• Criminal Law

David Aubrey QC

  • Criminal Law

Academic Background

  • 1968-1972 LL.B. (Hons.) (Wales) University of Wales, Cardiff
  • 1975-1976 Inns of Court of School, Bar Vocational Course


  • 1975-1976 Called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple
  • 1976 Pupillage with Christopher Llewellyn-Jones, 34 Park Place, Cardiff
  • 1976-2012 Member of Chambers, Temple Chambers, Cardiff
  • 1996 Appointed Queen’s Counsel
  • 1999-2010 Head of Chambers, Temple Chambers, Cardiff
  • 2012-2014 Head of Chambers, Temple Court Chambers, Cardiff


  • 1996 Appointed Recorder authorised to sit in the crown Court and County Court
  • 1997 Authorised to try Serious Sexual Offences
  • 1998 Appointed Legal President, Mental Health Review Tribunal
  • 2002 Appointed Master of the Bench, The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple
  • 2005 Appointed Legal Adviser, Care Council for Wales
  • 2006 Appointed Legal Assessor, Nursing and Midwifery Council

Positions held

  • 2001-2003 Treasurer, Wales and Chester Circuit
  • 2000-2010 Member of the Bar Council


  • Criminal Bar Association
  • Family Law Bar Association
  • European Bar Association

Lectures, advisory bodies, etc.

  • Syndicate Leader/Tutor Judge on the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Judicial Studies Board.
  • Syndicate Leader in Criminal Law, Wales and Chester Circuit Formerly Lecturer for the External Law Degree, University of London.
  • Lecturer, Temple Chambers Training Courses in Criminal Law and Family Law.
  • Lecturer on Civil Actions against the Police, and The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for London Legal Training.
  • Member of the HMCS Working Party on the use of Psychiatric Evidence in Courts.
  • Consultee to the HMCS Committee investigating amendments to the law and procedure relating to Coroners’ Courts.


  • 2004 Welsh Lawyer of the Year
  • Mentioned in ‘Chambers and Partners’ and the ‘Legal 500’ Guides to the Legal Profession over many years

Criminal/prison law & police claims

Mr Aubrey has an extremely extensive and substantial practise, both prosecuting and defending very grave, complex, and heavy-weight cases of murder, manslaughter, sexual offences, fraud, VAT and tax evasion, violence, and trading standards offences. He has conducted cases dealing with money laundering, proceeds of crime, and recovery of assets.
He sits as a Recorder in the Crown Court, dealing with cases of all levels of seriousness and complexity, including serious sexual offences, and cases with a European Law and Human Rights Act element.

Family & child care

Mr Aubrey has wide experience of representing parties in Care Proceedings, which have involved issues of physical and sexual abuse of children, and their general neglect. He is especially skilled at the examination and cross-examination of expert witnesses in a variety of different disciplines.

Civil litigation

Mr Aubrey has acted for parties in general civil claims; in Landlord and Tenant and boundary dispute actions; and in cases involving Equality and Diversity Law.
He has acted in many cases of Judicial Review, particularly those against Government Departments where questions relating to Mental Health Act law and practice arise. He also conducts hearings involving Actions against the Police for abuse of powers, wrongful arrest, and unlawful detention.

He sits as a Recorder in the County Court hearing a very wide and diverse variety of cases, including personal injuries, boundary disputes, landlord and tenant disputes, contract cases, malicious falsehood, etc.

Mental health act & regulatory law

Mr Aubrey advises regularly in the fields of Mental Health Act Law, and Regulatory Law, and appears in the High Court and County Court dealing with cases in these areas of law.
He sits as a Legal President of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, dealing with Restricted Patients, and acts as Legal Adviser and Assessor to the Care Council for Wales and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. He represents parties before Regulatory and Disciplinary Tribunals, and acts pro bono for Barristers appearing before the disciplinary bodies of the Bar Standards Board.

Cases of note-crime

  • R v. Edward Browning. The M50 Murder involving the killing of a young pregnant woman who was snatched from the side of the M50 and killed.
  • R v. Bowen. The murder by a forester of his wife, where the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the deceased’s body was never recovered.
  • R v.Baldwin. The murder by the Defendant of his step- daughter, involving extensive expert scientific and medical evidence, plus analysis of mobile telephone records and computer data.
  • R v. Carter. Murder, counts of attempted murder and false imprisonment, arising out of a revenge attack by an employee on his work colleagues. The trial involved expert medical and scientific evidence, psychiatric evidence, elements of international jurisdiction and warrants, and sensitive disclosure.
  • R v. Drummond, Rafiq and Glover. A multi-handed drug related gang murder, involving difficult questions of joint-participation and joint enterprise.
  • R v. Cong van Le. A multi-handed drug related murder, involving members of the Vietnamese community running ‘cannabis factories’, and the killing of a worker. The case dealt with issues of expert scientific and medical evidence, detailed analysis of mobile phone records and cell site data, and questions of international jurisdiction.
  • R v. Tecwen Whittock. The ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ trial. Mr Aubrey defended the ‘Cougher’ in this trial, which involved the fraudulent obtaining of a cheque for a million pounds in the television programme.
  • R v. Archer and Butt. A drug related killing involving competing gangs.
  • R v. Stephen Morgan. The attempted murder of a police office by a Defendant driving a bulldozer over his vehicle, during the disturbances arising out of the ‘Foot and Mouth’ crisis.
  • R v. Sealey. A multi handed ‘satanic child abuse’ trial involving complex issues of disclosure, social work files and reports, cross-admissibility of evidence, and cross examination of children.
  • R v. Shillibier. The murder and mutilation of a young woman by a man previously acquitted of murder. Questions arose about the admissibility of that acquittal, complex scientific evidence about soil deposition and analysis, and admissibility of statements made not under caution.
  • R v. Heggarty. The murder by a Defendant previously convicted of attempted murder. The trial involved detailed analysis of mobile phone and cctv evidence, scientific evidence relating to DNA and blood deposition and analysis, and pathological evidence.
  • R. v. Griffiths. Conspiracy to evade VAT, involving complex issues relating to Planning Law and regulation, as well as the VAT regulations.
  • R v. Miller. Fraud involving the evasion of VAT duty.
  • R v Evans Conspiracies to import vast quantities of cocaine, amphetamine, cigarettes and tobacco, and the evasion of VAT duty.
  • R v. Martin. Leading Counsel in a five judge Court of Appeal giving a Guideline Judgement in POCA proceedings.
  • R v. Jones. Murder trial involving youths kicking and beating a man to death. Issues of joint enterprise arose, as did the question of the status of incrimination remarks made by a co- defendant. The Court of Appeal adopted Mr Aubrey’s suggested direction on the point, which was then incorporated in the Judicial Studies Board’s Specimen directions.
  • R v. Willis. Trading Standards Prosecution relating to wholesale ‘ringing’ of motor cars.
  • R v. Bristol Trade Centre. Evasion of duty and tax, and vast breaches of Trading Standards legislation.
  • R v. David Adams. Armed robbery by man previously convicted of armed robbery. Guidance given by the court of Appeal for such cases on an Attorney-General’s Reference.
  • R v. Richards and Hope. The ‘Roath Park Murder’.

Cases of note- Family

  • Newport Borough Council v. T. A lengthy Care proceedings case involving questions of International Jurisdiction, evidence taken by live television link from Pakistan, medical experts, alleged rape, and multiple parties.
  • Newport Borough Council v. T.W. Represented Intervener in Care Proceedings involving complex and detailed medical and scientific evidence, cross-examination of experts, and evidence given by international expert on live television link. The case involved serious defaults in medical examination which were exposed during the evidence and led to the case being reported on the point concerned.
  • Caerphilly CBC v. S.L. Represented a woman with serious impairment of intellectual capacity and understanding, in a case involving neglect and abuse of her child. Medical and scientific experts gave evidence and had to be cross-examined, as did the Social Workers, whose notes and records were voluminous.
  • Cardiff County Council v. B. A case involving the alleged shaking of a baby with the usual medical and other experts involved.
  • Caerphilly CBC v. S & AL Represented the Intervener in a case alleging sexual assaults on a young child, with the usual medical, scientific, and social work experts involved, and issues of law to determine.
  • Caerphilly CBC v. T.C. Alleged non-accidental injuries alleged, with the usual medical and scientific experts involved, dealing with a wide variety of injuries and conditions, the “triad of signs”, the law and approach to this type of evidence, and substantial social work documentation and other evidence.