Scott Smith



Scott both prosecutes and defends in the Magistrates’ and Crown Courts and has defended in the Court of Appeal. He has appeared as junior alone and led junior, accepting instructions in all areas of crime, extradition, Courts Martial and disciplinary/regulatory. Along with criminal matters, Scott has experience of dealing with Coroner’s Inquests and some general civil work.

Scott has a reputation for being a down to earth and approachable individual with a meticulous eye for detail. He quickly establishes professional relationships with clients from a wide variety of backgrounds and can build trust from the outset. Lay clients feel reassured by Scott’s ability to quickly digest all the facts of their case and to empathise with their position.

Background and Expertise

Prior to joining 9 Bedford Row Scott had a strong grounding in all aspects of criminal law and extradition through working as Head Criminal Paralegal for a London firm of Solicitors. This not only enabled Scott to gain an in depth understanding of the law, but also the way in which cases are litigated; allowing him to understand the pressures facing Instructing Solicitors and consequently being better able to assist.

Notable Cases


Poland v M, ongoing

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

Poland v G, ongoing

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.

Belgium v R, 2019

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.

Poland v C, 2019

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

Poland v I, 2019

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

Poland v P, 2018

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.


R v F, 2020

Successfully represented defendant charged with section 18 wounding involving the use of a knife during a fight at a hostel. The allegation was that the defendant had deliberately stabbed the complainant in the neck then leg, severing the femoral artery. After a three day trial the client was acquitted. Woolwich Crown Court.

R v G, 2020

Scott, led by Graeme Logan, represented the first defendant of six in a two month trial. The trial related to allegations of conspiring to manage a brothel, money laundering and conspiring to supply class A drugs (cocaine). The charges arose after a covert police operation which subsequently uncovered  two kilogrammes of cutting agent at the relevant address. A guilty plea was entered to managing a brothel. The defendant was acquitted of conspiring to supply cocaine after trial. Wood Green Crown Court.

R v W, 2019

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.

R v L, 2019

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.

R v R, 2019

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.

R v S, 2019

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.

R v D, 2019

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.

R v B, 2018

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.

R v R, 2018

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.

R v I, 2018

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.

R v H, 2018

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.

R v A, 2018

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.

R v J, 2018

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.

Appellate Work

R v S, 2019 (Reported)

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.

R v JW, 2019

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”.

R v PW, 2018

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.


In his spare time Scott is a keen sportsman. He plays rugby for Chesham Rugby Club and also holds a blackbelt in Karate. He regularly participates in triathlons of varying distances in addition to other endurance events such as the Parachute Regiment’s 10 mile multi terrain race. Scott is also an avid motorcyclist and petrolhead; from touring to motorcycle mechanics and restoration.

Module Icon

PROFILE: Scott Smith

The court were “… grateful to Mr Smith for the clarity with which he made his submissions. They were admirably focused and notably realistic”.

Holroyd LJ, Court of Appeal

Year called




Module Icon



Module Icon

Regulatory / Disciplinary


Module Icon



Module Icon


Road Traffic

Module Icon

Road traffic


0207 489 2727


Bar Professional Training Course, City University London- 2015 (Very Competent)

LLB Hons Law Degree, University of Plymouth- 2013 (Upper Class 2:1)


Middle Temple

Criminal Bar Association

Young Fraud Lawyers’ Association

Middle Temple Young Barristers’ Association

Extradition Lawyers’ Association


CPS Panel (Grade 2)

Download Profile