Ned Kemp

Ned is a dedicated criminal defence solicitor and higher court advocate, allowing him to represent clients accused of criminal offences in all courts. He has particular experience in representing clients with mental health conditions and learning disabilities, regularly advising individuals with psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression—both at the police station and throughout the court process. He is also trained to work with clients with Autism, Asperger’s, ADHD, and other neurodivergent conditions.

Since joining Allen Hoole in 2018, following completion of his undergraduate and Master’s degrees in Law, Ned has developed a reputation for his meticulous preparation, calm approach under pressure, and tenacious advocacy. He is passionate about early-stage defence work and ensures that clients receive clear advice and strong representation from the outset.

Ned has successfully defended clients accused of a wide range of offences, from serious charges such as murder to more routine matters like drink driving. His specialist knowledge of cryptocurrencies, the dark web, and digital devices means he is frequently instructed in complex cases involving indecent images and online drug offences.

He also accepts private instructions for taxi licensing hearings and has a strong reputation for his persuasive advocacy in front of licensing committees.

Notable Cases:

• R v MO (2025) - Ned represented MO at a Newton hearing in Bristol Crown Court. The offence was possession with intent to supply Class A drugs (cocaine). Following the hearing, Ned was able to successfully persuade the court that his role within the supply was lesser role and so avoided an immediate custodial sentence of what would have been a starting point of 4 years and 6 months. Ned persuaded the court to suspend a custodial sentence of 2 years.
• R v TB (2025) - Ned represented TB at trial for failing to provide a specimen of breath. This was a technical trial where two police officers were cross examined as to the hospital procedure in obtaining the specimen. Despite his refusal to provide, during cross examination the police officers ultimately resolved that they had not followed the correct procedure nor was their reasonable grounds to request a specimen and so the prosecution then offered no evidence to that charge.
• R v AC (2025) - Ned represented AC for failing to provide information of a driver (section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988). Ned was able to demonstrate to the court that, due to postal interception, the defendant had never received the correspondence and thus was unable to provide those details. She was found not guilty.
• R v BT (2025) - Ned represented BT at trial for two instances of driving without a licence. The issue in this case was identification and the witness was a police officer. Ned was able to fundamentally undermine the officer's account in cross examination such that the court found they could not be sure that BT was correctly identified and thus found not guilty of both charges.
• R v TB (2025) - Ned represented TB at trial charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Despite the assault with a weapon being caught on CCTV, Ned was able to demonstrate to the court both in enhanced CCTV footage and within cross examination that the injury was sustained prior to the assault and thus there was no causation. The Magistrates found there was no case to answer following a half time submission.
• R v MW (2025) - Ned represented MW at trial charged with criminal damage and domestic assault by beating. Despite the complainant and an eye witness giving evidence, Ned was able to undermine their accounts in cross-examination so sufficiently that the Magistrates concluded the complainant's account was 'not credible' and he was found not guilty of both charges.
• R v WH (2025) - Ned represented WH who was a Bristol businessman charged with handling stolen goods. It was said that he was selling stolen products in his store. Ned was able to review years worth of  invoices, receipts and business documents and extrapolate relevant data to make representations to the Crown Prosecution Service demonstrating there was no case to answer. The prosecution was discontinued.
• R v LB (2025) - Ned represented LB at trial charged with possession of an offensive weapon (baseball bat). Despite admissions both as to the use and possession of the bat in a physical altercation, Ned successfully advanced a technical legal argument that the communal area of a block of flats did not constitute a public place within the scope of the legislation. Following effective cross examination of the complainant and a police officer the prosecution offered no evidence and the defendant was acquitted.
• R v JM (2024) – Ned represented JM at trial charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath contrary to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Ned identified multiple technical procedural errors the police officer had made during the procedure. Following persuasive cross examination Ned persuaded the court there was no case to answer and the defendant was acquitted, retaining his driving licence.
• R v SS (2024) – Ned represented SS at trial charged with assault by beating by headbutt. Despite the use of a headbutt Ned was able to effectively cross examine and complainant and witnesses to support that the defendant was acting in self defence, resulting in a not guilty verdict.
• R v JC (2024) – Ned represented JC at trial charged with a domestic assault against his ex-partner. Having effectively undermined the prosecution case by exhibiting of CCTV, Ned persuaded the court that there was no case to answer and the defendant was acquitted.
• R v EO (2024) – Ned represented EO at trial charged with a domestic assault against his partner. The prosecution was an evidence led prosecution (without a complainant) and the evidence was based on hearsay and police officer evidence. Ned cross examined the police officers so as to undermine the prosecution case that he persuaded the court that there was no case to answer and the defendant was acquitted.
• R v ST (2024) – Ned represented ST at a trial charged with criminal damage, assault by beating and possession of an offensive weapon (a shovel). Despite several prosecution witnesses and mobile phone footage, the defendant was found not guilty of all charges with the court concluding there was insufficient evidence and the defendant had armed himself with the shovel in self defence.
• R v GH (2024) – Ned represented GH, a farmer, at trial where he was charged with assault by kicking and using a farm vehicle to run into the complainant. Despite the incident being largely caught on CCTV the prosecution witness was undermined in cross-examination to such an extent the court acquitted the defendant in finding the complainant unreliable.
• R v EG (2021) – Client was arresting for attempting to pervert the course of justice following evidence that they had fabricated a police complaint. The matter was complicated by the client’s employment position within law enforcement. Ned was able to dig deep into the client’s personal mental health mitigation and persuade the police to offer a conditional caution.
• R v AW (2021) – Client was arrested for causing death by dangerous driving, following the collision of a motorbike into a pedestrian. Despite several motoring offences having been committed, Ned’s representation at the police station led to no further action being brought in relation to the allegation of causing death by dangerous driving.
• R v JC (2021) – Client was arrested for being in possession of class A drugs with intent to supply. Ned instructed leading modern slavery expert witness Grace Robinson to provide an expert report supporting a Modern Slavery Act
• R v JB (2020) – Client was arrested for possession of firearms and ammunition and facing a mandatory five year prison sentence. Ned was able to consult prior to interview with one of the country’s leading firearms experts in relation to the legality of the different seized items and technical defences available. Having advanced a technical defence, this resulted in no further action against our client.
• R v LB (2020) – Client was arrested for making indecent images of children following forensic examination of digital devices. Following Ned’s representing, the police liaised with the crown prosecution service and took the exceptional decision to offer client a Conditional Caution so that he could attend a rehabilitation course.
• R v MS (2020) – Client was arrested for murder of his brother in suspicious circumstances. Ned was able to support a vulnerable client through a tactical police interview that resulted in no further action.
• R v Y (2020) defence of county lines exploitation. Ned liaised with counsel, the prosecution and the experts in the preparing the case which ultimately led to the defendant being found not guilty; having successfully raised a modern slavery defence under section 45.
• R v A (2019) – Client, a youth, was arrested for possession of class A drugs with intent to supply. With Ned’s knowledge of Bristol’s diversionary schemes, he was able to effectively advise and make referrals to avoid prosecution altogether. Our client was given a rare opportunity to take part in the Call in Programme, a scheme offered to young people arrested for drug dealing offences to be given access to training and mentoring to avoid the traditional criminal justice route.