Joseph Broadway

Joseph has experience in prosecuting and defending a full spectrum of criminal cases, including cases of significant weight that might usually be considered for barristers far beyond his call.

He has a calm and tactful manner and is able to create a rapport with clients from all walks of life, allowing him to put his clients at ease and to accurately represent their instructions.

Joseph has experience of engaging with prosecuting authorities at the pre-trial stage and has succeeded in having charges dropped on a number of occasions.

Joseph also has experience of dealing with cases with complex disclosure and highly sensitive material.

Cases:

R v Garnett (2025) – Represented a young man charged with dwelling burglary, non-dwelling burglary and possession of a bladed article. Secured a suspended sentence of 9 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months despite the co-defendant receiving immediate custody.

R v Haworth (2025) – Secured the acquittal of a defendant charged with seven counts including coercive and controlling behaviour, intentional strangulation and three counts of ABH.

R v Olding (2025) – Secured the conviction of a defendant charged with sexual assault. Successfully narrowed the defence application to cross examine the complainant on her sexual history.

R v Watson (2024) – Lone junior prosecuting a case involving rape, battery and criminal damage.

R v Long (2024) – Represented a youth defendant charged with rape at the age of 15. Following the defendant’s guilty plea, and despite the defendant having a previous conviction for causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, secured a sentence of a 36-month Youth Referral Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance.

R v Millington (2024)  – Secured the acquittal of a defendant charged with multiple firearm offences. The defendant entered pleas of not-guilty by way of insanity and the prosecution was stopped, and not-guilty verdicts entered, following written representations.

R v Ahmed (2024) – Represented a defendant charged with coercive and controlling behaviour. The defendant entered a plea on a basis that was not accepted by the Crown and a Newton Hearing took place. The court found in favour of the defendant’s basis and serious allegations against the defendant were not proven, resulting in a significantly reduced sentence.

R v Smith (2023) – Secured the conviction of a defendant charged with seven counts of burglary, one count of theft of a motor vehicle and one count of criminal damage. The case involved a large number of witnesses and a huge amount of CCTV and video evidence.

R v E (2023) – Represented a defendant charged with multiple counts of non-domestic burglary. Mr Broadway pursued issues with police conduct and highly sensitive intelligence material through complex disclosure and following a failure to disclose information succeeded in having all charges dropped against the defendant.

R v Mitchell (2023) – Represented a defendant who was appealing a conviction for assault and who was also charged with breaching the restraining order arising from that conviction. Obtained disclosure of body worn video footage not secured in the magistrates’ court which significantly undermined the prosecution case. Following representations the Crown conceded the appeal against conviction and withdrew the new charges before the Crown Court.

R v Gall (2023) – Secured the acquittal of a defendant charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm where the defendant was found to be acting in self-defence.

Joseph is regularly instructed by Local Authorities and defendant companies in a variety of regulatory matters and regularly represents defendants charged with regulatory offences.

He has dealt with a wide variety of offences including those involving trading standards, education act offences, environmental pollution, planning enforcement and Companies House prosecutions.

Joseph has a specific interest in environmental cases and has both acted and advised in a number of cases involving environmental pollution and contaminated land.

Environmental

Re: Somercotes Against Development Residents Action Group (2025) – advised a resident’s action group on a complex matter involving the steps that could be taken to oppose development on two sites of contaminated land, where that contamination arose from the migration of Volatile Organic Compounds from a nearby landfill land through shallow mine workings.

The legal picture was significantly complicated by a previous judicial review and the involvement of the Health and Safety Executive due to the adverse impact on the health of some residents.

Monmouthshire CC and NRW v Darren Coles (2025) – Represented a defendant charged with failure to comply with an enforcement notice issued by Monmouthshire CC under the Town and Country Planning Act and also two counts of carrying out operations without consent in an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) issued by the NRW. Following representations to Monmouthshire CC these charges were dropped.

He then used reports prepared in anticipation of a renewed panning application to identify that the ecological impact stated by NRW was less than alleged and succeeded in persuading the court to find a lower level of harm.

NRW v Brian Parry (2024)  – Represented a defendant charged with breaches of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 for causing slurry to enter a watercourse. Mitigated on the grounds that natural factors such as unusually heavy rain combined with the financial pressures on farms led to the slurry pit overtopping. He highlighted the willingness of the defendant to work with the Environment Agency and secured a significantly reduced fine. He also argued that, in light of the fines the costs of the EA were excessive and successfully argued for these to be reduced by more than 50%.

Re: Droppingwell Action Group (2024) – advised a residents action group on the responsibility of the Local Authority to make a declaration that a site was contaminated. This is a particularly grey area of the contaminated land regime.

The action group shared the advice with the Local Authority who conceded that they had a duty and moved to declare the land as contaminated and to record this in their public register.

Re: Ion Acoustics (2024) – advised on the evidence necessary for a Local Authority to issue an abatement notice in a case of statutory nuisance caused by noise emission.

Companies House

Companies House v David Gliddon (2023) – represented a defendant in a companies house prosecution for unfiled company accounts. This case involved a complicated picture in which the limited resources of the company were wholly taken up with issues caused by the forced purchase of significant assets of the company by the government under Compulsory Purchase Orders to allow the building of HS2.

Following representations made to Companies House highlighting the complexity of the issues faced by the company all charges were dropped.

Joseph has been instructed in a wide variety of public law cases including judicial review, Public Standards Committee hearings and Public Inquiries.

Vale of Glamorgan Council v Councillor Driscoll (2024) – represented Councillor Driscoll in a hearing before the public standards committee of the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

Prepared detailed written submissions and represented Councillor Driscol at the hearing itself. Following the hearing the Council found that, of a total of 9 allegations against Councillor Driscoll, 6 of the allegations were without merit.

The three allegations the Council found proven they determined, in line with oral submissions, that these were technical breaches only.

Re: Celia Mandis (2023) – represented an extremely vulnerable applicant challenging the decision of the Home Office not to grant indefinite leave to remain on the basis of “compelling and/or exceptional circumstances” under the UKVI guidance on Article 8 ECHR claims.

Drafted advice on funding, a pre-action protocol letter and a statement of facts and grounds which was lodged with the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

The Home Office conceded that it should have granted indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the statement of facts and grounds without the need for a contested hearing.

Re: Rafelle Shah (2023) – represented an applicant challenging the decision of the Her Majety’s Passport Office not to grant a passport on grounds that she was not a British citizen. Argued that the HMPO was res judicata and was bound by a previous decision of the immigration tribunal that had held Ms Shah was a British citizen, and as such any decision that she was not a British citizen would be illegal.

Following the issue of a pre-action protocol letter HMPO conceded that Ms Shah was a British citizen and reconsidered its decision not to issue a passport.

The Independent Isle of Mann Covid Review (2023) –researcher for the Isle of Man Covid Inquiry reviewing a huge amount of material including the Hansard records of all three of the Isle of Man’s parliamentary chambers over a two-year period. He received thanks from Kate Brunner KC for his work in the final report.