Tom Evans 560x670

Thomas Evans

Year of Call: 2010
Email Address: [email protected]
CJSM: [email protected]
Telephone: 01202 292102

Download Full CV Add to Shortlist Link In With Me

How to use the Shortlist tool?

Clerk Details

  • Clerk Name: Stuart Pringle
  • Clerk Telephone: 01962 868 884
  • Clerk Email: [email protected]

Overview

Thomas (Tom) Evans is a successful crime and regulatory barrister. His specialist regulatory practice includes disciplinary and licensing matters. Tom also continues to have a discrete personal injury caseload (for further information on all of these, please refer to his ‘expertise’ tabs below).

Tom is recognised as an eloquent, subtle and persuasive advocate: Mr Justice Goss, sitting in the Court of Appeal, described his submissions as “cogent and economical”. As a student, Tom demonstrated his potential by winning both the 2010 College of Law BVC Mooting Competition and the 2010 Inter-Varsity Mooting Competition.

Prior to coming to the Bar, Tom worked in the Judge’s Chambers of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘UNICTR’) assisting with deliberations and the drafting of judgments. He also benefits from 18 months experience working as a full-time paralegal in two firms of London solicitors; gaining an understanding of the practicalities of case management and solicitors’ expectations of counsel.

He is direct access qualified.

Legal Publications

Expertise

  • Crime
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Tom is ranked as a leading individual in the legal directories: “calm, measured and conspicuously good for his year of call.” (Legal 500, 2021); “a forceful, hard-working, tactically astute advocate.” (Legal 500, 2022); “his eloquence in court captivates the jury” (Chambers UK, 2023); “a rising star. He is bright, tenacious and very effective in court” (Chambers UK, 2024).

    Tom is recognised as a skilled advocate and talented tactician representing clients charged with offences of the upmost seriousness and complexity. His practice encompasses the fields of general and regulatory crime. He also prosecutes for the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies.

    Prior to coming to the Bar, Tom worked as full-time paralegal in two firms of London solicitors where he ran his own caseload. He was the case manager in R v Thakrar [2012]; which resulted in the Defendant being acquitted of two counts of attempted murder, and one count of GBH, following his wounding of three prison officers at HMP Frankland.

    Tom also worked in the Judge’s Chambers of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘UNITCR’) based in Arusha, Tanzania.

    Cases:
    Drugs

    Operation Windingness [2023] (prosecuting)
    An NCA-led investigation following the interception of £118 million of cocaine in the Netherlands. Tom was led by Robin Leach. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-66155823.

    Operation Eternal [2023] (defending)
    As part of Operation Eternal, a search warrant was executed at a house in London. Tom’s client was arrested while fleeing from the address in a state of undress. 1kg of cocaine and more than £40,000 was recovered from the address. Tom’s client was unanimously acquitted by the jury following trial.

    R v Woods & Ors [2021-2023] (defending)
    17 Defendants were convicted of involvement conspiracies to supply cocaine and cannabis (£500,000 of cannabis was seized in the investigation). Tom’s client had entered a plea on a basis at an early stage in proceedings. The Prosecution invited the Court to conclude that the starting point for his sentence was 8 years imprisonment, he received 18 months. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23279269.pair-jailed-part-southampton-drugs-empire/

    Operation Keyhole [2021/2022] (defending)
    An Encrochat case where the intercepted evidence revealed a highly structured organised crime group dealing in substantial quantities of cocaine (in excess of 70kg during the period of the conspiracy). The messages also provided insight into ‘turf wars’ with rival gangs as well as the accumulation and use of firearms. Tom’s client acted as the driver for the OCG and was arrested while driving a van within which was a hidden compartment containing 3kg of cocaine. He received the lowest sentence of all the conspirators. https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23150896.gang-jailed-combined-75-years-supplying-49m-year/

    Operation Map [2021] (prosecuting)
    Prosecution of an organised crime group. A surveillance operation lasting some 6 months identified members of the group being involved in supply of cocaine in wholesale quantities from London to Dorset. In a coordinated sting operation, the police intercepted a drug exchange in process with 1kg of cocaine being exchanged for £41,000. Tom was instructed as junior for the Crown (led by Robin Leach), 7 Defendants were charged and tried in split trials. https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19921351.police-caught-dorsets-first-albanian-organised-crime-group/

    Operation Kodak [2019] (defending)
    Tom’s client was alleged to have been the courier of Class A drugs on at least 7 occasions between Liverpool and Bournemouth (led by Robin Leech). Out of 9 alleged co-conspirators, their client was the only one found to have been not guilty. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-51048996

    Operation Daraga [2018] (defending)
    The Defendant was alleged to have been involved in a significant conspiracy supply class A drugs. An undercover operation had identified numerous suspects and recovered over a kilogram of heroin. Tom acted for the Defendant in a trial lasting 2 weeks (led by Nick Robinson).

    Operation Energy [2017] (prosecuting)
    An undercover operation in the Weymouth area targeting Class A drug supply networks. Tom acted for the Prosecution.

     

    Violence

    Operation Arches [2022-2023] (prosecuting)
    Tom was instructed as junior counsel for the Crown in this murder trial (led by James Newton-Price KC). The Defendant was alleged to have killed his drug dealer after she fought back when he tried to rob her in the early hours of the morning.

    The Defendant denied presence. But was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years’ imprisonment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-61763982

    Operation Powerboat [2021] (defending, leading Thomas Acworth)
    This prosecution related to an alleged murder and attempted murder by a then 16 year-old drug dealer in June 2020.

    Tom’s client was said to have assisted the murderer by helping him to escape from Dorset and by hiding various items of clothing linked to the murder. He was unanimously acquitted by the jury.

     

    Fraud / Dishonesty

    Operation Uptown [2019]: Conspiracy to rob
    Tom was led by Tim Bradbury in this successful prosecution of a conspiracy to rob a high-end jewellery store in Bournemouth. The Defendants received a total of 98 years’ imprisonment https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-50585149 - warning this link contains graphic footage of the violent armed robbery.

    Operation Barren: Cheating the public revenue [2018/2019] (prosecuting)
    The Defendants were alleged to have engaged in numerous ‘phoenix frauds’ over a period of some 10 years defrauding the public revenue of more than £3.2 million. Tom acted for the prosecution in a trial lasting 7 weeks (led by Tim Bradbury). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-47092844

     

    Sexual Offences

    R v C [2023] (defending)
    This case concerned a series of serious allegations of sexual and physical violence within a relationship. Tom’s client was acquitted of two allegations of rape.

    R v W [2023] (defending)
    Tom’s client was alleged to have raped his sister on multiple occasions during their teenage years. He was unanimously acquitted by the jury.

    R v B [2023] (defending)
    Tom’s client was alleged to have repeatedly anally raped a child while in foster care. He was unanimously acquitted by the jury.

    R v A [2022] (defending)
    This was a retrial in respect of two alleged incidents of rape during a relationship. The Defendant had already been tried when represented by alternative Counsel and had been convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour, but the jury had been unable to reach verdicts on the sexual allegations. The Defendant was acquitted of both rape allegations.

    R v C [2022] (defending)
    Tom was instructed to represent a convicted paedophile following further allegations of sexual impropriety while acting as a scout leader. The Defendant was acquitted of this more recent historical allegation.

    R v G [2022] (defending)
    Historical allegations of sexual abuse by the Defendant against his then neighbour. The Defendant was acquitted.

    R  v R [2020] (defending)
    An allegation of sexual touching of a child under 13, the Defendant was said to have entered the bedroom of his partner’s daughter and touched her inappropriately. The Defendant was unanimously acquitted after trial.

    R v R [2019/20] (defending)
    A historical allegation of sexual touching of the Defendant’s step-granddaughter. Following a contested trial, the jury were unable to return verdicts. At the Complainant’s request the Crown did not pursue a retrial and no evidence was offered against Tom’s client.

    R v B: [2018] (defending)
    A historical allegation of anal rape on two separate occasions made against the Defendant by his step-brother. Following the Defendant’s conviction, the Judge found that in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ of the case the Defendant should receive a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

    R v C: [2016] (defending)
    The Defendant was alleged to have touched his step-sister indecently on a number of separate occasions. Following a 7-day trial the Defendant was unanimously acquitted.

     

    Appeals

    R v Birol [2022] (defending)
    The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) concluded that the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment had been manifestly excessive and substituted a sentence of 3 years and 2 months' imprisonment for Tom's client who had entered a guilty plea to falsely imprisoning his daughter on the second day of his trial.

    R v Digby [2020] (defending)
    The Court of Appeal significantly reduced the compensation order that had been imposed on Tom’s client. The Court found fault with the Judge’s handling of proceedings but did not overturn the Defendant’s conviction. At the conclusion of Tom’s submissions, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith stated, “whatever the outcome, your client should know that he has been well-served in this appeal and at his trial."

    R v Thomson [2018] (defending)
    Tom successfully appealed Mr Thomson's 18-month sentence for possession of a Samurai sword in a public place. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed had been "manifestly excessive" and substituted a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. Mr Justice Goss described Tom’s submissions as "cogent and economical”.

  • Sexual offences
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    A Crown Court advocate, Tom represents Defendants in cases of serious sexual offences. He will appear in the Magistrates’ Court on a direct access or private basis. Acting alone he has conducted cases of sexual assault (including historical accusations).

    Tom is ranked as a leading individual in the Legal 500: described as “calm, measured and conspicuously good for his year of call.” He is recognised as a skilled advocate and talented tactician representing clients charged with offences of the upmost seriousness and complexity. His practice encompasses the fields of general and regulatory crime. He also prosecutes for the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies.

    Cases of note are:- 

    R  v R [2020] 
    An allegation of sexual touching of a child under 13, the Defendant was said to have entered the bedroom of his partner’s daughter and touched her inappropriately. The Defendant was unanimously acquitted after trial.

    R v R [2019/20] 
    A historical allegation of sexual touching of the Defendant’s step-granddaughter. Following a contested trial, the jury were unable to return verdicts. At the Complainant’s request the Crown did not pursue a retrial and no evidence was offered against Tom’s client.

    R v B: Buggery [2018]  
    A historical allegation of anal rape on two separate occasions made against the Defendant by his step-brother. Following the Defendant’s conviction, the Judge found that in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ of the case the Defendant should receive a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

    R v C: Sexual activity with a child [2016] 
    The Defendant was alleged to have touched his step-sister indecently on a number of separate occasions. Following a 7-day trial the Defendant was unanimously acquitted.

    R v L [2014] 
    Indecent Assault: Client acquitted unanimously of historical allegation.

    R v T [2014]
    Sexual Assault: charges dropped by the prosecution following a review of the evidence on the morning of trial.

    R v J [2014]
    Sexual activity with a child: Client faced accusations in relation to two separate girls. He entered guilty pleas on a basis to five out of six counts and was dealt with as a dangerous offender owing to his previous conviction for the same offence.

  • Motoring offences
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Tom has significant experience of cases concerning the following driving offences:

    • Causing serious injury by dangerous driving
    • Dangerous driving
    • Careless driving
    • Drink driving (including failing to provide a specimen)
    • Speeding
    • Driving without insurance
    • Failing to stop (report an accident)
    • Using a mobile phone whilst driving
    • Failing to provide information

    Many of Tom's clients have avoided disqualification as a result of him successfully arguing special reasons or exceptional hardship.

    Recent cases

    V -v- R [2020] - Tom successfully represented his client in her appeal against a 6-month disqualification from driving and a requirement that she complete a re-test before having her licence removed. She had entered a guilty plea to an offence of careless driving which had regrettably resulted in two pedestrians suffering serious personal injury. The Court allowed her appeal finding that an endorsement of her licence was the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances of the case.

    R -v- K [2020] - Tom's client was charged with speeding and alternatively failing to provide information of a driver's identity. Following a contested trial the Court found that he had not been the driver and that due to the chaotic nature of his life at the relevant time he had provided the information as soon as reasonably practicable.

    Re. Offences under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 [2020] - Tom represented the leasing arm of a well-known vehicle manufacturer in respect of numerous offences of failing to tax and insure vehicles. Although each case amounted to a separate prosecution, the Court were persuaded to take into consideration the Totality Sentencing Guidelines when assessing the appropriate financial penalty.

  • Personal Injury
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    During pupillage at 3PB, Tom received comprehensive training in clinical negligence and personal injury under the guidance of Hamish Dunlop.

    He now enjoys an ever-growing practice in both PI and clinical negligence. Tom has a particular strength in advocacy and is instructed in a range of court hearings including county court trials, civil application hearings and case management. He acts for claimants and defendants across the spectrum of personal injury litigation.

    Tom has a particular specialism in claims involving allegations of fraud. In the criminal jurisdiction he has had conduct of complex cases including the prosecution of a multi-handed allegation of cheating the public revenue where it was alleged the defendants had committed a £3.2 million fraud over 10 years. Tom is able to apply the rigorous scrutiny required in such cases to allegations of fraud within the civil jurisdiction.

    Tom is regularly instructed to advise on liability and quantum and to settle pleadings where necessary. Where appropriate, he will accept instructions under a CFA agreement.

    In addition to his own developing practice, Tom has worked closely with one of the largest ATE insurers in the UK, assessing the merits of a multitude of cases concerning areas such as clinical negligence, breach of confidence, asbestosis, occupiers’ liability and accidents at work.

    Recent cases:

    RTA and Credit Hire

    • M v S and Others: multi-party dispute consisting of substantial credit hire claim. Claim in excess of £25k.
    • W v H: Claimant suffered a fractured right leg which on balance would lead to post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Claim in excess of £25k.
    • H v R: Physical and psychological injuries prevented the Claimant from continuing a promising swimming career. Claim in excess of £15k.
    • Z v P: Chronic pain associated with accident related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Claim in excess of £50k.
    • W v D: Claim involving allegation of LVI. Claimant found to have been dishonest but not fundamentally dishonest and therefore QOCS protection was retained.
    • K v K & Another: Allegations of fraudulent inception of insurance policy. Case linked to multiple separate claims. Significant credit hire element.

    Employer’s Liability

    • D v R A W Ltd: Claimant suffered significant injuries after falling through an obscured skylight.
    • F v ACS: Claimant injured while installing solar panelling.
    • B v A: Claimant sustained a compound fracture to his little finger when a 21kg pump fell onto his right hand.
    • B v Capita PLC & Another: Claimant injured when slipping on black ice.

    Occupier’s Liability

    • M v TPI: Claim against a public house which had left a trap door open resulting in a member of the public falling.
    •  F v TBC: Claimant suffered a fractured wrist after falling on an overly polished dance floor.

    Package Holidays

    • K v L: Claimant suffered a significant back injury after slipping in a pool of water positioned at the top of a set of stairs while on holiday in Morocco.

    Animals Act

    • E v K: Claimant injured after being kicked by the Defendant’s horse.
  • Public and Regulatory
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Tom’s familiarity with both civil and criminal jurisdictions makes him uniquely placed to traverse the rigours of Regulatory Law. He regularly accepts instructions across the spectrum of regulatory and quasi-criminal matters: trading standards, licensing, fire regulation, environmental law, Health & Safety, planning enforcement and maritime.

    Tom has particular expertise dealing with breaches of tree preservation orders and works undertaken in conservation areas. He was a member of TSOL’s ‘Junior Junior’ panel and has extensive experience of the judicial review process.

    Tom is ranked as a leading individual in the legal directories: “calm, measured and conspicuously good for his year of call.” (Legal 500, 2021); “a forceful, hard-working, tactically astute advocate.” (Legal 500, 2022); “his eloquence in court captivates the jury” (Chambers UK, 2023).

    Recent cases

    BCP v A: Trading standards prosecution relating to the possession of counterfeit cigarettes valued in excess of £200,000.

    BCP v A, A & A: A prosecution concerning alleged breaches of an enforcement notice.

    Hampshire Constabulary v X : Representing a high-street gentleman’s club in their hearing before the licensing sub-committee following the suspension of their SEVL licence. By adopting a collaborative approach the venue was able to reopen shortly after the hearing.

    London Borough of Ealing v X Ltd: Tom was instructed to represent a successful tree surgery company for destroying a protected tree. The company had previously been represented by Tier 1 firm of solicitors who had advised them to plead to the charges and pay damages in excess of £30,000. The company came to Tom for a second opinion and thereafter instructed him on a direct access basis following his advice that the prosecution had made a significant error in their charging decision. After representations were made to the Prosecution, all charges were dropped against Tom’s client.

    Poole Borough Council v Wilson: Breach of a tree preservation order. This case is believed to be the first contested confiscation hearing in England and Wales where the issue was the extent of the Defendant’s ‘benefit’ resulting from the increase in light to his property occasioned by the Defendant’s wilful damage of a tree. Tom acted for the prosecution. The Case received national media attention including this in the Daily Telegraph and The Times.

    R v B: Trading Standards prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

    R v L: Prosecution for failing to comply with a restriction imposed by a Prohibition Notice under Article 31 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

  • Regulatory crime
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Tom’s familiarity with both civil and criminal jurisdictions makes him uniquely placed to traverse the rigours of Regulatory Law. He regularly accepts instructions across the spectrum of regulatory and quasi-criminal matters. His particular interests are in trading standards, fire regulation, environmental law, Health & Safety, planning enforcement and maritime.

    Tom was a member of TSOL’s ‘Junior Junior’ and has extensive experience of the judicial review process.

    Recent cases

    Poole Borough Council v Wilson
    Breach of a tree preservation order. This case is believed to be the first contested confiscation hearing in England and Wales where the issue was the extent of the Defendant’s ‘benefit’ resulting from the increase in light to his property occasioned by the Defendant’s wilful damage of a tree. Tom acted for the prosecution. The Case received national media attention, including in The Telegraph and in The Times.

    R v B
    Trading Standards prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

    R v L
    Prosecution for failing to comply with a restriction imposed by a Prohibition Notice under Article 31 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

  • Recommendations

    Thomas Evans boasts impressive experience acting as lead counsel in criminal proceedings and appearing in the Court of Appeal. His practice covers organised crime, charges of homicide, GBH and arson.
    Strengths: “He is able to quickly grasp complex technological information and detail.” “Thomas's advocacy skills are excellent.”

    Chambers UK 2024/Crime/Western Bar

    Strengths: “He is a very skilled advocate and cerebral counsel.”
    “Thomas is an extremely accomplished, knowledgeable and hard-working barrister who goes over and above in case preparation.”
    “Thomas is a rising star. He is bright, tenacious and very effective in court.”

    Chambers UK 2023/Crime/Western Bar

    Thomas Evans boasts impressive experience acting as lead counsel in criminal proceedings and appearing in the Court of Appeal. He handles a wide range of cases, including those relating to charges of homicide, GBH and arson.
    Strengths: "His eloquence in court captivates the jury."
    Recent work: Appeared on behalf of a defendant charged with causing death by careless driving.

    Chambers UK 2022/Crime/Western Bar

    'demonstrates an agility of mind and perspicacity possessed by very few indeed’.

    'He has masses of common sense and gets to the nub of cases very quickly. He is highly intelligent, a very effective advocate, and judges like him.'

    Legal 500 2024/Crime (General and Fraud)/Leading Junior/ Western Circuit

    ‘A dedicated advocate who is well liked by clients.’

    Legal 500 2023/Crime (General and Fraud)/Leading Junior/Western Circuit

    ‘A forceful, hard-working, tactically astute advocate.’

    Legal 500 2022/Crime (General and Fraud)/Leading Junior/Western Circuit

    ‘Tom is always well-prepared and on top of his brief. He has clearly thought about it in detail. His speeches are assured and well-constructed. He is calm, measured and conspicuously good at his job for his level of call. He engenders confidence in the trial judge, jury, client and opponents alike. A very good and talented barrister.’

    Legal 500 2021/Crime

     

    "Mr Evans came to 'his fore' when cross-examining the defendant. I have been party to many a prosecution cross-examination, but his delivery and attention to detail was the best I have ever witnessed, it was clever and directed at the appropriate level. I was most impressed that the defence barrister was to comment that the cross-examination was "forensic and exact". His direct cross-examination ultimately caused the defendant to enter a "guilty" plea mid-way through his evidence."

    CPS court case - Officer in the case.

    “Just a quick letter to say thank you for the result we had in court. The barrister you gave me was brilliant and couldn’t have done better. Please tell Mr Evans I said thank you, his final speech was amazing with great attention to detail.” Lay client acquitted of s.18 GBH to instructing solicitor.

    "Tom - I just wanted to say thank you for all your efforts.

    I have always found the law fascinating.  My grandmother was one of the first female Magistrates, my grandfather, father and brother are all lawyers.  So I have always been surrounded in the language of the law and during many lunches and suppers we would debate the meaning of certain words.

    Yesterday was a fantastic example of a Barrister using diplomacy and tenacity in equal measure to make your point in regards to the substantive / significant point of law.  It will no doubt become an incidental footnote in just another legal brief - but it was an important matter that needed to be brought to the courts attention and one which you made eloquently and resolutely.  

    Your job must be incredibly rewarding when the court makes a decision that both the prosecution and defence believe to be best for all parties.  I believed we reached that equilibrium yesterday and I will always be indebted to you for helping the judge reach that decision."
    Lay client who narrowly avoided an immediate sentence of imprisonment following his guilty pleas to two counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

    • Expand recommendations
< >