Tom Mayall

Tom was called to the Bar in 2010 before becoming a Solicitor in 2013 and being granted his Higher Rights of Audience in 2015. He worked as part of the Crown Court Advocates team at GT Stewart Solicitors and Advocates before re-joining the Bar in 2023 and Farringdon Chambers in 2024. He has a wealth of experience at all levels of criminal advocacy and is regularly instructed in serious cases involving drugs, gangs, conspiracy and weapons offences. He has experience with cases involving a high volume of detailed evidence and also the most serious sex offences.

Tom's advocacy has been praised by Judges and fellow advocates on many occasions. His case preparation and advice at all stages of the process is widely appreciated by those who instruct him.

• Murder
• Conspiracy
• Firearms
• Violence
• Kidnap
• Financial Crime
• Drugs
• People Trafficking
• Sexual Offences
• Dishonesty Offences
• Domestic Violence
• Harassment
• Public Disorder
• Driving Offences
• General Crime

R v HL  - Murder

 

Instructed as Junior to Mr. Sam Robinson KC in a murder trial. The client was charged with the murder of his co-worker in the kitchen of a Central London Restaurant. The case concerned extensive cross examination of a number of witnesses, including experts about sustained injuries to the deceased. The defence at trail was self-defence and involved a number of difficult tactical decisions from the defence team.

 

R v WM - Murder

 

Instructed as Junior Advocate to Claire Davies KC in a murder trial. Defendant accused of murdering his ‘drinking’ buddy by driving at him in revenge for not allowing him into the property earlier in the day. Experts were called in relation to Diminished Responsibility as a result of the entrenched alcoholism the defendant suffered from. The trial involved complex legal arguments concerning manslaughter.

 

R v JM and Ors - Kidnap and False Imprisonment

 

Instructed as Junior alone in a multi-handed trial where the defendant's were accused of the kidnap and false imprisonment of an associate and the further blackmail of his family. This case involved forensic examination of mobile phone material and cell site location as well as extensive consideration of CCTV and video footage. The cross examination of the complainant involved careful consideration and planning due to the fact he was a vulnerable witness with special measures and careful witness handling of the other witnesses was required by all counsel involved in the case.

 

R v MR and Ors - People Trafficking

 

Instructed as a Junior to Mr Ed Fenner in a conspiracy to facilitate illegal entry to the UK. MR was alleged to have been the driver of a van containing illegal migrants into the UK by ferry crossing from France. The case included a large amount of mobile phone and cell site material as well as computer downloads which all had to be carefully analysed by counsel. MR was a vulnerable client and required careful handling and assistance throughout the trial.

 

R v MC and Ors

 

Instructed as Junior to Mr Ronnie Manek in a conspiracy to import drugs into the UK. MC was a foreign national who flew a helicopter into the UK on numerous occasions which the prosecution alleged was filled with large quantities of cocaine. The case involved large amounts of phone and computer evidence as well as cell site evidence. There was also a large amount of undercover surveillance material to be analysed. There was a large number of witnesses and all required very careful and meticulous cross-examination by the defence.

 

R v RT

 

Instructed as a Junior alone in a child sexual case. AT was alleged to have repeatedly sexually abused his defacto step-daughter throughout her childhood. The case involved s28 cross examination of the complainant and careful cross examination of numerous family members. 

 

R v DS - Imitation Firearm with Intent to Cause Fear of Violence

 

Instructed as a Junior alone in a case involving the possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. DS was involved in a long and ongoing neighbour dispute during which it was alleged he produced an imitation firearm and threatened one of his neighbours with it by pointing it at their window causing them to fear it was a real firearm and he intended to discharge it at them. DS was a vulnerable defendant and the complainant was also vulnerable. The case involved careful s28 cross examination and meticulous witness handling.

 

Qualified for the Bar at University of Law, London

Queen Mary University of London, LLB Hons

Werneth School