Bryan McMahon


Since qualification in 2007, Bryan has gained extensive experience in many areas including general crime, youth crime, anti-social behaviour orders and other annex orders, terrorism cases, the preparation of serious and complex Crown Court hearings and proceeds of crime applications.

Bryan has daily experience of advocacy at the Magistrates and Youth Courts with a respected reputation and understanding with clients and with other advocates as a tenacious opponent. He also represents clients in police station interviews having been an accredited police station representative since 2004.

Bryan has been successful in the Crown Court achieving acquittals in cases involving serious sexual offences and serious assault allegations.

Notable Cases:

R v K: Doctor alleged to have assaulted his wife. If convicted Client would have not have been able to practice. Case Dismissed during Trial at Manchester Magistrates court after Court agree with Mr McMahon’s submissions that there was no case to answer.

R v R: Represented former footballer charged with domestic assault and spared jail. Press Coverage

R v K: Represented physics student charged with sexual assault and following mitigation avoided a custodial sentence. Press Coverage

R v R : Represented a youth with no previous convictions charged with a serious sexual assault. He argued that the positive ID the CPS sought to rely on was tainted as an abuse of process had taken place. After skeleton arguments were submitted, the judge agreed with the defence application and the CPS offered no evidence.

R v M : Represented a youth with no previous convictions charged with a dwelling house burglary. After defence enquiries proved the allegation could not be supported against our client, the CPS offered no evidence.

R v S : Represented a youth, who had applied to work for GMP and had no previous convictions was charged with racially aggravated public order. After the trial, the Magistrates acquitted the defendant allowing him to continue with his career plans.

R v P : Represented parents who were being prosecuted by their local authority for non-school attendance. The parents maintained that their son’s autism had not been properly diagnosed after he had been overlooked for medical appointments due to cutbacks within the authority. After instructing medical experts and making enquiries the local authority dropped the case against the parents accepting the fault with his non-diagnosis lay with them. No evidence offered.