Selected Case Work
How we present our work
Every matter described below is presented without client names or identifying details. We are bound by the strictest confidentiality to individuals facing criminal charges and to those pursuing claims of rights violations. What we offer here is the reasoning behind our defence or advocacy — the legal strategy, the procedural questions we pursued, and the principle at stake — not the case identifiers or personal circumstances that define the client's privacy.
This approach reflects our understanding of what criminal defence and human rights work requires: discretion absolute, preparation meticulous, and a willingness to argue propositions that matter even when the immediate audience is a single judge or a chamber of the European Court.
Serious charges, Frankfurt courts
Custodial Offence: Procedural Challenge and Evidentiary Scrutiny
A client faced charges carrying a substantial custodial sentence in proceedings before the Frankfurt Landgericht. The prosecution case rested on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence gathered during the investigative phase. Our approach centred on three grounds: first, a rigorous examination of the lawfulness of the investigative procedures by which the evidence had been obtained — whether the police authority had acted within the bounds of proportionality and statutory authority. Second, we subjected the witness statements to exacting cross-examination on questions of perception, memory, and potential motive, with particular attention to inconsistencies in the versions given to different investigators. Third, we advanced an alternative narrative grounded in the documentary record — telephone records, timestamps, and expert testimony on forensic findings — that constructed a coherent account inconsistent with the prosecution allegation.
The court found the primary investigative procedure questionable on proportionality grounds and excluded a significant portion of the derivative evidence. The weakened prosecution case and the coherence of the alternative narrative resulted in acquittal on the primary count and conviction on a lesser charge carrying a suspended sentence.
Representation before international bodies
Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies and Application to the European Court
A client alleged violation of rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights arising from a decision of a German administrative authority. The initial step was exhaustion of domestic remedies: we pursued judicial review before the administrative courts, advancing arguments grounded in both the Convention and German constitutional law, with the aim of securing either reversal or a reasoned judgment that would crystallise the legal question for application to the international body.
When domestic courts declined to intervene, we filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Our submission rested on two pillars: evidence that the domestic authority had acted in a manner incompatible with the Convention standard, supported by expert testimony on comparative administrative practice and precedent; and a detailed record of the steps taken in domestic proceedings, establishing both the exhaustion requirement and the futility that had justified our recourse to the international forum.
The Chamber found a violation and awarded just satisfaction. The decision established a principle binding on the respondent state with respect to future administrative determinations of the same class.
Advisory and fact-finding
Documentation and Evidentiary Standards in Rights Investigation
We were engaged by a human rights organisation to investigate and document alleged violations of detention standards and due process in a jurisdiction where formal accountability mechanisms were unavailable or compromised. Our role was not courtroom representation but the assembly and certification of evidence suitable for future proceedings — whether domestic (if political conditions changed) or international.
We conducted interviews with affected individuals and their families, gathered documentary evidence (detention records, medical reports, correspondence), and consulted expert witnesses on medical, psychiatric, and forensic topics. Critically, we applied rigorous evidentiary standards throughout: corroboration of key facts where possible, transparent notation of gaps in the record, and clear demarcation between direct observation and inference. The resulting report served both as an advocacy tool in the present and as a foundation for potential legal proceedings in the future — a dual standard that requires meticulous attention to the chain of custody and the factual basis for every assertion.
The documentation proved instrumental in securing international pressure and contributed to policy change within the relevant institution.
The thread through every matter
Whether we defend an individual against the weight of state machinery or represent a victim of rights abuses against powerful interests, the work is defined by the same commitment: rigorous preparation, exhaustive examination of the record, and a refusal to settle for anything less than the standard of proof and argument that the case demands. In criminal defence, this means subjecting every prosecution assertion to scrutiny and constructing an alternative narrative grounded in evidence and law. In human rights advocacy, it means meeting the burden of proof required by international bodies and domestic courts, documenting violations to the standard that will survive challenge, and arguing principles that extend beyond the individual matter to the broader question of institutional accountability.
Discretion and substance are not in tension. The most effective advocacy — whether before a criminal court or the European Court of Human Rights — rests on the depth of preparation and the credibility that comes from having met every evidentiary and procedural standard. We bring that standard to every client matter.