Tomas Quinn


Call: 2006

Practice Overview | Notable Cases | Download Profile | Contact
Back to Members


Tomas has a busy defence practice in London and the South East of England. He has a particular expertise in the area of Firearms Law and has recently defended allegations of inciting terrorism before the Central Criminal Court.

As led junior counsel, he has assisted leading counsel defending allegations of murder and robbery in the Central Criminal Court, and in the South East defending allegations of historic sexual assault. He has defended allegations involving the illegal importation of firearms from Holland to England by an Organised Crime Group and has been led junior counsel in a case alleging sexual grooming and drug supply over a period of years in Essex.

Appellate Work:

In his appellate work, he is persistent in cases where Appellants have been knocked back by the single judge and been granted leave a number of times, having renewed applications and appearing before the full court. In one instance case, where his instructing solicitor thought that there was no grounds on which to appeal a sentence, he advised otherwise and after submissions had the sentence reduced from one of four and a half years’ imprisonment to one of three years. He successfully appealed a terminatory ruling of a Crown Court Judge in the Court of Appeal.

Court Martial Work:

Tomas has defended cases in Germany, Portsmouth and the Catterick Garrison, and, as someone that served for ten years in a Cavalry unit in the Reserve Defence Forces in Ireland, he has a particular interest in services related work. Prior to being called to the Bar, he worked as a paralegal assisting in the first war crimes trial held in the United Kingdom at the Salisbury Court Martial Centre. His work involved the research and consideration of the doctrine of ‘Command Responsibility’ and the Law of Armed Conflict.

Road Traffic:

Tomas regularly defends road traffic offences such as:

  • Failing to respond to Section 172 Notices of intended Prosecution;
  • Failing to name other drivers in the event of Prosecution;
  • ‘Totting’ offences, where defendants fall to be disqualified by virtue of accruing points on their licence;
  • ‘In Charge’ and ‘Driving whilst Unfit’ offences;
  • Failing to provide evidential samples;
  • Driving whilst Disqualified, Driving without Due Care, and Dangerous Driving.

He is particularly experienced in arguing ‘special reasons’ and ‘exceptional hardship’ to prevent the disqualification of drivers, or to minimise the length of time that drivers are disqualified for. In the event of disqualification or any adverse finding by the Court he is happy to provide clear and frank advice on the merit or grounds of any appeal.


R v Iembo and Others – Woolwich Crown Court

Tomas represented a Defendant said to be have been involved with others in the importation of 514 kilogrammes of Cocaine into the United Kingdom from Bogota on a private jet.  The source of the drugs was an Organised Criminal Gang in Bogota. This was a sophisticated importation and one of the one of the largest of its kind ever intercepted by the UK Border force.


R v J and others – Isleworth Crown Court

Tomas represented a young defendant in a 6-week trial involving the admission of highly publicised ‘drill music’ as evidence.

R v YI and Others – Reading Crown Court

Violent Disorder

Tomas successfully defendant YI who was tried with five co-defendants. After a five-week trial the defendant was unanimously acquitted, whilst two co-defendants were convicted and received prison sentences.


R v Marshall - Central Criminal Court


Led by Stuart Denney QC, Tomas represented the Defendant who was charged with murder in the United Kingdom. Having fled this jurisdiction, the Defendant travelled to Italy where he was convicted of a second murder and an attempted murder in similar circumstances. The case attracted widespread national media coverage due to the accidental discovery of CCTV footage that recorded the commission of the offence.


R v M and Others – St Albans Crown Court

Importation of Firearms

Led by Kannan Siva of Albion Chambers, Tomas successfully defended Mr H who faced several counts alleging conspiracy to import firearms. After a ten-week trial the Defendant was acquitted.  The leading Defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 22 years.


R – M and J, Central Criminal Court

Incitement to commit terrorist acts

The Defendant was alleged to have incited terrorism via twitter. He and another person were suspected supporters of Daesh and had been stopped whilst travelling to Europe. On examination of electronic devices, material recovered indicated support for Islamic extremism. The Crown accepted pleas to the lesser offence of reckless, rather than intentional incitement.


R v M and others, Aylesbury Crown Court

Witness intimidation

The case was dropped the case against the Defendant after cross examination of the central witness for the Crown on the second day of trial.


R v R and others, Chelmsford Crown Court (led junior)

Historic Sexual offences

The Defendant was first on an indictment with six co-defendants. Tomas was instructed as led junior counsel, in a ten-week trial alleging historic allegations of sexual grooming and drug supply by a gang of men.


R v M, Aylesbury Crown Court

Witness intimidation

Having spent six months in custody on remand the Defendant was acquitted after extensive cross examination by the Defence of the Crowns witnesses, contrasting their accounts with that of CCTV evidence in the case.


R v P and others, Chelmsford Crown Court


The Defendant was accused with five others of kidnapping two individuals and their two children. She was acquitted, unanimously, after a four- week trial, whilst the first defendant was convicted of conspiring to kidnap.


R v M and others, Reading Crown Court

Concerned in drug supply

Tomas represented a man alleged to have been concerned in the cultivation of cannabis who stood trial with three others. After an eleven-day trial and closing speeches the Defendant was the first person to have verdicts of Not Guilty returned against him, whilst two others were convicted. The third person was eventually acquitted by way of majority verdict.


R v R, Canterbury Crown Court

Importation of Cannabis

The Defendant, a truck driver, was arrested at Dover Ferry Port. Thirty six kilos of Cannabis were found secreted in his truck. He denied knowledge of the drugs stating that he believed the packages contained tobacco. The Defendant was an ex soldier employed by a firm in Northern Ireland. After the provision of tachograph evidence to support his account in interview, and extensive disclosure requests by the Defence, the Crown offered no evidence on the drugs offence and accepted a plea by the Defendant to the fraudulent evasion of duty on tobacco that was recovered from his truck, for which he received a suspended sentence.


R v A, Inner London Crown Court

Extreme Pornography

The Defendant pleaded guilty on an earlier occasion to a separate offence involving the possession of indecent images of children. The Defendant denied ever knowingly viewing these images or ever being aware that they were on his computer. After an expert report was commissioned by those instructing (on the advice of Counsel) representations were made to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown accepted that it could not prove to the requisite standard that the Defendant knowingly viewed or possessed these images and that such images could have been ‘cached’ by the Defendants computer browser without his knowledge. The Crown offered no evidence and the case was dropped.


R v M, Kingston Crown Court

Sexual Assault

The Defendant was a young vulnerable man with psychiatric issues that had not been properly identified by his family. He was prone to behaviour that was out of his control, due to a lack of treatment and medication. Counsel, and those instructing, provided detailed advice from the arrest stage until final disposal at Court. Between these two stages the Defendant was properly assessed and his illness diagnosed for the first time. This had a significant impact on the type of sentence he received and was the difference between an immediate custodial sentence and the suspended sentence that he received.


R v A and others, Central Criminal Court

Possession with intent to supply Class A Drugs

Tomas was instructed to advise a defendant and instructing solicitors on aspects of sentencing involving the provision of information to the police. The Defendant received a significantly reduced prison sentence.


R v J and others, Croydon Crown Court

Conspiracy to Kidnap, False Imprisonment.

Tomas was instructed to represent a seventeen-year-old boy defending serious allegations of kidnap, false imprisonment and assault. The Defendant was arrested with 6 others after police raided a house and found a fifteen-year-old boy tied to a chair in a cupboard with wounds inflicted on him. The case involved extensive cell site evidence and the instruction of a defence expert to show that the Defendant was not in the vicinity at the time the victim had been picked up at that location


R v B, Birmingham Crown Court

Fraud, False ID.

It was alleged that the Defendant and a number of others defrauded the Islamic Bank of Britain of large sums of money. The Defendant volunteered answers in the police station and was unrepresented for much of the time pre charge. The case involved complex issues of phone evidence and bank transactions. The Defendant accepted that he had a false passport for other purposes and pleaded to this. At trial, all of the co defendants pleaded guilty and the Crown decided not to proceed against the Defendant on the more serious charges, his  having pleaded to lesser offences earlier on. He was given a suspended sentence whilst his co defendants were imprisoned.


R v A, Court of Appeal

Section 18 Assault

The Appellant had been convicted after a trial alleging assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. The single judge refused to grant leave. Counsel renewed the application and on appearing before the Full Court leave was granted.


R v G and M – Inner London Crown Court

Section 18 Assault, Robbery

The Defendant and another boy faced charges of serious assault against a homeless man, having been arrested near the scene. Both he and his co defendant were present when a much older man assaulted the victim in this case. The Defendant accepted presence during the assault but denied encouragement or participation. After submissions from Counsel, at the close of the Crowns case, the judge ruled that there was a case to answer on some aspects of the Crowns case but not as the case was put before the Court. The Crown then accepted pleas to lesser offences and the Defendant and his co defendant received significantly shorter sentences than that which they would have received had they been convicted of GBH. The older man was convicted of GBH and received a lengthy custodial sentence.


R v W  J- Court of Appeal


Appeal against sentence. The appellant was acquitted of murder but convicted of robbery and sentenced with a co-defendant (who was convicted of murder) to ten years. The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to seven years.


R v S, Court of Appeal

Fraud, False Representation.

The Defendant pleaded guilty to a number of accounts alleging fraud. She was sentenced to a period of four and a half years in custody. The solicitor felt that an appeal was unlikely to succeed but Tomas advised that that matter should be appealed. The sentence was reduced to one of three years by the Court without need for oral argument.


R v P, Inner London Crown Court

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

It was alleged that the Defendant assaulted the victim while she was asleep. The defence accepted that an assault had taken place but disputed the mental element of the offence.  The Defendant had been prescribed anti depressant drugs and found that they caused him to feel strange impulses. His only recollection of the incident was a feeling of ‘floating on the ceiling, observing everything below’ and then coming to. As a man of good character with glowing references from his ex wife and previous partners, and extensive research into the use of this drug and the instruction of an expert. On service of the report and, having consulted with the victim in the case the case (who agreed that the defendant’s actions were out of character), the Crown decided not to proceed against the Defendant and the matter was dealt with by way of a bind over.


R v K - Kingston Crown Court

Possession Offensive Weapon

Defendant arrested in street where altercation had taken place. Eyewitness alleged Defendant wielding a machete in an altercation with another. Three chopping knives and a machete recovered from the scene. Acquitted.


R v A - Inner London Crown Court


The Defendant was charged after being stopped in the street, having been identified during a roadside ID parade shortly after a robbery took place. Counsel tested the issue of the ability of the witness to identify the assailant on a voir dire, before the jury was sworn. At the close of the Crown’s case the judge ruled that there was no case to answer after counsel’s submissions.


R v J - Kingston Crown Court

Possession with intent to supply Class A drugs

The Defendant was stopped as the driver of a car with three others. Crack cocaine was found under the driver’s seat. The Defendant was acquitted by a majority verdict.


R v C - Canterbury Crown Court

Possession of false Id with intent.

The Defendant had been travelling to Algeria to spend the summer there. He was stopped at Dover controls and was found to have a false British driving licence in his possession, as well as his French licence that entitled him to drive in the UK. His account was that he intended to use this false licence in Algeria only. The Defendant contested the matter at trial, despite an indication by the Court at an earlier hearing he did not have a defence in law. Vigorous representations were made by Counsel on the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court and the location where any offence was likely to be committed, but the Crown refused to drop the case. At trial Counsel made a submission of no case to answer, in accordance with these earlier representations and the learned judge agreed, ruling that there was no case to answer.


R v W, Maidstone Crown Court

Rape, Sexual Assault

The Defendant was charged with others of allegations of rape and sexual assault against family members dating back to the 1980’s and 1990’s. The case involved complex issues of double jeopardy as verdicts of not guilty were entered by a previous court in the late 1990’s when similar offences had been alleged.


R v K, Court of Appeal

Section 18 GBH.

The Defendant had been convicted of intending to cause grievous bodily harm. Counsel was not instructed in the trial but advised pro bono on the issue of fresh evidence. Having submitted a detailed, positive, advice on appeal the single judge refused leave but Counsel renewed the application and was granted leave by the Full Court.


Led Junior Work:

R v Marshall and Others – Central Criminal Court - Murder

R v H and others – St Albans Crown Court - Conspiracy to import firearms

R v R and others, Chelmsford Crown Court - Historic Sexual offence and drug supply. Ten week trial involving allegations of drug supply and grooming young girls in the Chelmsford area over a number of years

R v W – Maidstone Crown Court - Historic Sexual Abuse.Allegations of rape by a daughter against her father.

R v J –Central Criminal Court - Murder. The Defendant acquitted of murder committed during the course of a drug deal in South London.

R v P and S –Central Criminal Court - Murder.  An eighteen-year old Defendant and his co-defendant accused of the double murder of a sixteen year old girl and her fifty seven year old Grandmother by way of arson at a flat in East London.


This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it