A Crown Court advocate, Tom represents Defendants in cases of serious violence, dishonesty and drug offences. He will appear in the Magistrates’ Court on a direct access or private basis. Acting alone he has conducted cases of buggery (rape), sexual assault (including historical accusations), causing grievous bodily harm with intent, threats to kill, kidnap, aggravated burglary, robbery, assisting unlawful immigration, possession and cultivation of significant quantities of drugs with intent to supply, conspiracy to defraud and perverting the course of justice.
Tom also prosecutes for the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies in both general and regulatory crime.
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 ; 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.
R v Thomson  (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”.
Operation Uptown  (prosecuting): 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 (click here for more information - 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). BBC reporting.
Operation Kodak  (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. BBC reporting.
Operation Daraga  (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  (prosecuting)
An undercover operation in the Weymouth area targeting Class A drug supply networks. Tom acted for the Prosecution.
R v Hoppe: kidnap, aggravated burglary, attempted robbery  (prosecuting)
Tom successfully prosecuted the Defendant who was found to have engaged in a spree of offending including kidnap, two aggravated burglaries and an attempted robbery. In total, the Defendant was convicted by a jury at the Crown Court in Bournemouth of 13 offences including historical allegations of violence. HHJ Climie determined that the Defendant was a ‘dangerous’ offender and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment with an extended licence period of 5 years. BBC Report.
R -v- O’S: s.18 GBH  (defending)
The Defendant engaged in a sustained attack on his 14-year-old son during which he used a skateboard and a baseball bat. His son suffered a fracture to his kneecap as a result of being hit with the baseball bat. At an early hearing the Defendant entered a guilty plea to an offence contrary to s.20 OAPA 1861 but maintained that he did not intend to cause his son grievous bodily harm. Following a 4-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous not guilty verdict to the indictment.
R -v- D: s.18 Wounding  (defending)
The Defendant and his wife were involved in a neighbour dispute. One evening there was an argument over their playing the bongos at an excessive volume. The Defendant and his wife their neighbour’s property armed with a kitchen knife (his wife armed with a golf-umbrella). The Defendant stabbed his neighbour in his abdomen whilst allegedly shouting “I’m going to fucking kill you”; his wife repeatedly struck the neighbour to the head with the umbrella. Following a 6-day trial the jury returned unanimous not guilty verdicts to the indictment. Both the Defendant and his wife were found guilty of the alternative offence under s.20 OAPA 1861. At an earlier hearing the Defendant had offered to plead guilty to such an offence and following mitigation he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment.
R v AB: Robbery  (defending)
The Defendant was accused of tying the complainant to his bed and with two unknown males and threatening him with knives before stealing his belongings. Following a trial lasting 5 days he was unanimously acquitted by the jury.
R v B: Buggery  (defending)
A historical allegation of anal rape on two separate occasions made against the Defendant by his step-brother.
R v C: Sexual activity with a child  (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.
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).
- R v B  (see crime section)
- R v C  (see crime section)
- R v L  (Bournemouth Crown Court): Indecent Assault: Client acquitted unanimously of historical allegation
- R v T  (Southampton Youth Court): Sexual Assault: charges dropped by the prosecution following a review of the evidence on the morning of trial
- R v J  (Oxford Crown Court): 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.
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)
- 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.
V -v- R  - 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  - 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  - 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.
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.
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.
‘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
“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.
- BVC, College of Law - Very Competent
- GDL, College of Law - Commendation
- BA (Hons) History, University of Sussex - 2.1
- Winner of the 2010 College of Law BVC Mooting Competition
- Winner of the 2010 Inter-Varsity Mooting Competition
Professional qualifications & appointments
- Grade 3 Prosecutor
- Former member of the Treasury Solicitors’ Junior Junior Panel
Thomas Evans is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme.More Information