Matthew Hayes

Matt brings a wealth of experience to chambers having specialised in criminal law for the past 23 years.

Matt has extensive experience working alongside senior Juniors and Queens Counsel in cases of all size and seriousness. Matt has a flair for advocacy that he has been developing as an HCA but now pursuing at the bar. Well known to Judges and practitioners alike, Matt is an approachable, friendly, thoroughly prepared, and tenacious practitioner who can confidently and fearlessly advance his client’s position. Matt will work tirelessly to ensure the right result.

Matt also has experience of appearing in the County Courts representing individuals appearing in breach of Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions.

Matthew Hayes

Inn: Gray’s Inn


Midland Circuit, Criminal Bar Association, Gray’s Inn

Solicitors and other practising lawyers are invited to contact the clerks on: +44 (0)115 824 9090

Contact form

Share this page:         Turn on Javascript!

Recent Cases

Notable cases as Litigator

R v M. Murder. Client accused of the murder of his best friend by stabbing him. Not guilty verdict.
R v T. Prison mutiny. Client accused of starting the large-scale riots at HMP Lincoln.
R v S and others. Murder. Client accused of being jointly involved in a shooting outside a Nottingham nightclub. Following two hung juries, no evidence was offered.
R v B. Rape. Client accused with rape where the ‘sexsomnia’ defence was successfully advanced.
R v C and others. Murder. Client accused of recruiting men in her local pub to kill her husband. Client convicted but leave to appeal granted due to fresh evidence and later acquitted at the re-trial.
R v L. Section 18 ‘baby-shaking’. Client accused with inflicting GBH with intent by shaking his child. Complex case involving defence experts from America and Brussels.
R v E. Murder and Possession of a bladed article. Client accused with murder and possession of a bladed article following a stabbing at the ‘party in the park’ in Newark. Mistaken identification advanced, not guilty verdict.
R v M and others. Conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs. National Crime agency investigation. Client accused of being involved in a £55 million conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs that had been imported from Holland and distributed around the UK.
R v S. Murder. Client entered a guilty plea to the murder of his landlord by dousing him with petrol and setting him on fire.
R v M. Murder. Client entered a guilty plea to the murder of a fellow resident of a bail hostel.
R v R-B, H & P. Murder, conspiracy to rob and assisting an offender. Two clients accused of a brutal robbery, torture and killing of the victim in his own home. A third client was accused of perverting the course of justice.
R v N-T. Murder. Client, a juvenile, accused with a joint enterprise stabbing at his prom party. Not guilty verdict.
R v A. Murder. Client jointly charged with a joint enterprise stabbing of a local musician in Nottingham City Centre.

Notable cases as HCA

R v B (Nottingham Crown Court, 2019). Possession of a prohibited weapon (CS spray). Mitigation presented to undermine the Crown’s evidence resulting in a conditional discharge being imposed.

R v B (Nottingham Crown Court, 2021). Suspended sentence for a former soldier who was charged with causing grievous bodily harm having caused a significant brain injury to his victim. Psychiatric evidence detailing PTSD used in mitigation.

R v J (Ipswich Crown Court, 2021). Possession with intent to supply class A and class B drugs, a separate matter of possession with intent to supply class B, all in breach of a suspended sentence for supply class B. Successfully argued that the Defendants role fell within the “lesser role” rather than “significant role” of the Sentencing Guidelines.

R v B (Nottingham Crown Court, 2022). Possession with intent to supply class A x4 and possession with intent to supply cannabis. Basis of plea not accepted by the Crown. At sentence, I persuaded the Judge not to pursue a Newton Hearing, and that the Crown’s “significant role” categorisation was incorrect. A suspended sentence was the resulting sentence.

R v A (Nottingham Crown Court, 2022). Arson reckless as to whether life was endangered by deliberately setting fire to his own home. Psychiatric evidence deployed to persuade the Judge to impose a suspended sentence.