Bryan McMahon

Partner & Supervising Solicitor

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 P Represented a serving police officer who was accused of theft and perverting the course of justice. Continuous advice over a two year period from the police station interview to a Crown Court Trial assisted in attaining and eventual acquittal after the Jury found him Not Guilty.

R v M Represented a serving Police Officer who was accused of assaulting her spouse. This offence was denied and indeed appeared in a backdrop of a divorce. Advice offered at the police station and throughout proceedings ensured that a not guilty verdict was recorded with the client allowed to continue on her career path.

R v B Represented a professional sportsman and his brother for a public order offence. After an initial consultation with both clients, as they were unhappy with their previous solicitors, it was decided that they should not have the same solicitor due to a potential conflict. Mr McMahon continued to act for one of the defendants and found alternative representation for his brother. The case was dismissed at court following a submission by Mr McMahon that there was no case to answer.

R v Y Represented a serving Police Officer who was accused of assaulting a work colleague on a night out. Mr McMahon was able to advise the Officer from the interview stage up to his trial at Leeds Magistrates when he was acquitted allowing the officer to put this stressful chapter behind him. He expressed his Thanks to Mr McMahon by saying "words cannot explain my gratitude towards you".

R v L Represented a medical consultant who was before the courts due to an allegation of harassing a former partner. After a detailed analysis of the case, Mr McMahon able to persuade the Prosecution that they should not proceed with all the charges and therefore received a punishment which did not affect his career. Press coverage.

R v K: Successfully defended a 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 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.