
‘Misconduct in Public Office: R v Ali’, 2024, 4 Criminal Law Review 269
‘Malicious Communications: Freedom of Email? Elected Officials, Disability and Expression’, 2024, Journal of Criminal Law
‘Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law (No. 1 of 2022)’, 2023, 1 Criminal Law Review 58
‘The “Colston Four”, Proportionality and the Concerns that Linger’, 2023, 87(1) Journal of Criminal Law 61
‘R (Ngole) v Sheffield University’ 2018, 7(2) Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 351
‘R (A and B) v Secretary of State for Health’ 2017, 6(3) Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 631
‘Re JS (A Child)’ 2017, 6(2) Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 413