Tom has conducted a number of cases involving gangs and organised criminal groups. Tom has experience of cases investigated by the National Crime Agency, Trident, The Flying Squad and Territorial Support Group. Tom prides himself on his tactical approach and sound judgment on the evidence. Tom has dealt with cases of murder, attempted murder, firearms and other offences of the utmost seriousness. Tom has also acted as lead junior in homicide cases.
Tom has acted in some of the largest drugs conspiracies prosecuted Nationwide. Tom recently defended an individual prosecuted after EncroChat messages revealed him to be couriering drugs in Hertfordshire. Tom defended the third defendant in what has been described as the largest conspiracy involving the Chemsex Scene in the country. Tom’s attention to detail mean that he is particularly adept at deploying material to maximise its effectiveness whether from telephones, surveillance or other sources.
Tom has also conducted a number of cases of rape, serious sexual assault and other sexual offences. He has a measured approach with complainants that is sensitive but effective and has questioned witnesses dependent on intermediaries and from professional backgrounds. Tom is acutely aware of the sensitivities that surround this area of the law and has an ability to put clients at ease when facing serious allegations. Tom has also had significant success in cases of domestic violence where Tom’s careful but probing questioning have been used to high effect.
Notable Crime cases
R v DT, Central Criminal Court
Attempted murder/possession of a firearm with intent. Gang on gang violence in Leyton where gun was fired into an amusement arcade.
R v PB and others: Isleworth
Acting alone. Attempted murder. Gangland shooting with a sawn-off shotgun. Four handed case involving joint enterprise, cell-site and association with other defendants. Offence recorded on CCTV where D accepted presence. Crown put the case on joint-enterprise basis.
R v ME and others Preston Crown Court
Led by QC – bad character application involved scrutinising the facts of a previous robbery which involved other gang members and the role played by the defendant where the sentence received was significantly lower than would have been the case on the Crown’s full facts. Evidence in the case involved telephonic contact and association, cell site and tracker evidence as the gang were dealing drugs in the Northwest.
R v GL Inner London Crown Court
Gang murder trial lead by QC.
R v PU Isleworth Crown Court
Attempted murder. Tom’s client was less than a foot away from the shooter who fired at point blank range causing life threatening injuries to the complainant’. The case involved cell site analysis of the day’s movements of each defendant. Tom cross-examined the expert to demonstrate his client was not co-locating with his co-defendants throughout the day. Tom’s client was unanimously acquitted.
R v BAB and others Central Criminal Court
Attempted murder/possession of a firearm with intent – Acting alone – case involved extensive bad character relating to a gang in East London. The bad character included several drill videos, police intelligence regarding gang affiliation, gang graffiti in a person’s house, association with other gang members including arrests not leading to a criminal conviction.
R v JG Luton Crown Court
Gangland attempted murder by stabbing.
R v AS Harrow Crown Court
Attempted murder by a drug dealer of a rival gang. Case involved near fatal stabbing to the neck.
R v GU and others Wood Green Crown Court
Case involving an acid attack by a gang during a fight. Case involved extensive analysis of CCTV and joint-enterprise as well as another gang related bad character application.
R v BS Inner London Crown Court
Leading junior. A large-scale conspiracy to supply drugs of all types lasting three-months. The case involved over 80,000 pages of evidence and involved a highly sophisticated operation. The case involved weighty phone evidence, cell-site, surveillance and ‘cut-throat’ defences. During the trial Tom successfully argued that a huge tranche of incriminating phone evidence should be excluded under s.78 of PACE. The case was prosecuted by Queen’s Counsel.
R v JH Swindon Crown Court
Acquittal for conspiracy to supply class A. Tom adduced a confession from a co-defendant (who refused to attend court) via the hearsay provisions. Tom also cross-examined the drugs expert to the extent that he agreed with the range of prices for drugs as suggested by the defence and significantly undermined his expertise.
R v SA Swindon Crown Court
Drugs case involving alleged association with a gang. The application to call D a gang member was successfully opposed.
R v MB Wood Green Crown Court
Conspriacy to supply class A. Tom’s client was acquitted having successfully advanced the defence of duress. Dogged efforts in disclosure meant that key evidence of the duress could be advanced. This resulted in disclosure which included an Osman notice, a 999 recording of a knife attack and attacks on the defendant’s home were.
R v JY Aylesbury Crown Court
Rape, trial and retrial following a hung jury. Case involved cross-examination on sexual history as well as cross-examination of an expert on genital injuries.
R v AK Guildford Crown Court
Complainant was a vulnerable witness. This involved two sexual assaults in the work place. Having not acted in the first trial Tom secured a second hung jury leading to the defendant’s acquittal
R v MH Woolwich Crown Court
Privately instructed defence of an Uber driver alleged to have groped a female employee of a major City Insurance firm. Defendant found not guilty.
R v YQ Blackfriars Crown Court
Another allegation against an Uber driver. The prosecution dropped the case following disclosure of text messages sent by the complainant revealed that she may have consented to kissing the driver.
R v JM Reading Crown Court
Domestic GBH with intent (s.18). Acquittal where defence was that the complainant’s tooth was broken by accident. Tom’s refusal to relent on accepting a statement from a doctor who had not examined the complainant meant that the Crown could not rely on a suspected fracture to the eye-socket, a key plank of their case.