Sam completed his pupillage with 2 Bedford Row and accepted an offer of tenancy in April 2017.
Sam has developed a busy criminal practice, prosecuting and defending primarily in the Crown Court. Sam’s work has encompassed the full range of criminal offences, from violence and sexual offences to the supply of controlled drugs and fraud.
Sam has dealt with the enforcement of a number of confiscation orders including those in the millions of pounds.
Sam has particular experience in defending motoring cases, whether privately instructed in the Magistrates’ Court, on appeal to the Crown Court, or more serious allegations dealt with in the Crown Court at first instance. Sam is often instructed by some of the country’s most well-known motoring solicitors.
Sam has represented high profile clients including a soap star and an individual linked to a Premier League football club. A number of Sam’s cases have received media coverage and as a result he is experienced in dealing with the sensitivities of criminal cases conducted in the public eye.
In addition to his criminal work, instructions from both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Nursing and Midwifery Council have provided Sam with experience in regulatory cases.
Sam is vulnerable witness trained and qualified to accept instructions from the public through the direct access scheme.
Sam has a wide range of experience in defending criminal cases: he has appeared in criminal courts up and down the country representing clients facing almost every category of offence.
Sam has had particular success in identifying defences and legal arguments at an early stage of a case, leading to acquittals for clients without the need for a trial.
Examples of Sam’s work include:
R v A- Inner London Crown Court – Allegation of obstructing a drugs search. Sam was provided with Body Worn Camera Footage on the day of the PTPH and pointed out non-compliance with the Misuse of Drugs Act. The prosecution offered no evidence on “public interest” grounds. Mr A was acquitted.
R v A – Inner London Crown Court – Allegation of aggravated vehicle taking. Sam was instructed post PTPH. Mr A was arraigned at PTPH without representation despite there being a possible application to dismiss. Sam drafted a written application to vacate the not guilty plea and dismiss the indictment. On receipt of Sam’s skeleton argument the prosecution opted to offer no evidence. Mr A was acquitted.
R v M – Snaresbrook Crown Court – Racially aggravated assault. The entire incident was caught on CCTV. Sam successfully opposed a prosecution application for special measures. It was not accepted that the complainant was “in fear”. The complainant did not attend on the next occasion and the prosecution offered no evidence. Mr M was acquitted.
R v B – Southend Crown Court – ABH. The complainant was suffering from cancer. The prosecution case relied upon eyewitness evidence and the trial judge admitted all of Mr B’s previous convictions (including for violence). Sam undermined the prosecution case with material obtained from social media. Mr B was acquitted.
R v S – Maidstone Crown Court – Sexual assault. This was a re-trial following a hung jury (Sam was not trial counsel on the first occasion). The prosecution case was supported by extensive DNA evidence placing the defendant’s saliva on the complainant. Mr S was acquitted in 15 minutes.
R v S – Basildon Crown Court – Racially aggravated public order. Mr S needed to maintain his good character for his career. The prosecution were reliant upon independent third party evidence. Mr S was acquitted.
R v F – Blackfriars Crown Court – Serious allegation of dangerous driving. Mr F was captured on CCTV driving his car into a crowd of people outside a central London night club. He was pursued by police, jumped red lights and crashed into another vehicle. Sam was instructed at an early stage in the case and advised on the complex defence of duress of circumstances linked to Mr F’s PTSD. Following advice on the instruction of an expert, Sam negotiated with the prosecution who agreed the expert’s evidence, finding themselves in the position of having to offer no evidence at trial. Mr F was acquitted.
R v G – Central Criminal Court – Sentence following guilty plea to fraud, whereby Mr G was making false personal injury claims through a solicitor. Sam secured Mr G a suspended sentence.
R v A – Basildon Crown Court – Mr A was convicted after trial for his role in a conspiracy to steal cars (including high performance models). Sam was not trial counsel but secured Mr A a suspended sentence.
R v P – Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court – Drink Driving – Sam was privately instructed by a well-known motoring defence firm. Sam was successful at trial in excluding prosecution evidence of the level of intoxication. Sam’s arguments were based on the prosecution’s failures in relation to disclosure. The prosecution offered no evidence. Ms P was acquitted and awarded a defence costs order.
Sam has experience prosecuting cases for the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Probation Service, and Transport for London. Sam is a CPS grade 1 advocate.
Sam has particular experience prosecuting for CPS Essex both in the Magistrates’ and Crown Court.
Sam was recently instructed by TFL to resist a novel application to stay a prosecution by way of abuse of process. The argument was based upon criticism of TFL’s application of their own prosecution policy, involving lengthy submissions on the law. Not only was Sam successful in resisting the defence application, he also obtained full costs for TFL.
In addition to Sam’s criminal work he has gained considerable experience in the field of professional regulation.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council have regularly instructed Sam as case presenter. Sam has conducted both substantive and non-substantive hearings. The former have often lasted a number of days (sometimes weeks) and frequently have been multi-handed.
Sam contributes to the Lexi Nexis practice notes on NMC procedure alongside Mr John Donnelly of 2, Bedford Row.
Sam was recently instructed by the Financial Conduct Authority (Canary Wharf) for a number of months to assist with an investigatory review in relation to a high profile regulatory case.