Adrian Rohard

Adrian Rohard is Barrister authorized to exercise rights of audience in every court in relation to all proceedings. Adrian is also qualified as a Solicitor. Prior to joining Robin Murray & Co in 2001 (later to become Tuckers Kent Branch) Adrian was in independent practice at the Bar in London and enjoyed being instructed by well-respected and high profile solicitors. Adrian has previously been a Partner both at Robin Murray & Co and Tuckers Kent Branch.

Adrian concentrates mainly on crown court cases with a particular interest in representing youths and cases which involve knife/gang related crime and those with modern slavery issues. Adrian’s advocacy experience has ranged from making applications for bail to conducting length trials with complex legal issues and occasionally making appeals to the Court of Appeal. Adrian has a versatile approach and often goes the extra mile for his clients to ensure justice is done. As a result of Adrian’s high level of client care, work frequently comes by personal recommendation.

Notable cases:

R v I 2020: This was a case involving a youth (recently-turned-adult) who pleaded guilty to possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply. As a result of strategic decisions taken during the case (including the instruction of a psychologist as to issues relating to modern slavery) the Defendant was, exceptionally, not sent to prison instead being given a Youth Rehabilitation Order.

R v B & Others 2019: Adrian acted as Leading Junior in a multi-handed case involving drug supply (county lines) and modern slavery (trafficking) allegations in a trial lasting four months. Strategic decisions taken during the trial resulted Adrian’s client being acquitted of the modern slavery offences as well as being able to successfully rely on a defence under s45 Modern Slavery Act 2015 and thus being found not guilty in respect of some of the allegations of drug supply.

R v D 2018: This was a case which went to trial for a private-paying client who was charged with an offence of violence. This client’s character and future employment were on the line. The reason this case is notable is owing to the fact that there were serious failings in disclosure on the part of the prosecution which were only uncovered as a result of Adrian’s persistence. In the end the Defendant was swiftly acquitted by the jury and it is thought that the not guilty verdict came directly as a result of the material disclosed.