Are you OK with cookies?

We use small files called ‘cookies’ on Some are essential to make the site work, some help us to understand how we can improve your experience, and some are set by third parties. You can choose to turn off the non-essential cookies. Which cookies are you happy for us to use?

Skip to content

Simon Perkins

Simon has extensive experience of defence advocacy across the spectrum of criminal practice including in the Crown Court, Court Martial and Court of Appeal.

Simon Perkins, defence barrister
Simon Perkins, criminal defence barrister

Career highlights

Call: 1999

Simon is a leading member of our military law team as well as having considerable experience across a range of criminal law cases.

He has a special interest in disclosure Issues and is adept at employing IT to collate and analyse complex and voluminous cases.

See Simon’s profile on LinkedIn

(PDF, 401 KB)

Instruct Simon Perkins for your defence

To instruct Simon Perkins or for further information, contact our clerks.

Instruct Simon Perkins

Specialist areas

Military law

Simon has considerable experience in Court Martial defence and representing Service personnel in the military and civilian courts.

Simon has developed his interest in and knowledge of psychiatric issues arising from military service.

Vulnerable witnesses and defendants

Simon is regularly instructed to represent vulnerable defendants on account of demonstrating great understanding and patience with this client group. A reputation for gaining the confidence of those who are least able to express their instructions, and for providing clients with clear, direct and unequivocal advice.

Notable cases

R v RK (Serious violence – manslaughter)

A “single punch manslaughter” witnessed by two PCs who failed to recognise the severity of the injury, delayed summoning medical assistance, and prevented a teenage bystander from trying to assist.

None of that affected the outcome of the assault. However, the case was prosecuted as a murder after the PCs “embellished” their evidence about the assault. The pathology was inconsistent with their accounts and the jury acquitted of murder.

R v AW (Serious violence)

A middle-aged man of good character kidnapped and detained his estranged wife for a number of hours.

Significant psychiatric mitigation arising from early commissioning of expert psychiatric evaluation avoided a finding of dangerousness and maximised credit for the inevitable guilty pleas.

R v GO (Serious sexual offences)

A combination of contemporary and 20-year-old allegations against a profoundly learning-disabled man who was unfit to plead. The challenge to the evidence relied upon exposure of inconsistencies in the principal witness’ account; close examination of the medical unlikelihood of the defendant being equipped to do the acts alleged; and a dismantling of rather sweeping conclusions of an “expert” paediatrician based upon a minimal number of first hand cases and a complete absence of published research on the phenomena asserted.

R v RD (Serious sexual offences, vulnerable witnesses)

Defence of 16-year-old accused of raping his 6-year-old step-sister. Case conducted under the vulnerable witness procedures and turned upon the implausibility of the complainant’s account and detailed reconstruction of the family’s chronology. Client acquitted on all counts.research on the phenomena asserted.

R v JH (Military law – serious violence)

Successful defence of a Royal Marine accused of assaulting no fewer than three senior naval ratings whilst ashore in Japan.

R v IP (Military law – serious sexual offences)

Successful Court Martial defence of a soldier facing allegations of sexual assault.

R v CO (Drugs, PTSD)

Conspiracy to Supply Class A. Whilst this was a Guilty Plea significant work was done to mitigate sentence involving psychiatric enquiries in defendant’s PTSD consequent upon Army service in Northern Ireland.

R v CJ (Military law – dishonesty)

An allegation of theft from stores and subsequent sale of items on EBay. The case required detailed analysis of several hundred alleged eBay transactions. The key point was that deficiencies in Army stock control systems leading to short cuts in paper recording systems created the impression of stock deficiencies when none existed. Case was stopped by the Judge Advocate when it emerged that the Prosecution could not prove any stock was missing.