Menu
Year of Call
1989
Door Tennant
‘Very knowledgeable, with an amazing client manner – someone you want on your side.’ Legal 500 - 2019

Sue
Rodham

1 High Pavement Lucy Beth Photography 35

Sue Rodham has for many years been recommended in Crime by Chambers and Partners and described as a 'Leader at the Bar'. Miss Rodham has a weighty criminal practice and has during her years at the Bar undertaken many high profile and difficult cases, both as junior and leading junior and is respected by her peers as a skilful and successful trial advocate.


Sue is frequently instructed as a Leading Junior in complex and demanding cases and defends across the full spectrum of criminal offending. In recent years her work has focused on cases involving prosecutions brought by SOCA, and cases involving Serious Fraud and Regulatory work and is described as “a skilful advocate, liked by juries, feared by opponents".


Her main areas of practice involves all forms of serious offending but in particular cases of murder, manslaughter, serious violence, drugs, money laundering and serious sexual offences. Sue is regularly instructed in complex multi-handed cases with voluminous papers requiring attention to detail and forensic analysis, and is frequently successful in cases where evidence is seemingly overwhelming. Current instructions include a defendant in an alleged "Crossrail" fraud and a defendant in an alleged multi-million pound fraud upon Royal Mail.


Sue is regularly instructed to advise on appeal for potential appellants particularly in cases where convictions arise from evidence involving anonymous witnesses and also instructed regularly

Recent Cases
R v. Weise [Canterbury] 2016

Importation of 42 kilos Class A drugs


Sue defended this German National whom was acquitted by the jury for his alleged role in the importation of 42 kilos of class A drugs through the "EuroTunnel" port in Kent.



R v. MSA & ors [Croydon] 2016

Conspiracy to Supply Firearms


Sue successfully represented this defendant whom was cleared of any involvement in trading firearms after detectives uncovered their stash of hand guns, 300 ammunition rounds, thousands of bullet casings and a bomb-making manual.



R v. Smilginis [Snaresbrook & C.O.A.] EWCA Crim 550 2016

Rape & Appeal Re: Inconsistent Verdicts


Sue defended in this multiple rape allegation trial, which subsequently went to the Appeal Court, and is now a guideline case involving inconsistent verdicts.

Notable Cases
Operation Farnhams [C.C.C.] 2012

Murder of schoolboy at Victoria StationSue being led by Sarah Fanshaw QC successfully represented the defendant in the trial in respect of the brutal killing of the schoolboy Sofyen Belamouadden at Victoria Railway station by a gang of 19 youths in March 2010. The horrific nature of this killing led to widespread publicity of joint enterprise, knife related gang crime.


BBC News

“Baby P” Murder Trial [C.C.C.] 2009

Notorious case involving the death of 17 month old Baby 'P'


Sue led by Tim Roberts QC acted in the Defence of the "lodger" in the notorious case involving the death of a 17 month old baby when the local authority and other agencies were heavily criticised with regard to the lack of protection of the child. The defendant was acquitted on the murder allegation and was convicted only of allowing the death of the child at the hands of others. Successful appeal against sentence. Complicated and detailed case involving the consideration of an enormous amount of disclosed multi-agency material


R v. Iain Davis [H.O.L.] 2008

Landmark ruling on Anonymous Witnesses


R v. Iain Davis [2008] UKHL 36


Sue was led by Malcolm Swift QC at the House of Lords on this landmark ruling on the use of anonymous witnesses in Criminal trials. The original case involved a double-murder perpetrated by the use of a handgun. The sole and decisive evidence came by way of witnesses who had had their identities hidden from the defendant and their evidence came from behind screens with their voices distorted to avoid recognition. The House of Lords agreed that the defendant could not have a fair trial in these circumstances and that he was entitled to know who his accusers were.