Ryan Dowding

Call: 2017

Instructing Ryan

To instruct Ryan please contact our Clerks on +44 (0)20 7400 6400 or email clerks@3rblaw.com.

Ryan has a broad practice across Chambers’ main areas of expertise, with a particular interest in general and financial crime, licensing and regulatory work, and public law.

Legal Expertise

General Crime overview

Ryan regularly acts for defendants in Magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court.

He has experience of acting in complex, novel and unusual cases, including representing the sole defendant in the first ever prosecution by the Gambling Commission for the offence of misusing the profits of a lottery. The Commission was represented by leading counsel (R v SR). He recently represented a young defendant acquitted at trial for rape and assault by penetration (R v G). Current instructions include acting for a defendant charged with the murder of his partner (led by Matthew Butt KC).

Ryan has a particular interest and expertise in modern slavery. He recently acted for a young defendant charged with requiring others to engage in forced or compulsory labour and PWITS Class A. Following detailed submissions advanced over a number of days, the prosecution was stayed as an abuse of process (R v K).

In addition, Ryan prosecutes cases on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and Transport for London.

Notable General Crime cases

R v G (2023) (Wellingborough Youth Court)

Acting for young defendant charged with rape and assault by penetration. The alleged offences occurred when the defendant was 14 years’ old. He was acquitted of those charges following a 2 day trial.

R v K (2022) (Leicester Crown Court)

Acting for young defendant charged with requiring others to engage in forced or compulsory labour and to supply Class A drugs on a county line between Leicestershire and London. Successful application to have the proceedings stayed as an abuse of process.

R v SOK and JP (2021) (Central Criminal Court sitting at Aldersgate House)

Acting for a defendant alleged to have imported Class A, B and C drugs into the United Kingdom from Los Angeles. Both defendants acquitted on all counts.

R v SR (2021) (Aylesbury Crown Court)

Acting for one of a number of defendants facing trial at Aylesbury Crown Court for the alleged importation and supply drugs and money laundering. The prosecution relies to a large extent on Encrochat material. Led by Siza Agha.

R v FS (2021) (Aylesbury Crown Court)

Acting for a defendant charged with PWITS Class A at Aylesbury Crown Court. The case involved detailed cross-examination of a drugs expert.

R v DH (2019) (Basildon Crown Court)

Acting as a court appointed advocate assisting a defendant to oppose an application for a post-acquittal restraining order. His conviction for sexual assault had been overturned by the Court of Appeal. Following a hearing which involved detailed cross-examination of the complainant the Judge refused the Crown’s application.

Financial Crime / POCA

Financial Crime / POCA overview

Prior to joining Chambers, Ryan spent a year working in the bribery and corruption division of the Serious Fraud Office on a long-running investigation into a former FTSE 100 company. During his pupillage he assisted the defence in a major insider dealing trial brought by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Since becoming a tenant, Ryan has acted alone for defendants charged with fraud and money laundering offences. He has also acted as junior counsel, including for the third defendant in a complex fraud and money laundering trial lasting 5 months (R v SG and Ors). In addition to his trial experience, Ryan regularly acts for defendants in restraint and confiscation proceedings. Recently, he succeeded in securing the discharge of an ‘all assets’ restraint order obtained by the CPS in respect of a defendant suspected of laundering funds resulting from a substantial investment fraud (R v JF).

Ryan is an experienced practitioner in civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of PoCA. He is regularly instructed as both junior and sole counsel in cash, listed asset and bank account freezing and forfeiture proceedings. He has particular expertise in advising individuals and enforcement authorities in civil recovery proceedings, under Part 5 of POCA, involving the use of unregistered money service businesses / remittance services (e.g., ‘Hawala banking’).

Notable Financial Crime / POCA cases

Fresh View Swift Properties Limited v Westminster Magistrates' Court and Ors [2023] EWHC 605 (Admin)

The first High Court decision to consider the requirements for making an Account Forfeiture Order. Funds passing through an unregistered money service business became recoverable property, and it was not disproportionate to forfeit those funds in the hands of a customer of that business where they were on constructive notice that it was unregistered. Led by Kennedy Talbot KC.

R v JF (2022) (Derby Crown Court)

Successfully secured the discharge of an ‘all assets’ Restraint Order. The order was obtained in relation to a defendant suspected of laundering part of the proceeds of an investment fraud.

R v SG (2020-22) (Birmingham Crown Court)

Acting for the third defendant in a complex fraud and money laundering trial at Birmingham Crown Court. Led by Luke Ponte.

R v GS (2021) (Isleworth Crown Court)

Acting for a defendant who pleaded guilty to defrauding his employer out of more than £250,000. The court was persuaded to impose a suspended sentence.

R v AB (2020-21)

Acting for an Iranian national who had bank accounts containing approx. £1.1 million frozen by Leicestershire Police. Following detailed written representations the Account Freezing Order was set aside before the case reached the forfeiture stage. Led by Rachel Barnes.

R v SS (2020)

Acting for a British-Iranian national who was the subject of an application by HMRC for an Account Forfeiture Order. Following detailed written representations the application for forfeiture was dropped and HMRC agreed to pay most of the respondent’s legal costs. Led by Rachel Barnes KC.

Licensing / Regulatory overview

Ryan is an experienced licensing practitioner.

He is regularly instructed by the Metropolitan Police Service in review and summary review proceedings. Recent instructions include acting for the MPS in a successful application to revoke a premises licence after a number of individuals were stabbed outside of a licensed venue in Holborn (Club 29).

Ryan also regularly acts on behalf of individuals and companies in applications to obtain new premises licenses or to vary existing licenses. Recent instructions include acting for a company in an application for a premises licence in relation to a proposed restaurant / bar in a small town in Essex (117 Trading Limited). The application was successful despite staunch opposition from a number of local residents. He also appeared, in 2022, for a nightclub in summary review proceedings after a number of individuals were stabbed during a violent incident at the premises. The licence was revoked and the interim suspension of the licence was maintained pending appeal. However, the appeal against the interim steps was successful and the local authority agreed to settle the substantive appeal, permitting the premises to re-open with new conditions (Circa Loca).

Notable Licensing / Regulatory cases

Circa Loca (2022)

Acting for a nightclub which had its licence revoked following multiple stabbings at the premises. An appeal against the suspension of the licence as an interim step was successful and the local authority conceded the remainder of the appeal, agreeing to permit the premises to re-open with additional conditions attached to the licence.

117 Trading Limited (2021)

Acting for a company in a successful application for a premises licence. The application was granted in the face of a large number of objections from local residents.

Club 29 (2020)

Acting for the MPS in a successful application to revoke a Premises Licence. The application, robustly opposed, followed a violent brawl outside of the premises which resulted in four people being stabbed.

Civil Preventative Orders overview

Ryan is frequently instructed by the Metropolitan Police Service to advise on and appear in applications for a wide range of civil preventative orders, including: Closure Orders, Sexual Risk Orders, Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, Stalking Protection Orders, Slavery and Trafficking Risk and Prevention Orders, and Violent Offender Orders.

Alongside Hugh Davies OBE KC, DCI Brittany Clarke and DI Emma Sharp, he co-authored guidance for the National County Lines Coordination Centre (NCLCC). The second edition of this guidance has since been rolled out to police forces across the country. The guidance – which was subject to a process of consultation with a number of experts – is aimed at increasing the use of civil orders so as to prevent county lines offending (a link to the guidance appears in the ‘Publications’ section).

He also appears for defendants facing applications for civil orders. Examples include successfully resisting an application by Surrey Police for a Domestic Violence Prevention Order against a serving police officer (Essex Police v AS) and securing the discharge of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order in relation to a high-profile individual with convictions over a decade ago for sexual offences in Romania (West Mercia Police v AS).

Notable Civil Preventative Orders cases

MPS v SYL (2021) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court)

Acting alone for the MPS in an application for a Stalking Protection Order in relation to a high-profile public figure. The defendant had engaged in acts associated with stalking in relation to a journalist at a national newspaper, along with her partner. The order was granted for a period of 5 years.

MPS v YZ, QX, GM, YZ and WN (2020-2021) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court)

Acting alone for the MPS in its first applications for Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders. The applications related to five defendants involved in the trafficking of primarily Chinese women for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Orders were granted in relation to three defendants, with adverse findings made in relation to a fourth. All defendants have now been charged with a raft of criminal offences.

Public Law, Inquests and Inquiries overview

Ryan was instructed for a number of months by the London Fire Brigade in relation to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry where he conducted work in relation to Phase 2 of the Inquiry.

Ryan also has experience of acting in judicial review and other public law proceedings. He was recently instructed to defend a claim brought against the MPS for judicial review in respect of an unlawful search warrant (Heilligger v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Anor) (led by Nicholas Yeo).

In addition, Ryan acted as junior counsel for the claimant before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The IPT concluded that the Independent Office of Police Conduct acted unlawfully when obtaining the claimant’s communications data during an investigation. It also delivered an important ruling on when downloading a person’s mobile handset amounts to an ‘interception’ within the meaning of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Hill v IOPC; MPS) (led by Nicholas Yeo).

Notable Public Law, Inquests and Inquiries cases

Hill v Independent Office for Police Conduct [2022] UKIP Trib 6

Acting for the Claimant in a claim before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The Tribunal found the IOPC to have acted unlawfully in obtaining his communications data. It also delivered a landmark ruling on what amounts to an ‘interception’. Led by Nicholas Yeo.

Cecil Steven Heilligger v Wesminster Magistrates’ Court and Anor [2022] EWHC 1056 (Admin)

Acting for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in judicial review proceedings in respect of an unlawful search warrant. Led by Nicholas Yeo

Grenfell Tower Inquiry (Phase 2) (2020)

Instructed by the London Fire Brigade to assist with disclosure and the preparation of Rule 9 statements for the Inquiry.

Sanctions overview

Ryan accepts instructions in sanctions matters.

He is currently acting for an individual in an application to revoke his designation pursuant to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (led by Rachel Barnes KC).

 

Professional Discipline overview

Ryan gained experience of police misconduct proceedings during pupillage and has since acted for police officers in first-instance misconduct proceedings and before the Police Appeals Tribunal.

Extradition overview

Ryan has appeared on behalf of requested persons in extradition cases in the magistrates’ courts. He also has experience advising on and drafting grounds of appeal to the Administrative Court.

General Crime

R v G (2023) (Wellingborough Youth Court)

Acting for young defendant charged with rape and assault by penetration. The alleged offences occurred when the defendant was 14 years’ old. He was acquitted of those charges following a 2 day trial.

R v K (2022) (Leicester Crown Court)

Acting for young defendant charged with requiring others to engage in forced or compulsory labour and to supply Class A drugs on a county line between Leicestershire and London. Successful application to have the proceedings stayed as an abuse of process.

R v SOK and JP (2021) (Central Criminal Court sitting at Aldersgate House) 

Acting for a defendant alleged to have imported Class A, B and C drugs into the United Kingdom from Los Angeles. Both defendants acquitted on all counts.

Read more about the case here.

R v SR (2021) (Aylesbury Crown Court)  

Acting for one of a number of defendants facing trial at Aylesbury Crown Court for the alleged importation and supply drugs and money laundering. The prosecution relies to a large extent on Encrochat material. Led by Siza Agha.

R v FS (2021) (Aylesbury Crown Court) 

Acting for a defendant charged with PWITS Class A at Aylesbury Crown Court. The case involved detailed cross-examination of a drugs expert. 

R v DH (2019) (Basildon Crown Court)

Acting as a court appointed advocate assisting a defendant to oppose an application for a post-acquittal restraining order. His conviction for sexual assault had been overturned by the Court of Appeal. Following a hearing which involved detailed cross-examination of the complainant the Judge refused the Crown’s application.

Financial Crime / POCA

Fresh View Swift Properties Limited v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Ors [2023] EWHC 605 (Admin)

The first High Court decision to consider the requirements for making an Account Forfeiture Order. Funds passing through an unregistered money service business became recoverable property, and it was not disproportionate to forfeit those funds in the hands of a customer of that business where they were on constructive notice that it was unregistered. Led by Kennedy Talbot KC.

(Read the judgment here)

R v JF (2022) (Derby Crown Court)

Successfully secured the discharge of an ‘all assets’ Restraint Order. The order was obtained in relation to a defendant suspected of laundering part of the proceeds of an investment fraud.

R v SG (2020-22) (Birmingham Crown Court)  

Acting for the third defendant in a complex fraud and money laundering trial at Birmingham Crown Court. Led by Luke Ponte.

R v GS (2021) (Isleworth Crown Court) 

Acting alone for a defendant who pleaded guilty to defrauding his employer out of more than £250,000. The court was persuaded to impose a suspended sentence.

R v AB (2020-21) 

Acting for an Iranian national who had bank accounts containing approx. £1.1 million frozen by Leicestershire Police. Following detailed written representations the Account Freezing Order was set aside before the case reached the forfeiture stage. Led by Rachel Barnes.

R v SS (2020) 

Acting for a British-Iranian national who was the subject of an application by HMRC for an Account Forfeiture Order. Following detailed written representations the application for forfeiture was dropped and HMRC agreed to pay most of the respondent’s legal costs. Led by Rachel Barnes.

Civil Preventative Orders

MPS v SYL (2021) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) 

Acting alone for the MPS in an application for a Stalking Protection Order in relation to a high-profile public figure. The defendant had engaged in acts associated with stalking in relation to a journalist at a national newspaper, along with her partner. The order was granted for a period of 5 years.

Read further following links here and here. 

MPS v YZ, QX, GM, YZ and WN (2020-2021) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) 

Acting alone for the MPS in its first applications for Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders. The applications related to five defendants involved in the trafficking of primarily Chinese women for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Orders were granted in relation to three defendants, with adverse findings made in relation to a fourth. All defendants have now been charged with a raft of criminal offences.

Read further here.

Licensing / Regulatory

Circa Loca (2022)

Acting for a nightclub which had its licence revoked following multiple stabbings at the premises. An appeal against the suspension of the licence as an interim step was successful and the local authority conceded the remainder of the appeal, agreeing to permit the premises to re-open with additional conditions attached to the licence.

117 Trading Limited (2021) 

Acting for a company in a successful application for a premises licence. The application was granted in the face of a large number of objections from local residents.

Read further here.

Club 29 (2020) 

Acting for the MPS in a successful application to revoke a Premises Licence. The application, robustly opposed, followed a violent brawl outside of the premises which resulted in four people being stabbed.

Public Law, Inquests and Inquiries

Hill v Independent Office for Police Conduct [2022] UKIP Trib 6 

Acting for the Claimant in a claim before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The Tribunal found the IOPC to have acted unlawfully in obtaining his communications data. It also delivered a landmark ruling on what amounts to an ‘interception’. Led by Nicholas Yeo.

(Read the judgment here)

Cecil Steven Heilligger v Wesminster Magistrates’ Court and Anor [2022] EWHC 1056 (Admin)

Acting for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in judicial review proceedings in respect of an unlawful search warrant. Led by Nicholas Yeo.

(Read the judgment here)

Grenfell Tower Inquiry (Phase 2) (2020) 

Instructed by the London Fire Brigade to assist with disclosure and the preparation of Rule 9 statements for the Inquiry.

Instructing Ryan

To instruct Ryan please contact our Clerks on +44 (0)20 7400 6400 or email clerks@3rblaw.com.

  • Criminal Bar Association
  • Health & Safety Lawyers Association
  • Young Fraud Lawyers Association
  • Bar Professional Training Course (Outstanding)
  • University of Sussex, LLM in International Human Rights Law (Distinction)
  • University of Sussex, LLB (Hons) (First Class, second in year)

Scholarships/Prizes

  • Certificate of Honour, Middle Temple (2017)
  • Queen Mother Scholarship, Middle Temple (2016)
  • Blackstone Entrance Exhibition, Middle Temple (2016)
  • Excellence Scholarship, BPP (2016)
  • Joint award for Highest Mark on an LLM Dissertation, University of Sussex (2017)
  • Magna Carta Moot – Winner, Inner Temple (2016)
  • International Criminal Trial Advocacy Competition – Semi-Finalist, Symbiosis Law School, India (2016)
  • Best Performance on the Final Year of the LLB, University of Sussex (2015)
  • Inner Temple Intervarsity Moot – Winner (2015)
  • Blackstone’s National Criminal Advocacy Competition – Semi-Finalist & Best Overall Advocate (2014)
  • First Generation Scholarship, University of Sussex (2013)
  • Bar Professional Training Course (Outstanding)
  • LLM in International Human Rights Law (Distinction), University of Sussex
  • LLB (Hons) (First Class), University of Sussex
  • CPS Panel (General Crime) – Level 2

Before coming to the Bar, Ryan completed his LLM in International Human Rights Law at the University of Sussex. During his time at university, he co-founded Your Rights Matter: a small organisation which published articles online and visited schools and colleges to teach students about human rights law.  He also carried out work for the Free Representation Unit.  The following year, alongside studying for his BPTC, Ryan taught the law of evidence and criminal procedure to undergraduates.  He also volunteered to assist with projects including Vocalise through which he and other BPTC students led debating classes for inmates at prisons around London.

I, Ryan Dowding, am a data controller and can be contacted at 3 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5BH or by telephone on 020 7400 6400 or by email at ryan.dowding@3rblaw.com. My Data Protection Policy can be found below.

All personal data that I process is for the purposes of providing legal services, conducting conflict-checks, marketing, defending potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes, keeping anti-money laundering records, training other barristers and pupils and when providing work-shadowing opportunities, and/or exercising a right to a lien. The types of data I process vary upon the nature of the legal matter in relation to which I am engaged to advise, but can include names, contact details, biographic details and ‘special category personal data’ (such as details of racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, health, sex life and criminal convictions and proceedings).

Depending upon the circumstances of the case, the legal bases upon which I process personal data are (i) the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract, (ii) the processing is necessary to comply with legal obligations to which I am subject, or (iii) the processing is necessary for the legitimate interests set out above, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subjects which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. When I rely on (iii) legitimate interests, my ‘Legitimate Interests Assessment’ can be found here. When I process data which has not be obtained directly from the data subject (e.g. personal data contained in evidential materials), it will have been supplied to me as part of my instructions in circumstances covered by legal professional privilege.

Depending upon the circumstances of the case, I may share the personal data with:

  1. my Chambers, which supplies professional and administrative support to my practice;
  2. Courts and other tribunals to whom documents are presented;
  3. my lay and professional clients;
  4. potential witnesses, in particular experts, and friends or family of the data subject;
  5. solicitors, barristers, pupils, mini pupils and other legal representatives;
  6. ombudsmen and regulatory authorities;
  7. current, past or prospective employers;
  8. education and examining bodies;
  9. business associates, professional advisers and trade bodies.

I retain personal data for no longer than 7 years after the case has come to an end or as otherwise required by law.

I do not intend to transfer data to any country which is not either within the European Union, ‘white listed’ by the EU or otherwise permitted by EU law (e.g. to the USA under the provisions of the ‘Privacy Shield’).

Under the GDPR, data subjects whose personal data I process have the right to request from me access to, and rectification or erasure of, their personal data, the right to the restriction of processing concerning them, the right to object to processing as well as the right to data portability. Data subjects also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ico.org.uk).

In cases where there is a contract between me and the data subject, the provision of personal data is a contractual requirement and the data subject is obliged to provide the personal data in order that I can supply legal services. A failure to provide such data may mean that I will not be able to provide the legal services.

Rev 1.1 11.04.2019

Data Protection Policy

Legitimate Interests Assessment

Related news