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.
Ryan represents defendants in the Magistrates’ Courts, the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal.
Recent instructions include representing an actor acquitted of rape (R v FL), representing a police constable acquitted of misconduct in a public office (R v MP), representing a police sergeant acquitted of sexually assaulting a colleague at a work party (R v PB), representing a defendant acquitted of murder and possession of an offensive weapon (R v IC) (led by Matthew Butt KC), and acting on behalf of a defendant charged with murder where the defence raised at trial was loss of control (R v KM) (led by James Hines 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 to his defence work, Ryan prosecutes cases on behalf of the CPS. He has been appointed to the CPS General Crime Panel – Level 3.
Representing one of eight defendants charged with conspiring to secure unauthorised access to data held on computers (computer 'hacking’) and to unlawfully obtain personal data. After a 10-week trial, CC was acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiring the hack computers. Led by Richard Wormald KC.
Acting on behalf of a defendant charged with rape. It was alleged that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman while she slept. Acquitted.
Acting on behalf of a police constable charged with misconduct in public office. It was alleged that he had engaged in an improper relationship with a witness in a live investigation. Acquitted.
Acting for a police officer charged with making, possessing, and distributing indecent images and possessing an extreme pornographic image. Acquitted on all counts.
Acting for a young man charged with assaulting an emergency worker and a member of hospital security staff. Automatism and involuntary intoxication raised as a defence. Acquitted on all counts.
Representing a Police Sergeant charged with sexually assaulting an officer he was responsible for supervising. Acquitted by a jury following a 3-day trial.
Representing a trainee police officer who pleaded guilty to possessing an extreme pornographic image. Sentence reduced from 10 months’ immediate custody, to an 8-week suspended sentence on appeal. The Court of Appeal gave guidance regarding the correct approach to sentencing in such cases.
Representing defendant charged with murder and possession of an offensive weapon. Acquitted on both counts after a 4-week trial. Led by Matthew Butt KC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. He has since been appointed to the SFO’s Prosecution Counsel C Panel and Proceeds of Crime C Panel lists.
Ryan regularly represents defendants charged with fraud and money laundering offences. His recent financial crime work includes acting for the third defendant in a complex fraud and money laundering trial lasting 5 months (R v SG and Ors) (led by Luke Ponte), and defending in a complex multi-handed money laundering trial where the defendants contend they were operating a legitimate Hawala business (R v PB, NM and Ors) (led by Guy Ladenburg). Since 2022, Ryan has been instructed to represent a defendant in a long-running and complex fraud and money laundering investigation. The investigation is due to culminate in a 5 week trial at Derby Crown Court in late-2025 (R v JF & Ors). At an earlier stage, Ryan secured the discharge of an ‘all assets’ restraint order which had been imposed in respect of his client.
In addition to his trial experience, Ryan regularly appears in both restraint and confiscation proceedings. He is also an experienced practitioner in civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of PoCA and is regularly instructed in cash, listed asset and account freezing and forfeiture proceedings. He has particular expertise in advising individuals and enforcement authorities in civil recovery proceedings involving the use of unregistered money service businesses / remittance services. Ryan represented the MPS at first instance and in judicial review proceedings (led by Kennedy Talbot KC) in what is now one of the leading decisions on Account Forfeiture Orders (Fresh View Swift Properties Ltd v Westminster Magistrates’ Court) More recently, Ryan acted for an overseas trust company in a successful application to recover £1.3 million from a frozen account where the company contended that it had been a victim of fraud (Company G). He is currently instructed in ongoing Account Freezing and Forfeiture Order proceedings brought by the NCA in connection with £22 million (NCA v GLG) (led by Simon Farrell KC).
Represented an overseas trust company in a successful application, under section 303Z17A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, to recover £1.3 million subject to an Account Freezing Order. The company argued that it was the owner of the funds, and a victim of fraud.
Acting on behalf of a company in Account Freezing Order proceedings relating to in excess of £22 million. Led by Simon Farrell KC.
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.
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.
Acting for the third defendant in a complex fraud and money laundering trial at Birmingham Crown Court. Led by Luke Ponte.
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.
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.
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.
Ryan has considerable experience representing both responsible authorities and premises in licensing proceedings.
He has acted for the Metropolitan Police Service in a number of high-profile review and summary review hearings. Recent instructions include representing 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). In 2023, Ryan successfully represented one of the oldest jazz bars in Soho in summary review proceedings before Westminster City Council (New Evaristo Club (‘Trisha’s’)). More recently, he represented a premises in summary review proceedings before the Licensing Sub-Committee of Ealing Council, and in its successful appeal against the revocation of its licence (Stack Bar).
Acting on behalf of a premises subject to a summary review following a violent incident at the venue and a number of alleged breaches of licence conditions. Licence initially revoked, but reinstated following a successful appeal.
Acting for one of the oldest jazz bars in Soho during a review of its Premises Licence by the Licensing Authority, supported by the Metropolitan Police Service. Westminster City Council declined to revoke the licence, instead suspending it for 14 days and adding a number of further conditions.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Acting 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.
Acting 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.
Ryan accepts instructions in public law proceedings and has appeared in the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. He has advised and represented parties both at the pre-action stage and in judicial review proceedings. Recent instructions include defending 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), and advising the MPS in connection with its defence to a proposed application for judicial review of a search warrant obtained and executed with the FCA. Ryan also acted for the successful claimant in Hill v IOPC; MPS. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal concluded that the Independent Office of Police Conduct acted unlawfully when obtaining the claimant’s communications data during. It also delivered an important ruling on the question of when downloading a person’s mobile handset amounts to an ‘interception’ within the meaning of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (led by Nicholas Yeo).
In addition to his general public law work, Ryan also accepts instructions in relation to inquest and public inquiry work. He was previously 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.
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.
Acting for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in judicial review proceedings in respect of an unlawful search warrant. Led by Nicholas Yeo
Instructed by the London Fire Brigade to assist with disclosure and the preparation of Rule 9 statements for the Inquiry.
Ryan has considerable expertise in relation to the UK’s autonomous regimes under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and UK export controls regulation. He represents individuals, corporates, and enforcement authorities on sanctions-related issues. Recent instructions include advising, as junior counsel, an overseas entity in relation to applications for licences from OFSI pursuant to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, advising a police force in connection with the return of objects of cultural significance to a sanctioned jurisdiction, and acting on behalf of a designated person in his successful application to have his designation under the Russia Regulations revoked (led by Rachel Barnes KC), and representing a company in a challenge to a monetary penalty imposed by OFSI under the Policing and Crime Act 2017 (led by Rachel Barnes KC).
In addition, Ryan recently acted for a non-governmental organisation investigating possible sanctions violations with a view to utilising the sanctions regime to ensure accountability for human rights breaches.
Advising a civil society organisation in connection with its investigation into possible breaches of sanctions and export controls by a company exporting goods to a sanctioned country.
Acting on behalf of a sanctioned person in a successful challenge to his designation under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Ryan has a specialist professional discipline practice with a focus on representing police officers facing misconduct and gross misconduct proceedings.
He is regularly instructed in complex disciplinary cases and has represented officers both at first-instance and in the Police Appeals Tribunal. Frequently, those who he represents face the most serious misconduct allegations, including allegations of dishonesty and serious sexual impropriety.
Where criminal charges have resulted, as an experienced criminal practitioner Ryan is well-placed, and is often instructed, to advise and represent officers throughout both sets of proceedings. For example, Ryan recently represented a constable charged with misconduct in a public office for engaging in an improper relationship with a witness in a live investigation. The case was widely reported in the press and Ryan secured the officer’s acquittal at trial, before representing him in the disciplinary proceedings which followed (R v MP (2024-25)). He is also currently instructed to represent a Detective Sergeant in disciplinary proceedings, after securing his acquittal on a charge of harassment in the magistrates’ court (R v GC (2023-25)).
In addition to providing advocacy in disciplinary hearings, Ryan provides specialist advice and assistance prior to any hearing.
Representing a Police Sergeant alleged to have facilitated or failed to act on racist, sexist and discriminatory behaviour by a junior colleague. After a 9 day hearing, involving extensive cross-examination, the Panel dismissed almost all allegations and concluded that key witnesses had colluded and had not given truthful evidence.
Acting for a police constable accused of unlawfully accessing a police computer system for a non-policing purpose.
Acting for a police constable in gross misconduct proceedings arising from his alleged improper sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy.
Information Commissioner’s Office v CC (2025) (Bolton Crown Court)
Representing one of eight defendants charged with conspiring to secure unauthorised access to data held on computers (computer ‘hacking’) and to unlawfully obtain personal data. After a 10-week trial, CC was acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiring the hack computers. Led by Richard Wormald KC.
R v FL (2024) (Kingston Crown Court)
Acting on behalf of a defendant charged with rape. It was alleged that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman while she slept. Acquitted.
R v MP (2024) (Southwark Crown Court)
Acting on behalf of a police constable charged with misconduct in public office. It was alleged that he had engaged in an improper relationship with a witness in a live investigation. Acquitted.
R v AM (2024) (Croydon Crown Court)
Acting for a police officer charged with making, possessing, and distributing indecent images and possessing an extreme pornographic image. Acquitted on all counts.
R v MC (2024) (Kingston Crown Court)
Acting for a young man charged with assaulting an emergency worker and a member of hospital security staff. Automatism and involuntary intoxication raised as a defence. Acquitted on all counts.
R v PB (2023) (Northampton Crown Court)
Representing a Police Sergeant charged with sexually assaulting an officer he was responsible for supervising. Acquitted by a jury following a 3-day trial.
R v Boshein [2023] EWCA Crim 560
Representing a trainee police officer who pleaded guilty to possessing an extreme pornographic image. Sentence reduced from 10 months’ immediate custody, to an 8-week suspended sentence on appeal. The Court of Appeal gave guidance regarding the correct approach to sentencing in such cases.
R v IC (2023 (Leicester Crown Court)
Representing defendant charged with murder and possession of an offensive weapon. Acquitted on both counts after a 4-week trial. Led by Matthew Butt KC.
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 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.
Company G (2024)
Represented an overseas trust company in a successful application, under section 303Z17A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, to recover £1.3 million subject to an Account Freezing Order. The company argued that it was the owner of the funds, and a victim of fraud.
National Crime Agency v GLG (2023-24) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) (ongoing)
Acting on behalf of a company in Account Freezing Order proceedings relating to in excess of £22 million. Led by Simon Farrell KC.
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 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.
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.
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.
MPS v SYL (2021) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court)
Acting 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 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.
New Evaristo Club (‘Trisha’s) (2023)
Acting for one of the oldest jazz bars in Soho during a review of its Premises Licence by the Licensing Authority, supported by the Metropolitan Police Service. Westminster City Council declined to revoke the licence, instead suspending it for 14 days and adding a number of further conditions.
Read more about the case here and here.
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.
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 Westminster 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.
A Non-Governmental Organisation (2023-2024)
Advising a civil society organisation in connection with its investigation into possible breaches of sanctions and export controls by a company exporting goods to a sanctioned country.
Oleg Tinkov (2023)
Acting on behalf of a sanctioned person in a successful challenge to his designation under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
PS H and PC S (2024)
Representing a Police Sergeant alleged to have facilitated or failed to act on racist, sexist and discriminatory behaviour by a junior colleague. After a 9 day hearing, involving extensive cross-examination, the Panel dismissed almost all allegations and concluded that key witnesses had colluded and had not given truthful evidence.
PC GC (2023)
Acting for a police constable accused of unlawfully accessing a police computer system for a non-policing purpose.
PC MAB (2023)
Acting for a police constable in gross misconduct proceedings arising from his alleged improper sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy.
“Ryan is a clever and thoughtful barrister who is incredibly knowledgeable on POCA and asset forfeiture.” Legal 500 2026: Proceeds of Crime (POCA) and Asset Forfeiture
Scholarships/Prizes
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:
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
| Address | 3 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5BH |
|---|---|
| DX | 237 LDE |
| Opening hours | 08:30 – 18:30 |
| Telephone | +44 (0)20 7400 6400 |
|---|---|
| clerks@3rblaw.com | |
| Senior clerk | Ryan Dowding |
