Year of Call: 2020
Areas Of Work:
2020: BPTC/LLM -The University of Law (graded Outstanding/Distinction)
2018: GDL – The University of Law (graded Distinctions in every module)
2017: MA CANTAB – Cambridge University
2013: BA CANTAB – Cambridge University
Awards, scholarships, and prizes
2020: The University of Law (Bloomsbury) BPTC Award for Drafting
2020: The University of Law (Bloomsbury) BPTC Award for Resolution of Disputes Out of Court
2019: William Shaw BPTC Scholarship
2019: The University of Law BPTC Advocacy Scholarship
2018: The UK Environmental Law Association Andrew Lees Essay Competition Winner
Samuel completed pupillage in 2021 and joined 9 KBW as a tenant following a short probationary period. Samuel has considerable experience in criminal matters and specialises in offences involving animals. He both prosecutes and defends in the Crown Court, youth courts and magistrates’ courts.
Samuel has acted in cases involving allegations of serious violence and sexual offences, weapons and drugs, public order offences and protest cases, burglary, fraud and other acquisitive crimes. Samuel also acts in a wide range of road traffic matters and civil matters heard in the magistrates’ courts, including PHV licencing matters.
Crown Court Cases
R v I: secured the acquittal 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 S: instructed to defend at trial a defendant charged with robbery using an offensive weapon, as well as ABH, possession of a bladed article, common assault, and battery. Succeeded in convincing the prosecution to offer no evidence in respect of the robbery, offensive weapon, and assault by beating charges, and to accept a limited basis of plea in respect of the remaining offences. Convinced the judge to suspend the sentence.
R v J: secured the acquittal of a defendant charged with assaulting an emergency worker. On two occasions the Crown had failed to secure the attendance of prosecution counsel. Sam opposed any adjournment and a Crown Advocate was required to attend court and formally make an application, which Sam successfully opposed. The Crown then offered no evidence.
R v I: instructed to prosecute the trial of a defendant charged with multiple counts of possession with intent to supply, as well as possession of a bladed article. The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty on the day of trial.
R v I, R v W, R v B: successfully prosecuted a series of bladed article trials, each resulting in conviction.
R v A: successfully opposed an abuse of process argument after a half day legal argument. The case concerned a defendant who had already been dealt in the magistrates’ court for driving other than in accordance with a licence who was charged a year later with possessing a false ID document in relation to the same incident.
R v F: currently instructed as trial counsel for the defence in an ongoing matter involving charges of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and burglary of 5 dogs.
R v J; currently instructed as trial counsel to defend a man alleged to have caused over 100,000 damage to a private plane.
R v P: currently instructed as trial counsel for a defendant charged with unlawful wounding, contrary to s.20 OAPA.
R v B: successfully prosecuted the trial of a defendant charged with handling stolen goods, which resulted in his conviction.
R v N: successfully prosecuted on appeal a defendant charged with a public transport ticketing offence. The case involved unprecedented legal argument on the compatibility of the statutory burden on the defendant ‘to prove a reasonable excuse’, and its compatibility with the defendant’s Article 6 right to a fair trial.
R v EW: instructed to prosecute a trial of fact relating to a defendant who was unfit to plead facing multiple charges of malicious communications against a high-profile complainant.
R v L: instructed to defend at trial a defendant charged with PWITS (Class A). Persuaded the prosecution to accept a basis of plea which ultimately led to the judge being able to suspend the sentence.
R v S: instructed to represent at trial a client charged with burglary, who denied entry as a trespasser. The Crown ultimately accepted a plea to theft and offered no evidence in respect of the burglary.
R v A: instructed to prosecute a Newton hearing and sentence following pleas to charges of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and possession of a bladed article.
Magistrates’ Court cases
R v L: secured the acquittal of a protestor charged with 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 M: defended a client accused of driving his car directly at the complainant. The client was initially arrested for attempted GBH with intent, then charged with assault and dangerous driving. Persuaded the prosecution to drop the assault and accept a plea to dangerous driving on the basis that the defendant did not intend to use the car as a weapon. The Defendant was sentenced to no additional time beyond that for which he was in any event recalled for on other matters.
R v O: secured the acquittal of a young man charged with assaulting an emergency worker following lengthy cross-examination of three police witnesses.
R v L: instructed to re-open a conviction and argue special reasons on behalf of a woman charged with driving without insurance. Convinced the Crown not only to consent to re-opening, but to offer no evidence as the reasons were so compelling that there was no public interest in prosecuting.
R v W: secured the acquittal of a woman charged with possession of a bladed article on the basis of a legal argument that she had not had it in a public place until officers dragged her into the street.
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.
Samuel also has experience of various civil matters heard in the magistrates’ court. He has successfully opposed a closure order application, and represented defendants in sexual risk order applications. He has also represented a number of PHV appealing the revocation of their licence following allegations.
Animal protection and allegedly dangerous dogs
R v C: secured the acquittal following a contest jury trial of a defendant charged with three counts of being the owner of a dangerously out of control dog causing injury. The dog had jumped up on and allegedly nipped three officers, causing scratches and reddening requiring no treatment. Sam successfully pursued an unprecedented point of law, and persuaded the judge to direct the jury that an “injury” “must be more than transient and trifling”. The jury were directed accordingly and the defendant was acquitted.
S v H: instructed as junior counsel in a private animal welfare trial, and as counsel alone at all preliminary hearings and sentence. Secured a disqualification order against the director of a dog re-homing company who had allowed dogs to become malnourished and left in squalid conditions.
R v B: instructed to defend a man whose Staffordshire Bull Terrier, who was already the subject of a recent Contingent Destruction Order following a previous attack, was then involved in a further serious attack in breach of that CDO. 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 Dog Destruction Order and instead allow the dog to be re-homed.
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 requiring eight days in hospital.
R v S: currently instructed as trial counsel in a fox hunting trial at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court.
R v E: persuaded the court that exceptional circumstances justified imposing a conditional discharge and no Dog Destruction Order in the case of a dangerously out of control dog that had bitten a person causing an injury requiring hospitalisation. This was despite a previous bite incident and circumstances which the court found would ordinarily have justified a starting point of a 6-month custodial sentence and destruction of the dog.
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 secured a CDO instead of a DDO.
R v G: currently instructed as trial counsel in a private animal welfare case at Southampton Crown Court, where the owner of 29 cats is charged on a 13-count indictment with causing unnecessary suffering.
R v D: currently instructed as trial counsel in the case of an alleged Pitbull-type dog where breed is disputed.
Police v J: currently instructed in a civil application brought by the police in respect of an alleged Pitbull-type dog.
Samuel’s knowledge of the Dangerous Dogs Act resulted in him being asked by the UK Centre for Animal Law to write their moot problem for the finals of the 2022 Cecilia Animal Law moot.
During his first-six pupillage he assisted counsel in cases involving the prosecution of a construction company for knowingly demolishing the roost of a protected bat species. He also assisted counsel instructed to prosecute a farmer charged with welfare and animal by-product offences arising out of the conditions on his farm.
He is a member of the UK Centre for Animal Law and a volunteer 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.
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’.
Regulatory and professional discipline
Samuel also practices regulatory law and accepts instructions to present cases for the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
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 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 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 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 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.
NMC v H&D: Currently instructed as case presenter in the case of two nurses alleged to have stolen toys for their own children which were intended as Christmas presents for children on their ward.
He also has experience writing regulatory advice in niche areas ranging from the consumer regulations pertaining to trading schemes, to the movement of animals between different tuberculosis risk zones.
The Criminal Bar Association
Young Legal Aid Lawyers
The UK Centre for Animal Law
Mr Samuel March 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/
Mr Samuel March holds insurance cover for all legal services supplied through professional indemnity insurance with the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) The coverage is worldwide subject to their terms which are available on their website https://www.barmutual.co.uk/
Mr Samuel March is registered with the Information Commissioners office under the Data Protection Act https://ico.org.uk/
If you are not satisfied with the service that Mr Samuel March 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/