Wendy Miller KC moves through courtrooms like a quiet shadow, her presence measured, her attire impeccable. Known at St Philips Chambers for unravelling complex criminal matters and high-stakes employment disputes, she has proven her prowess time and again. When Cummins Ltd engaged her to defend against a disability-discrimination claim in the Employment Tribunal, she turned her skills towards a global corporate giant. Now Cepac Ltd has hired her for a similar claim (though this time discrimination in recruitment) against the same individual. This is a study in conscience or its absence.
Punching Down for Cummins
In the Employment Tribunal, Miller faced Lee Thompson, a former production worker whose complaint was nuanced. He suffered from IBS, depression and anxiety, and argued that Cummins failed to provide reasonable adjustments – proper workplace support and fair processes – once his condition became known. Miller ignored inclusion and mental-health impacts and focused solely on procedure. She dismantled Thompson’s case by exploiting technicalities until the tribunal ruled in Cummins’ favour. That decision now sits under appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Defending Cummins in this way reveals a moral void. To punch down for a giant corporation with boundless resources against a lone individual struggling with mental health requires a detachment bordering on indifference. Miller showed none.
Punching Down Again for Cepac (Upcoming)
When one believes things could not grow colder, Miller is now representing Cepac Ltd in Thompson’s simultaneous UK discrimination claim. Thompson did not choose this battle; he was trying to move on after Cummins, but Cepac allegedly discriminated against him in recruitment. Cepac’s solicitors received Thompson’s medical files, which referenced an Employment Tribunal claim. From there, they appear to have searched the legal directory and identified Miller’s involvement. She has only so far appeared for Cepac at a preliminary hearing in Thompson’s absence, but when she does it will be the same man – still dealing with depression, anxiety (now even more deteriorated) and IBS – standing in her way once more. She will do for Cepac what she did for Cummins: punch down.
Ask yourself, when Miller’s brief was filed against Thompson, did she pause to consider her conscience? There is no indication she did. Cepac labelled Thompson a “serial litigator.” Well, Wendy Miller KC has earned that label many times over. Below are examples of how she defended some of the most heinous crimes imaginable – each a testament to a conscience put up for sale.
Defending Heinous Alleged Crimes
- R v F (Historic Rape)
Role: Miller defended the father, a paramedic co-accused with an SAS member, against fifty-two charges of rape, buggery and indecent assault involving a child aged five to eighteen. The trial involved Ministry of Defence disclosure and public interest immunity applications.
Outcome: Not publicly recorded. Cases of this complexity often end in acquittal or dismissal once public interest immunity is invoked. - R v R (Child Rape)
Role: Miller defended a sixteen-year-old accused of raping a four-year-old. Special measures were required for the vulnerable witness.
Outcome: The defendant was acquitted. - R v P (Historical Rape)
Role: Miller defended a school head charged with thirteen counts of rape, buggery and indecent assault of multiple deaf complainants over thirty-eight years. The four-week Crown Court trial used interpreters and intermediaries.
Outcome: The defendant was acquitted on all counts. - R v T (Child Cruelty)
Role: Miller defended a caregiver accused of causing an eighteen-month-old child’s fractured femur and brain injury. The prosecution relied on shaken-baby syndrome; the defence argued a birth-related injury.
Outcome: Not specified. In similar cases, charges often fall away or end in acquittal if defence experts introduce reasonable doubt. - R v B (Child Cruelty, Arranged Marriage)
Role: Miller defended a man accused of selling a twelve-year-old girl into marriage and subjecting her to prolonged abuse. Extensive disclosure was sought from Pakistan’s High Commission.
Outcome: The defendant was acquitted on key counts but may have faced lesser charges not publicly detailed. - R v C (Sexual Incitement, Indecent Images)
Role: Miller defended a teacher facing eighty-eight counts of indecent images and grooming. Forensic evidence was central to the defence.
Outcome: Charges were reduced from eighty-eight to thirty-three following forensic challenges. The final verdict on the remaining counts is not publicly recorded. - R v K (Child Cruelty)
Role: Miller defended an individual accused of abusing a child within a family already complicated by mental health issues.
Outcome: Not specified. Such cases often collapse when expert testimony undermines causation. - R v P (Homicide)
Role: Miller defended a client in a homicide case where the victim’s death was contested due to pre-existing injuries.
Outcome: Not specified. Cases of this nature frequently end in acquittal or plea to a lesser offence once forensic evidence is tested. - R v M (Homicide, Joint Enterprise)
Role: Miller defended a defendant accused under joint enterprise after a victim was kicked down stairs then fatally stabbed by another party.
Outcome: Not specified. Joint-enterprise defences often yield acquittal when intent cannot be proven.
Grit and Grind Versus Moral Compass
Examine these cases. When a child’s innocence was at stake or a life depended on expert testimony, Miller’s conscience ignited – she punched up. When a teacher’s career or a teenager’s future hung on precise forensic detail, she punched up. Yet now she will deploy that same mastery – tactical brilliance and relentless cross-examination – against a man who merely asked for toilet access and basic decency. It is like watching a chef who once saved a starving family now flipping charcoal to poison them.
When Will She Defend Truly Heinous Acts?
The question arises: if she defends global corporations to crush a disability claim, what comes next? A war criminal seeking anonymity? A trafficker burying victims in the Mediterranean? A politician orchestrating a human-trafficking ring? By that point, defending a monster will no longer stir her conscience. Once one can dismantle a child-rape prosecution and unravel a murder charge, a disabled man’s plea becomes a lightweight challenge. Why would she care? She still gets paid, after all.
For observers of Cummins’ behaviour and now Cepac’s, this confirms what we already suspected: ethics and optics matter not when securing a desired outcome.
The Cummins Accountability Project
@tcumminsap | tcap.blog
All listed cases involve allegations. Listing here does not imply guilt or innocence of any defendant, nor any impropriety by counsel. Outcomes are taken from publicly available sources including St Philips Chambers profiles, Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners directories. “Not specified” indicates no published verdict or appeal record.