Scott Smith

Scott represents this client on Appeal. The issues relate to Article 8 ECHR.

Scott represents this client on Appeal. The issues relate to Article 8 ECHR and fresh evidence not available at the time of the first hearing.

Scott represented this client in relation to two EAWs for the same type of offending; both at first instance and on appeal. Issues raised included section 2 EA, Article 8 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR and section 10 EA.

Scott represented this client at first instance. The issue was Article 8 ECHR.

Scott represented this client on Appeal. The issues were section 2 EA and section 10 EA.

Most recently, he represented a requested person from Poland on appeal. This was at the time s.2 was a live issue concerning the independence of the Polish Judiciary.

Scott appeared as led junior representing the first defendant in a multi-handed violent disorder trial. The case related to large scale disorder between Millwall and Bristol City football supporters prior to a league fixture at Millwall’s ground. The Crown alleged that the fighting was organised football hooliganism whereas the defence were advancing self-defence/ defence of another. The defendant was acquitted after a two and a half week trial.

This case involved allegations of possession with intent to supply a psychoactive substance and selling a psychoactive substance (nitrous oxide) at Creamfields music festival. The matter was listed for a two to three day trial in Chester Crown Court. The prosecution offered no evidence on both counts after issues arose within their case.

Scott represented an individual at a trial lasting seven days at Basildon Crown Court. The defendant was one of three charged with fraud by false representation on a five count indictment. After trial, Mr R was the only defendant to be acquitted.

This matter related to an allegation of Assault an Emergency Worker, namely a police officer, with common assault in the alternative. In light of the defence statement the prosecution offered no evidence Assault Emergency Worker count. The case then proceeded to trial on the second count of common assault. Scott was able to cross-examine the Police Officer in such a way that the Officer’s evidence showed he could have been considered the aggressor, from the defendant’s perspective, thus justifying the use of force in line with self-defence. After a two day trial and 5 hours in retirement, the jury returned not guilty verdicts.

Scott represented an individual charged with driving with excess alcohol and failing to stop at the scene of an accident where injury had been caused. A guilty plea was entered to driving with excess alcohol and after Scott made representations to the prosecution, the second charge of failing to stop was withdrawn. The client’s breath reading was three times the legal limit, meaning the sentencing starting point was immediate custody. Scott advanced mitigation and was able to secure a short suspended sentence with no costs or fines being imposed.

This matter related to charges of harassment, possession of ammunition, and possession of a firearm without a firearms certificate. Due to Scott’s knowledge of firearms law, he was able to argue that the offence with which the client was charged in relation to the ammunition, did not amount to an offence in law. Further, Scott argued down the categorisation of the firearm, meaning the 5 year minimum term did not apply.

The client was charged with affray and Scott represented them at sentence. The client had multiple previous convictions for similar offences. This offence involved the throwing of a brick through a 71 year old’s front window, then gaining entry and running around the house with knives before being tasered by police arriving on scene. This occurred during the course of a drug fuelled episode of psychosis. The sentence for this offence should have been in the region of 18 months’ imprisonment. After mitigation, the client was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years.

Robbery and attempted robbery involving the threat of knives. Offences were committed as a youth. The client left the country for two years (post arrest), and upon his return had crossed a significant age threshold meaning he was 18 years old. It was necessary to make reference to four separate sets of sentencing guidelines. The client was sentenced to a 12 month community order.

Possession of an offensive weapon inside prison, namely a ‘shank’. Scott argued that possession was in the public interest. The client was acquitted after trial.

Wrongful eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The client (landlord) had moved into the flat with his tenants. The Crown’s case was that the landlord forced the children out of the spare room in order for him to reside there. There were allegations of threats of violence and intimidation. This trial took place over two days. Scott cross-examined the complainants at length and extracted inconsistencies in accounts and undermined the complainants’ credibility. The client was acquitted.

The Prosecution’s case was that the client had punched a police officer in the head in order to escape. Scott cross-examined the officers present and elicited evidence contradicting their accounts. He made a submission of no case to answer at the close of the Prosecution case. District Judge Woolard granted the application and dismissed the assault charge. A guilty plea was then entered to resisting arrest, preserving full credit.

Appeal against sentence. Scott was instructed on Appeal to represent the Appellant who had been sentenced for causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The Appellant had crossed a significant age threshold at the time of sentence, being 17 at the time of the offence and 18 at the time of sentence. The sentencing judge had applied the wrong sentencing procedure and reached a sentence which was manifestly excessive. This sentence was reduced from 20 months’ to 14 months’ imprisonment.

Scott represented the client at a committal for sentence in Basildon Crown Court relating to dangerous driving. He successfully argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and wrong in law. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence amended and reduced. When delivering judgment, Lord Justice Holroyd remarked that the court were “[…] grateful to Mr Smith for the clarity with which he made his submissions. They were admirably focused and notably realistic”.

The client pleaded guilty to offences of common assault and possession with intent to supply class B drugs. Scott represented the client at a three-day Crown Court trial in relation to possession of a knife; in which he secured an acquittal. The client was sentenced to a custodial sentence in relation to guilty plea offences. Scott successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence reduced.