Louis Maskell

Year of Call: 2018

Education

Bar Professional Training Course, City University, 2018, Graded ‘Outstanding’

Law LLB (Hons), Portsmouth University, 2014 – 2017, First Class Honours 

Areas of Work

 

Criminal Defence and Prosecution

Louis represents defendants in the Crown Court, Youth and Magistrates Courts. Louis is a level 2 prosecutor on the CPS Advocate Panel and an experienced case presenter for the Nursing and Midwifery Council

Recent cases – Defence

R v SM (Harrow Crown Court): Louis represented a defence charged with criminal damage and racially aggravated assault. The defendant had brain damage and also suffered from several mental health issues. Louis made a submission of no case to answer, highlighting key flaws in the Crown’s case. The submissions were successful, and the defendant was acquitted of all counts. 

R v AO (Portsmouth Crown Court): Louis represent a defendant charged with dangerous driving. The trial was a re-trial following a hung-jury and lasted three-days and principally concerned identification evidence from several police officers. 

R v SM (Canterbury Crown Court): Louis represented a defendant charged with three counts of theft from their employer (totalling £1150.00). After a trial lasting three-days, the defendant was unanimously acquitted of all counts. 

R v DP (Worthing Magistrates’ Court): Louis represented a defendant charged with stalking an ex-partner. The defendant did not deny sending numerous messages to their ex-partner on different platforms and through different people. After submissions on the facts and the relevant law the defendant was acquitted of the single charge.

R v CN (Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court): The defendant was charged with breaching a restraining. The defendant accepted that they were in contact with the complainant for several months, not long after the imposition of the order. The defence put forward was on of reasonable excuse. After trial, the defendant was acquitted of the single charge. 

R v JH (Colchester Youth Court): Louis represented a youth charged with malicious communications and affray. After cross-examining the investigating officer and the three witnesses to the alleged crimes, Louis made a submission of no case to answer. The submission succeeded, and the defendant was acquitted of both charges.

R v FH (Romford Youth Court): Louis represented a youth charged with a knife point robbery. Other youths were also charged with the offence. The trial comprised of cross-examination of two youth witnesses and submissions on principal and secondary liability. Louis secured an acquittal on the single charge.

R v BM (Ealing Magistrates’ Court): The defendant faced multiple domestic violence and criminal damage charges. Louis made a successful submission of no case to answer in relation to two charges and secured an acquittal of a further charge after trial.

R v RS (Bromley Magistrates’ Court): The defendant was charged with harassment. Louis made a successful submission of no case to answer, and the defendant was acquitted of the single charge.

Recent cases – Prosecution

R v RB (Inner London Crown Court): Louis prosecuted this three-day trial which concerned a section 20 Grievous Bodily Harm. The case involved issues of self-defence and joint enterprise.

R v BD (Salisbury Crown Court): Louis prosecuted a two-day trial of issue, following the defendant being found unfit to plead. The defendant was found to have done the acts alleged in relation to one count. 

R v YS (Harrow Crown Court): Louis prosecuted a defendant who was found guilty of having an article with a blade or point in a public place after a two-day trial.

R v JB & CM (Woolwich Crown Court): Louis prosecuted this four-day trial involving two defendants and indicted offences of dwelling burglary, handling stolen goods and fraud.

R v DHS (Inner London Crown Court): Louis prosecuted a defendant who was found guilty of failing to comply with notification requirements following a conviction for a relevant sexual offence.

R v FS (Inner London Crown Court): Louis prosecuted in this matter where the defendant was charged with sexual assault.

R v DB & LS (Leicester Crown Court): Louis was instructed to prosecute a multi-day, two-defendant trial with the indicted offences including kidnapping and dangerous driving. 

R v JJ (Inner London Crown Court): Louis prosecuted a three-day trial concerning obstructing an officer conducting a drugs search. 

R v TC (St Albans Crown Court): Louis prosecuted the sentence of a defendant who was convicted of four offences (two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and two possessions of an offensive weapon). The defendant had, on two separate occasions, approached a random member of the public and assaulted them with a pair of knuckledusters. The defendant was sentenced to 26 months detention in a young offender’s institute.

Recent Cases – Road Traffic

Louis also represents those charged with road traffic matters.

R v OW (Kingston Crown Court): Louis represented a defendant in the Crown Court at an appeal against conviction (driving whilst using mobile phone). After legal submissions about the applicable regulations, the appeal was adjourned. The prosecution later did not oppose the appeal, and the defendant’s conviction was quashed.

R v LL (Bromley Magistrates’ Court): Louis represented a defendant charged with driving without due care and attention. The defendant was alleged to have executed an unsafe manoeuvre and collided with a motorcyclist, causing them serious injury. The trial involved Louis cross-examining the motorcyclist and an eyewitness to the incident. At the end of the trial, the defendant was acquitted of the single charge.

R v BR (Isle of Wight Magistrates’ Court): The defendant had been charged with driving without due care and attention, his driving having been witnessed by a police officer. Louis represented the defendant at trial and secured an acquittal of the single charge.

R v LC (Isle of Wight Magistrates’ Court): The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Louis represented the defendant at a special reasons hearing. Special reasons were found, and the defendant avoided disqualification from driving.

R v OM (Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court): Louis represented a defendant who had pleaded guilty to failing to provide a specimen of breath following suspected drink driving. Louis successfully represented the defendant at a special reasons hearing and the defendant avoided a driving disqualification and received zero penalty points. 

R v EB (Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court): Louis represented the defendant at an exceptional hardship hearing. The defendant had accumulated 15 penalty points in a 22-day period. The exceptional hardship argument centred on the defendant’s need for a licence to commute to work and to care for their elderly father. The argument was successful, and the defendant avoided disqualification. 

R v NC (Stratford Magistrates’ Court): Louis successfully argued exceptional hardship in a case of a defendant who had obtained 12 points within a 3-year period. The defendant in this matter had recently taken over his family’s business and relied on his licence to keep the business operating during COVID-19.

R v KT (Southend-on-Sea Magistrates’ Court): Louis represented a defendant charged with speeding. The defendant had 6 penalty points on their licence at the time of the hearing from a previous speeding matter. In this matter, the court departed from the guidelines and imposed 5 penalty points, meaning the defendant was not liable for a totting disqualification. 

R v PN (Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court): Louis was instructed in a Newton hearing, with the issue being the speed the defendant was travelling. After discussing the matter with the Crown and highlighting the deficiencies in the evidence, the Crown agreed to accept the basis put forward by the defendant. 

Regulatory 

Louis is an approved Nursing and Midwifery Council case presenter and is instructed in interim order hearings, review hearings and substantive hearings.

Recent cases

NMC v HT: Louis represented the NMC in a 5-day hearing. The nurse faced charges of dishonestly doctoring a training certificate. The charges were proved, misconduct and impairment were found, and the nurse received a striking-off order. 

NMC v HC: Louis represented the NMC in a 10-day hearing. The nurse faced several charges, spanning over a year, which concerned lack of competence in areas such as patient care, patient handling and medication administration. Several of the charges were found proved, and lack of competence and impairment were found. The nurse was subsequently made subject to a conditions of practice order.

NMC v ABS: The nurse in this matter had been accused of forming a romantic relationship with a prisoner whilst working as a nurse at a prison. Amongst other matters, the nurse had been charged with texting and calling the prisoner on multiple occasions and sending and receiving photographs of a sexual nature. The nurse was not present during the entirety of the hearing; however, all but one of the charges had been previously admitted. After the six-day hearing, the remaining charge, which related to the Registrant’s motivations, was found proved, misconduct and impairment were found, and a 12-month suspension order was imposed.

NMC v PB: The nurse in question had been charged with, and admitted, working whilst under the influence of alcohol, consuming alcohol whilst working and storing alcohol at the workplace. The hearing lasted four-days and involved expert evidence. Both misconduct and impairment were found and a 12-month conditions of practice order was imposed

NMC v DBH: The nurse had been charged with various investigatory failings during her time as manager of a care home. Following a five-day hearing, several the charges were proved, including a charge alleging a lack of professional integrity. Misconduct and impairment were found, and a 12-month suspension order was imposed.

NMC v SP: The nurse in this matter had been charged with several instances of failing to record whether medication had been administrated and backdating several medication record sheets. The Nurse admitted several the charges, and others were found proved after the factual stage. The hearing lasted a total of seven-days and both misconduct impairment were found. A 12-month conditions of practice order was imposed.

NMC v JG: The nurse in this matter was a ward manager and had been accused of, amongst other things, managerial failings that placed patients at risk of harm. After the 8-day hearing, several charges were found proved, misconduct and impairment were found, and a three-year caution order was imposed.

Other

Louis is also on the Government Legal Department ‘junior junior’ list and is currently receiving instructions from the Bank of England. 

Prior to joining 9 King’s Bench Walk as a pupil in 2019, Louis was a County Court Advocate, regularly appearing in various courts across the South of England. Louis dealt with a wide range of civil matters such as landlord and tenant matters, mortgage possessions, bankruptcy proceedings, return of goods hearings, and case management hearings.  In addition to these, Louis frequently represented parties in small claims trials.

Prior to pupillage, Louis was a County Court Advocate, regularly appearing in various courts across the South of England. Louis dealt with a wide range of civil matters such as landlord and tenant matters, mortgage possessions, bankruptcy proceedings, return of goods hearings, and case management hearings.  In addition to these, Louis frequently represented parties in small claims trials.

Mr Maskell is regulated by the Bar Standards Board, holds a current practising certificate and his details can be found on the BSB’s Barrister Register https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-barristers'-register/

If you are not satisfied with the service that Mr Maskell provides you can make a complaint to Chambers. Information on Chambers Complaints Procedure is available on Chambers website www.9kbw.com/about-us/complaints-procedure

If you are not satisfied with the response you receive from Chambers you may complain to the Legal Ombudsman (This must be done within the time limits set out) The contact details can be found on the Legal Ombudsman’s website http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/

A copy of Mr Maskell's Privacy Notice with details of his Privacy Policy can be found by Clicking Here