‘Tana is a brilliant advocate with a powerful presence in court. She presents submissions articulately and persuasively, demonstrating thorough preparation and good insight. She is exceptionally skilled and maintains high standards of integrity and ethics.’ (Legal 500 2025)
Download CV
Tana is particularly experienced in examining causes of death and dealing with complex and often novel medical and scientific evidence. She has worked with numerous experts at the top of their fields including forensic pathologists, paediatricians, toxicologists, blood spatter, DNA, ballistic, GSR and explosive experts, forensic psychiatrists and psychologists, experts in ideology and terrorism and forensic accountancy.
She conducts cases involving Regulatory and Disciplinary proceedings brought against medical and other professionals accused of misconduct including police officers and is experienced in analysing large volumes of material.
Tana was Chair of the Criminal Bar Association (2023-2024) and is a member of INQUEST and the Female Fraud Forum. She is currently Secretary to the Battonieres du monde, Paris (Women Bar Leaders of the World), Legal adviser to the Forensic Science sub-Committee of the Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine, London and is Deputy Head of 15NBS Chambers.
A consistently high-performing advocate, Tana has been described as
‘A brilliant advocate with a powerful presence in court’ (Legal 500 2025)
‘Simply exceptional. She is always all over the brief .. and …is first class in all she does.’ (Legal 500 2024)
‘Extremely clear and persuasive – juries and Judges listen to her. Her cross-examination skills are excellent as she consistently ties the Crown’s witnesses in knots.’ (Legal 500 2023).
Criminal and Regulatory Law Expertise
R v SN, defended woman described as ‘UK’s worst troll’ who broke restraining orders and stalked and harassed families in Hampstead accusing them of involvement in a satanic paedophile ring following involvement in a Family case (included research into automated online and computer technology used to publish material resulting in numerous counts being dismissed at half-time. Explored in Netflix documentary ‘The Hampstead Paedophile Hoax’).
R v GS & another, retrial after Court of Appeal quashed murder convictions. Defendant acquitted of murder after it was demonstrated the forensic and pathological evidence was misinterpreted at the scene. (detailed study of extent of bleeding and blood spatter at scene and cross-examination of blood spatter experts and 4 Pathologists to map true location of the killing. Examined by ‘Inside Justice’, Journal of Criminal Law and Exeter University.)
R v C, defended young man accused of terrorism offences including purchase of a firearm and ammunition from the security services potentially to kill the Lord Mayor of London. (examination of large volume of material relating to weapons and extreme right wing ideology going back 5 years including analysis of computer data and on-line telegram communications).
R v C & others, defended young man in multi-handed case accused of Murder by shooting of a man in West London. (Cut-throat defences run including admission of surveillance evidence from prison).
R v D & D, prosecuted offences including Murder by defendant using a motor vehicle to crush the victim. (Collision investigation material included expert vehicle examiners and scene examiners and scene re-construction, defendant convicted of Murder).
R v T & others, defended young man accused of joint enterprise killing (stabbing), acquitted of Murder after a half time submission. Jury purported to acquit the defendants and then claimed it was a mistake. Judge revoked acquittal and discharge of the defendants and a writ of habeas corpus was taken to the High Court. At the re-trial the defendant was acquitted of Manslaughter. (involved detailed examination of caselaw and principles of jury trial and jurisdiction for writ of habeas corpus).
R v W & others, defended captain of tugboat involved in largescale smuggling Class A drugs across from the continent during Lockdown. (involved analysis of large amounts of encrochat messaging data in a cut-throat defence).
R v A & others, defended police officer accused of serious misconduct by providing information on investigations to others (involved problems with disclosure, analysis of large amount of surveillance data and messaging with co-defendants as well as examination of data held on the defendant’s computer and appreciation of data being over-written by others over time).
R v L, defended mother accused of murdering her baby as baby found to have multiple rib fractures alleged to be of different ages. (complex medical evidence involved including extensive research into Osteo-Genesis Imperfecta Type 1, cross-examination of Professor Mangham (fractures) and expert paediatric pathologist, ultimately investigations revealed errors in expert’s conclusions and mother acquitted).
R v P & others, defended young man acquitted of Murder in joint enterprise stabbing in a busy public park. (Identification and interpretation of CCTV footage in issue).
R v B, prosecuted offence of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. Case involved expert evidence on Sleep Apnoea and Sleep deprivation, defendant convicted.
R v **, defended young teenager charged with Murder arising out of County Lines drug trafficking away from London. (Evidence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, 2015 resulted in plea to Manslaughter).
R v C, defended man with psychosis acquitted of Murder and convicted of Manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Defendant believed he was a character in a computer game. (involved detailed examination of mental health history, cross-examination and examination of 3 psychiatrists).
R v JP, defended elderly man with schizophrenia who attended a police station to admit killing someone in London 40 years ago. (detailed cross-examination of pathologist established a different cause of death from that found in 1980 (strangulation)).
R v H & another, defended father for false imprisonment and causing/allowing a vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm after couple locked their autistic son in an attic during Lockdown. (complex medical evidence regarding malnourishment, hypernatremia, high sodium and diarrhoea and cross-examination of paramedics, E.D. nurses, doctors, dieticians, teachers and social workers).
R v W, defended man with convictions for double murder in Poland charged with murder of a retired police officer working as a canal ranger. (involved arguments over identification and cause of death complicated by drowning despite deployment of life-jacket in partial submersion, involving cross-examination of lifejacket expert, diatom expert and two Pathologists with differing opinions as to the cause of death.)
R v GM & another, defended man accused of administering GHB to men he met using the Grindr Application in a case linked to R v Stephen Port. (cross-examination of multiple male complainants, the case also required study of naturally occurring GHB post-mortem and cross-examination of pathologists, forensic toxicologists and two Professors expert in hair analysis).
R v SW & another, defended young man charged with Murder by deliberately crushing young child behind car seat. After trial plea to Manslaughter accepted. (involved research and study of crush asphyxia and positional asphyxia, particularly in children and cross-examination of forensic paediatricians and Pathologists.)
R v **, defended young woman suffering from Battered Persons Syndrome, imprisoned by paedophile husband who committed sexual offences against a child. (study of psychological impact of Coercion and Control and cross-examination of two Psychiatrists. Duress due to Coercion and Control subsequently raised in the Court of Appeal before MJ Hallett (following R v Challen). Defendant hospitalised under the Mental Health Act.)
