Harry Laidlaw regularly acts for the defence and prosecution in the Crown, Magistrates’ and Youth Court. He has a busy practice in all areas of criminal law acting on both a private and publicly-funded basis.
Harry is regularly instructed in matters involving serious violence (including domestic violence), firearms and offensive weapons, supplying drugs, robbery, burglary and sexual offences.
Harry also has extensive experience representing those charged with motoring offences.
Harry is often instructed to represent youths charged with serious violence offences and robbery matters as well as vulnerable individuals who suffer with a range of mental health difficulties.
Most recently Harry acted in a trial on an indictment at Harrow Crown Court involving the supply of drugs.
Outside of Court work, Harry has undertaken document and disclosure reviews, most recently on behalf of the Post Office.
Harry has a strong defence practice appearing in the Court of Appeal, Crown Court, Magistrates Court and Youth Court.
Harry has extensive experience in all aspects of general crime including serious violence (including domestic violence), firearms and offensive weapons, supplying drugs, theft, robbery, burglary and offences of a sexual nature.
Harry is often instructed to represent defendants with complex needs and vulnerabilities having completed the Vulnerable Witness Training course at Middle Temple.
Harry also has experience conducting appeals to the Crown Court, both against sentence and conviction.
R v HC
Harry acted as a led junior in the Court of Appeal on behalf of HC. It was submitted, on HC’s behalf, that her conviction for the murder of her infant was unsafe due to fresh psychiatric evidence not available at trial.
R v JS
Trial on indictment at Wood Green Crown Court alleging racially aggravated assault. JS was acquitted after trial.
R v PD
Trial on an indictment at Harrow Crow Court alleging a single count of possession with intent to supply drugs.
R v AJ
Harry represented AJ who was charged with possession with intent to supply cannabis and production of cannabis in Southend Youth Court. Harry successfully argued there was no case to answer on behalf of AJ and he was acquitted of both charges.
R v RT
Harry represented RT who was charged with possession of offensive weapon. RT was acquitted after trial having successfully argued that he was carrying the weapon in lawful self-defence.
R v JE
JE was charged with s. 18 GBH in the Youth Court. The CPS accepted a plea to s. 20 GBH on the day of trial after representations were made by Harry. JE was sentenced to a YRO and avoided an almost inevitable custodial sentence.
R v AN
Harry successfully argued that there was no case to answer on behalf of AN, a youth charged with affray.
R v AB
AB was successful acquitted after trial of a single count of harassment.
R v JS
Harry cross examined the complainant and her two witnesses in an allegation of domestic violence. JS was acquitted of domestic assault after trial.
R v SF
SF was acquitted after trial of controlling and coercive behaviour.
R v TB
On appeal against sentence to Croydon CC, TB’s Detention and Training Order was found to be ‘excessive’ and was reduced from 9 month’s to 4 month’s thus warranting TB’s immediate release.
Harry regularly prosecutes in the Magistrates Court and Youth Court on behalf of the CPS.
Harry also accepts instruction from the National Probation Service to prosecute breaches in the Crown Court.
Harry frequently represents clients charged in cases including drink and drug driving, careless driving, speeding and using a mobile phone whilst driving. In these matters he takes the detailed and technical approach required to have success.
Harry deals with all road traffic hearings including trials, sentencing hearings, appeals and special reasons/exceptional hardship applications.
R v SB
Harry represented SB in his appeal at Harrow Crown Court after he was convicted of driving whilst using a mobile phone in the Magistrate’s Court. Following a successful half time submission HHJ found there was no case to answer and the conviction was quashed.
R v AB
Harry successfully argued exceptional hardship on behalf of AB, a surgeon, who had ‘totted’. AB avoided the mandatory 6 month disqualification on account of his specialist practice which required use of his vehicle.
R v SS
The Crown offered no evidence in a s. 172 failure to notify the police of the identity of the driver trial after issues regarding service were highlighted by Harry.
R v SB
Harry successful argued exceptional hardship on behalf of SB who required the use of his vehicle for work.
R v ES
ES was charged with multiple counts of drug driving. After representations were made to the CPS regarding continuity issues a number of matters were dropped, ES pleaded guilty to a single charge and received a very favourable sentence.