LL.B. (London)
Called 1985
Appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2006
Member of Lincoln’s Inn – Called to the Bench of the Inn 19/12/2012
Advocacy tutor for Lincoln’s Inn
Member of South Eastern and Western circuits
"A stand out silk of her generation; she is a class act who demolishes witnesses, charms juries and changes the judge’s mind." (Band 1, Chambers UK, 2024)
‘Pippa is a top-quality silk at the top of her game. She is a great jury advocate, robust and able to stand her ground when necessary. She is also an excellent speech-maker and juries absolutely love her. One of the best silks at the Bar.’ (Legal 500, 2024
Pippa McAtasney is a leading criminal KC with over 30 years’ experience both prosecuting and defending in a broad range of criminal cases.
Pippa is regularly instructed as leading counsel in cases concerning murder, manslaughter, serious sexual offences and violent crime. She also has expertise in defending those charged with offences involving historic sexual abuse and serious fraud.
As junior counsel Pippa had an extensive practice representing police officers of all ranks at police discipline tribunals and in the Crown Court.
Pippa is a Bencher of Lincoln’s inn and a designated lead advocacy tutor. She is also the Chair of the Surrey and South London Bar Mess.
In addition to her practice, she has acted as legal advisor to television companies. The most well-known being all three series of the BBC legal drama Silk, as well as the series Apple Tree Yard.
LL.B. (London)
Called 1985
Appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2006
Member of Lincoln’s Inn – Called to the Bench of the Inn 19/12/2012
Advocacy tutor for Lincoln’s Inn
Member of South Eastern and Western circuits
R v Rio Williams [2021] – Inner London Crown Court – Allegation of joint enterprise murder by stabbing. There were 7 defendants. Rio Williams the eldest at 18. Youngest defendant was 14. Attack in broad daylight. Defendants armed with knives. Extensive CCTV and telephone evidence pinpointing all defendants. Experts were instructed in relation to CCTV interpretation and cell site evidence. Trial lasted 11 weeks at Woolwich CC before HHJ Kinch QC. Legal submissions included disclosure of telephone downloads.
R v D and another [2021] – Isleworth Crown Court – Defended a 15-year-old boy facing an allegation of murder of a 19 year old. Cause of death was a single stab wound to the chest with samurai-style sword. Defences of accident and self-defence were advanced. Submissions were based upon loss of control. Defendant had a registered intermediary to facilitate communication. Screens were granted during his evidence. Admissibility arguments concerning another confrontation and breach of PACE were made in relation to comments before the arrest. Also, bad character arguments.
R v G [2021] – Hove Crown Court – Acquittal of 19-year old Defendant accused of rape. He was 16 at the time of the offence. A man of good character. The allegation concerned his 16-year-old girlfriend. The evidence against him comprised the complainant’s ABE interview, a recent complaint from three witnesses and text messages said to be confessions. The defendant gave evidence and called many character witnesses, his father and sister who were also witnesses of fact. Legal issues included a s 41 application in respect of previous complaints of rape made by the complainant. There was a bad character application concerning searches made by the defendant on his laptop. The searches were said to relate to violent sex and rape. Counsel were instructed privately.
R v T and Others [2021] – Defence of a 17-year-old girl charged with the murder of Sohail Ali. The case was alleged to be a joint enterprise. Her role was to lure the victim to a park in Birmingham where the two male co-defendants fired a blank firing pistol and then stabbed him to death. There was CCTV, telephone evidence and eyewitness accounts. The defendant had the services of a registered intermediary to assist throughout the trial due to her low IQ, communication difficulties and vulnerabilities. This was argued. Legal issues included admissibility of a prison officer’s evidence alleging confession. This was successfully resisted. An application was made to adduce bad character in relation to the deceased’s abuse and threats to women on social media. Experts were called to counter telephone evidence. Defence of the case involved cut-throat cross-examination of co-defendants. Sentenced to a minimum term of 9 years detention.
R v B and Others [2021] – B was indicted along with two co-defendants with the murder of Jemal Ebrahim. The Crown’s case was that five men armed with knives rode out in a stolen car to the Edgecot Grove estate in London N15. Once there, the passengers decamped and chased rival gang members. The chase was caught in part on CCTV and seen by eyewitnesses. Mr Ebrahim was fatally stabbed in his left thigh, severing his femoral artery. The case was alleged to be a joint enterprise. MB and his co-defendant Annan were in a chasing group of three men. The third defendant, Gaffer, was the driver of the car. The two other suspects have never been apprehended. The defence was non-participation as principal, or secondary party. Legal issues included bad character for the co-accused. The prosecution accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter from the defendant Gaffer. The jury acquitted MB and Annan of murder but convicted them both of manslaughter. The category of offence was argued at a half day sentencing hearing. Sentence -12 years imprisonment.
R v Williams [2019] Luton Crown Court – Defending an 18 year old charged with joint enterprise murder. The defendant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter.
R v Blake [2018] Blackfriars Crown Court – Defending a man accused of murder in which his brother was stabbed to death. The defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was given a hospital order as it was accepted that he was of diminished responsibility.
R v L [2018] Central Criminal Court – Defending a 16 year old with a low IQ, autism and ADHD accused of manslaughter. The case involved an argument between the deceased and three youths over sale of some rizla papers.
R v H [2018] Exeter Crown Court – Defendant was acquitted of 10 counts of historic indecent assaults of a child under 13. Issues involving admissibility of complainant evidence and cross admissibility.
R v Berhane [2018] Central Criminal Court – Defending 18 year old in joint enterprise murder involving five defendants accused of chasing the deceased and then stabbing him to death with a large knife.
R v Hammond [2018] Birmingham Crown Court – Defendant acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter of his mother. The case involved issues concerning bad character, hearsay and causation.
R v M [2017] Central Criminal Court – Successful defence of one of four defendants accused of joint enterprise robbery and murder. The case involved issues with admissibility of a deceased witness’ ABE interview. All four defendants were acquitted.
R v Kostov [2017] Exeter Crown Court – Defending a man accused of murdering his wife and then dragging a suitcase containing her body through Exeter to dispose of it.
R v Dickson & Pollard [2017] Maidstone Crown Court – Prosecution in joint enterprise murder of a vulnerable man with ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome. Dickson was convicted and received an 18 year sentence while Pollard was acquitted.
R v H [2017] Winchester Crown Court – The defendant was accused of 12 counts of historic sexual assault. He was found not guilty on 10 counts, with the jury unable to reach a verdict on the remaining two. Abuse of process and delay arguments persuaded the Judge to rule limiting the ambit of the evidence and the Crown offered no evidence.
R v Mills & Ors [2016] Southwark Crown Court – Defending one of seven in widely reported case of complex fraud and conspiracy involving extensive legal argument.
R v D [2016] Kingston Crown Court – Defendant was acquitted in a case involving multiple complainants alleging sexual assault.
R v L [2016] Durham Crown Court – University student charged with rape and sexual assault of two fellow students. The defendant was unanimously acquitted. Cross-examination of the main complainant revealed a number of inconsistencies in her account.
Pippa has defended and prosecuted Road Traffic cases in the Magistrates’ Court and in the Crown Court. For her, this used to be a specialisation at the junior bar and is still part of her practice. Examples, albeit now a little dated, are Davies v DPP 1998 RTR defended alone in the Divisional Court and led by Queen’s Counsel in the House of Lords.
More recently she has successfully defended a death by careless driving at Southwark Crown Court (2010.) She also appeared at the Inquest.
Pippa also defended a case of dangerous driving at Canterbury Crown Court where a child had suffered major injury. The jury failed to agree but a successful outcome was negotiated and her legal argument in relation to special reasons for not disqualifying the driver was accepted.
Philippa is a specialist in defending Police Officers in Discipline hearings and criminal cases. These includes representing officers in matters arising from the Climbié inquiry (already mentioned), Operation Ore, rape, misconduct in a public office and several corruption cases.
Pippa is married and has two daughters.