Samuel was called to the Bar in 2020. He completed pupillage in 2021 and joined 9 KBW as a tenant following a short probationary period.
Samuel has a wide-ranging general criminal and regulatory practice. He specialises in animal welfare cases, wildlife offences, and defending allegedly dangerous dogs.
Samuel also undertakes a range of civil work adjacent to these practice areas. This includes civil applications relating to animals and professional disciplinary matters.
Samuel made legal and national news headlines as a pupil when, owing to his vegan beliefs, he declined to wear the traditional horsehair wig of the profession and instead invented the world’s first plant-based wig out of hemp. He founded Hemp & Hemp wigs, which was shortlisted for the 2022 Bar Pro Bono Awards ‘Sustainability
Initiative of the Year’.
ANIMAL PROTECTION
COURT OF APPEAL CASES
R (Coulthard and ors) v SSEFRA: Samuel acted pro-bono as junior counsel in a widely reported judicial review seeking to overturn the ban on XL Bully dogs. Samuel was instructed by Tuckers solicitors and was led by Cathy McGahey KC in both the Administrative Court and then the Court of Appeal. The case established that the SoS had breached her public sector equality duty when bringing in the ban.
HIGH COURT CASES
Fitzgerald v CPS [2024] EWHC 869 (Admin): successfully stated a case to the High Court, quashing a DDO imposed by the magistrates’ court and upheld by the Crown Court. Samuel satisfied the High Court that the decision of the court below was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have come to it. The case raised points of wider application concerning the approach to be taken to undisputed expert evidence in Dangerous Dogs Act cases.
CROWN COURT CASES
R v V: represented D1 and D2 in a five-handed burglary trial before Peterborough Crown Court relating to the rescue by Animal Rising activists of 18 beagle puppies from a facility that breeds dogs for animal testing. Samuel argued that their actions were not “dishonest” by the standards of ordinary decent people. The defendants were acquitted. (see Cambsnews 10 March 2026, Historic Peterborough Crown Court verdict: five cleared after rescuing beagle puppies from MBR Acres)
R v M: represented an Animal Rising activist charged with burglary. The case concerned the rescue of animals from the same facility as the above. The Crown discontinued the case at an early stage following the Defendant’s decision to elect a Crown Court trial. (See Cambridgeshire Live 16 July 2022, MBR Acres: Burglary charges dropped after dogs taken from MBR Acres breeding facility)
R v S: represented D1 in a four-handed trial before Liverpool Crown Court arising out of disruption to the start of Grand National in 2023. The defendants were Animal Rising activists charged with attempting to cause a public nuisance. Samuel called an expert horse racing consultant and an expert veterinary surgeon to give evidence as to the cruel practices, suffering and death statistics involved in jump racing. He argued that defendants had a “reasonable excuse”, namely protecting horses from death and suffering. The trial resulted in a hung jury and the prosecution then offered no evidence, resulting in the acquittal of all defendants.
R v P: represented a defendant who was charged with three counts of causing unnecessary suffering to animals following the rescue of three lambs belonging to King Charles. The defendants were acquitted of the animal welfare act offences after the Crown offered no evidence on those counts.
R v C: instructed to prosecute a man who killed his partner’s chihuahua by slamming him against a wall. The Defendant was ultimately convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months immediate custody and was disqualified from owning or keeping any animal for 10 years.
R v C: represented a defendant who was acquitted, following a jury trial, of three aggravated Dangerous Dogs Act offences. The defendant was the owner of a dog that had jumped up on and allegedly nipped three officers, causing light scratches. Samuel pursued an unprecedented point of law, and persuaded the judge to direct the jury that an “injury” “must be more than transient and trifling”.
R v J: represented a defendant who was acquitted, following a jury trial, of an aggravated Dangerous Dogs Act offence. The Defendant’s dog had bitten a postman on his driveway. The Defendant gave evidence that a gas engineer had left the front door ajar, and that when J ran out to intervene, the postman had foolishly grabbed him and used him as a human shield, which had prevented him from grabbing his own dog. The case involved a lengthy legal argument on causation and new intervening acts in Dangerous Dogs Act cases.
R v M: represented an award-winning security dog handler who was acquitted, following a jury trial, of two aggravated Dangerous Dogs Act offences. The case turned on whether her dog had bitten the complainants, or whether they might have been injured by their own XL Bully whilst separating a dog fight, caused by their own failure to keep their dog under control. The case involved evidence from a forensic dentist.
R v M: represented an Animal Rising activist charged with burglary. The case concerned the rescue of animals from a testing facility. The Crown discontinued the case at an early stage following M and her co-defendants’ decision to elect Crown Court trials.
RSPCA v C: represented a vulnerable man acquitted of causing unnecessary suffering to a horse. Following the service of the defence evidence, the RSPCA reviewed the case and agreed to offer no evidence.
R v H: persuaded the court to impose a community order and no DDO in the sad case of a vulnerable lady who lost control of a recently adopted (and fraudulently mis-sold) Doberman whilst taking her dead guineapig to be cremated. Despite two people having been injured, Samuel was able to evidence to the court the tragedy of errors and unfortunate circumstances that preceded the incident. (See The Times, 04 September 2023, Dog-attack owner lost control of animal at guinea pig funeral)
R v A: successfully appealed to the Crown Court against a DDO imposed by the magistrates’ court in respect of a Pit Bull Type dog. In the lower court, Samuel had persuaded magistrates to acquit his client at half-time. She had left her dog securely in her flat. Without her knowledge or consent, her ex-partner had taken it out. It was involved in an incident in which she had no involvement. Despite Samuel’s client’s acquittal, the court ordered destruction of A’s dog ancillary order to her co-defendant’s sentence. She exercised her free-standing right of appeal, and the Crown Court was satisfied that A was a fit and proper person (having been cleared of all charges) and that in her care her dog would not be a danger to public safety. A CDO was imposed instead.
R v B: instructed to defend a man whose Staffordshire Bull Terrier, already on a CDO, was involved in a further serious attack. Samuel secured, at short notice, the support of an experienced person working at a sanctuary for dogs with behavioural issues and persuaded the Crown Court not to make an immediate DDO and instead allow the dog to be re-homed under a CDO.
R v M: secured the support of a rescue charity and persuaded the court to re-home a dog under a CDO in a case where the vulnerable defendant was convicted and disqualified from keeping dogs.
RSPCA v D: successfully appealed to the Crown Court against an order imposed by the magistrates’ court disqualifying a woman from keeping cats. D was a woman with a number of mental health issues who had devoted all her time, money and space in her home to rescuing street dogs. She had, however, become overwhelmed and allowed standards to drop to the point that the RSPCA intervened. She voluntarily signed over the dogs and did not dispute disqualification in respect of dogs, however the magistrates’ court disqualified her from keeping cats too, despite there being no allegation of suffering or welfare breaches amongst her cats. On appeal the Crown Court agreed she should not be prevented from keeping cats.
RSPCA v G: instructed as defence trial counsel in a 5-day animal welfare case at Southampton Crown Court, where the owner of 29 cats is charged on a 13-count indictment with causing unnecessary suffering. Successfully argued that, in cases where an omission to provide veterinary care is alleged, the prosecution must show not just that steps had not been taken that “could” have alleviated the suffering (as argued by the prosecution), but must make the jury sure that, but for the alleged omission, the animal would not have suffered, or would have suffered less.
MAGISTRATES’ COURT CASES
S v H: instructed as junior counsel in a private animal welfare trial, and as counsel alone at all preliminary hearings and sentence. The defendant, a director of a dog re-homing company who had allowed dogs to become malnourished and left in squalid conditions, was convicted and disqualified for 10 years from keeping dogs.
S v HS: represented a client who was acquitted of three Dangerous Dogs Act offences. Sam made successful half time submissions, arguing that these were purely dog-on-dog incidents that did not meet the statutory test for a dog being “dangerously out of control”.
S v R: represented a client who was acquitted after trial in circumstances where his mother had allowed his dog to escape and bite another dog. Samuel successfully argued that there had been no act or omission by the defendant (with or without fault) that to a more than minimal degree had caused or permitted the incident to come about. Whilst the proceedings were ongoing, Samuel assisted pro bono in using a Police Property Act application to secure the release of another of R’s dogs, who had been wrongly seized.
R v R: instructed to defend a man following his guilty plea to being in charge of a 70kg dog that had bitten a young girl’s face. Persuaded the court to sentence on the basis set out in the defendant’s basis of plea, as witnessed by others at the scene, that the girl had jumped on the dog like a horse, grabbing its ears. Two experts assessed the dog and found it not to be a danger to public safety. Samuel persuaded the court not only that destruction was not required, but that the dog need not be muzzled or kept on a lead at all times either. The Court agreed that a simple “do not touch” warning vest would protect public safety. See Brighton and Hove News, 01 Feb 2024, Dog which permanently scarred girl, 9, avoids destruction or muzzle.
R v F: persuaded the court to impose a conditional discharge only and successfully opposed an application for disqualification from owning or keeping dogs in the case of a full-time dog fosterer/keeper who had rescued 22 dogs. She was a woman of good character with glowing references who devoted her whole life to the dogs and lived with them in a specially adapted house and grounds. She had pleaded guilty to an offence after one dog bit a prospective adopter, causing serious injuries.
R v E, R v K: persuaded the court in two similar cases that exceptional circumstances justified not ordering destruction. In both cases dogs that had bitten people causing injuries requiring hospitalisation. Both cases also concerned dogs who had been involved in multiple incidents. In both cases, the court found would that the starting point would have been a 6-month custodial sentence and a DDO, but spared both dogs from destruction and imposed CDOs instead, with a community order on in one case and, exceptionally, a conditional discharge in the other.
R v M: represented the owner of a prize-winning dog who had bitten a postal worker. Persuaded the court that the dog did not constitute a danger to public safety and persuaded the court to impose a CDO instead of a DDO.
Police v J: appeared in civil application brought by the police in respect of an alleged Pitbull-type dog. Although the court did ultimately consider the dog was a banned breed, it found it posed no danger to public safety and allowed it to be exempted.
ADVISORY WORK AND OUT OF COURT ANIMAL ADVOCACY
Samuel is regularly instructed to provide written advice in cases raising animal protection issues. He conducts footage review identifying potential breaches of animal welfare laws on farms and has been instructed to advise on evidence and prospects of conviction in a fox hunting case. He has been instructed by a number of charities and campaigning organisations seeking early-stage advice in prospective private prosecutions and similar challenges. Samuel has provided regulatory advice in niche areas such as the movement of animals between different tuberculosis risk zones. He sat on the advisory board to the Animal Law Foundation from 2022 to 2026.
He is a member of the UK Centre for Animal Law and formerly worked as a paralegal at Advocates for Animals, the UK’s only specialist animal law firm. His work with Advocates for Animals has involved assisting with several cases including those relating to systemic failures in farming cases.
GENERAL CRIME
COURT OF APPEAL CASES
R v T: successfully appealed against a suspended sentence of imprisonment in a child pornography case. The defendant had extensive personal mitigation and had been sent the images unsolicited. The appropriate sentence was a 2-year conditional discharge.
CROWN COURT CASES
R v B: prosecuted a three-week domestic violence trial which resulted in unanimous convictions on all five counts, including s.18 wounding with intent to cause GBH. The trial involved three joined cases concerning allegations of domestic violence made by two different women who had both been in relationships with the defendant. The defendant received a custodial sentence of five years and six months.
R v I: represented a client who was acquitted, following a contested trial, of a defendant charged with racially aggravated assault by beating. His defence was that it was he who had been the victim of homophobic abuse at the hands of the complainants, and that they had fabricated the allegations when he had gone to report them.
R v J: prosecuted a 5-day racially aggravated ABH trial, which resulted in a unanimous conviction. The Defendant had hit his neighbour on the head with a pole or baton, then called him a “paki” and threatened to kill him. Bad character evidence was admitted in respect of a series of offences, some of which were dated or related to offences that were of different natures, but that contained recurring themes of disproportionate reactions and animosity arising out of his living situation, often resulting in death threats or use of weapons.
R v T: instructed to represent a young man charged with carrying knives. Police had made an initial referral to the Single Competent Authority on modern slavery, but owning to his “no comment” interview and incomplete history, this came back negative. As trial approached, he opened up to Samuel about his account. He had been groomed since he was 13 and then coerced for years by a gang. Samuel advised that years of medical, school and social records should be obtained; as well as statements from his adoptive parents relating to disappearances. In a detailed defence statement, he showed how the defendant’s history of hospital admissions, unexplained “accidents” and absences, tied in with years of criminal exploitation. A second NRM referral was then made, which found conclusive grounds for believing that the defendant was a victim of modern slavery. The prosecution dropped the case.
R v D: prosecuted the five-day trial of a defendant ultimately convicted of possession with intent to supply Class B drugs, and possession of criminal property in the form of large sums of unexplained cash and luxury items. Preliminaries involved contested bad character and hearsay arguments, resolved largely in favour of the prosecution. The trial itself involved the cross examination of multiple family members of the Defendant and forensically unpicking their ostensibly innocent accounts relating to the cash.
R v J: instructed as trial counsel to defend a man alleged to have caused over £100,000 damage to a private plane. The prosecution case amounted to little more than having recovered the homeless defendant’s fingerprints from a private jet stored on a private airfield, to which they said he would have had no good reason to have access. His account at interview, initially seen with scepticism by the police, was that a wealthy but mentally unstable individual used to pay homeless people like him to be in his “entourage”, and take him to fancy events like polo matches or viewings of jets. A review of the crime log, a detailed defence statement and repeated requests for disclosure ultimately revealed that an ex-investment banker, who part owned a private jet, and was subsequently sectioned following a breakdown, was also interviewed by police. He had given an account that corroborated important aspects of the defendant’s account, including the fact that he knew the defendant and had paid him to escort him to various events. After a successful summons application was made requiring the witness to attend court, the prosecution dropped the case.
R v B: instructed as trial counsel to defend a man who was ultimately acquitted of being concerned in the supply of Class B drugs. Samuel wrote a detailed defence statement, raised a number of disclosure issues, and ultimately wrote a letter of representations that resulted in the Crown agreeing to offer no evidence.
R v I, R v W, R v B, R v O, R v J: successfully prosecuted a series of similar bladed article trials, each resulting in conviction. One case turned on the extent to which Halloween provided a good reason to openly carry a real knife as part of a “scream” costume.
R v B: successfully prosecuted the trial of a defendant charged with handling stolen goods, which resulted in his conviction.
MAGISTRATES’ COURT CASES
R v L: represented a protestor, who was acquitted after trial of going equipped for criminal damage. The defendant was arrested some distance from a protest, on his way home, carrying multiple bottles of red paint and water-balloons. Sam successfully argued that the charge specified the street on which he was arrested and the case had been put in relation to the time of his arrest. By that time, it was clear he was going home, and no paint had been thrown by anyone that day. Whatever his intention had been on arrival, the court accepted he did not have the requisite intent when arrested at the location charged.
R v O: represented a young man acquitted after trial of assaulting an emergency worker following lengthy cross-examination of three police witnesses.
Samuel is regularly instructed by specialist driving defence firms and has an excellent track record of defending driving cases and in particular exceptional hardship and special measures hearings.
REGULATORY AND PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE
NMC v J: Instructed as case presenter for the NMC in a substantive hearing in which a community nurse was found to have dishonestly altered her notes following the re-admission to hospital of a patient who subsequently died from an infected pressure sore.
NMC v H: Instructed as case presenter for the NMC in a substantive hearing in which a nurse was found to have dishonestly removed brand new Lego sets, donated as Christmas presents for patients, from a children’s ward.
NMC v P: Instructed as case presenter for the NMC in a substantive hearing in which a midwife was found to have inappropriately touched the genitalia of a patient during the course of a hypno-birth in a birthing pool, as well as been responsible for a series of failure relating to hygiene and note-keeping.
NMC v B: Instructed as case presenter for the NMC in a substantive hearing in which a nurse was found to have rough handled and inappropriately shouted at a young woman on a mental health ward.
NMC v V: Instructed as case presenter for the NMC in a substantive hearing in which a nurse was found to have dishonestly covered up underdosing a patient by retrospectively amending the patient’s MAR sheet and removing the surplus medication from the care home.
NMC v J: Instructed as case presenter for the NMC in a substantive hearing in which a senior nurse was found to have handed knives back to a former-patient-turned-colleague and to have accessed her patient history without clinical justification.
NMC v J: Instructed as case presenter for the NMC in a substantive hearing in which a nurse was found to have unlawfully restrained, rough-handled and sedated a patient.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Legal Vegan Network (Committee Member)
The Criminal Bar Association
Young Legal Aid Lawyers
The UK Centre for Animal Law
