Stuart Dingle

Year of call: 2011

 

Stuart undertakes criminal defence and prosecution work. He has defended in a wide range of cases, including section 18 GBHs, Fraud, trading standards infringements, indecent images, domestic and general violence including threats to kill and dishonesty matters across all courts.

Stuart has successfully appeared before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and worked on a number of privy counsel cases.

Experience

Stuart is currently a Level 1 Panel Advocate for the CPS, for which he appears solely in the Crown Court. His on-going case load includes a number of appeals against conviction along with private prosecutions and POCA matters. Stuart is regularly instructed by the serious fraud division to deal with revenue, benefit and complex fraud cases.

Stuart has particular experience of vulnerable defendants, both those found unfit to plead and those who are neural atypical or suffering from mental disorders.

In addition to crime and associated matters, Stuart has also appeared before Westminster Magistrates’ Court in extradition cases. He is noted by solicitors for fiercely defending clients and for his intelligent application of the law to achieve desired results.

Qualifications

Qualifications

LLB Law (hons) Warwick: 2:1

 

Professional Associations

Young Legal Aid Lawyers

Middle Temple Young Barristers’ Association

Notable Cases

Drugs

R v CDefendant acquitted by jury of Class A possession with intent, despite fingerprint evidence and a history of previous cocaine dealing.

Violence

R v A & A – Youth Court section 18 grievous bodily harm with intent. Required consideration of phone evidence and medical analysis/examination as to causation and injury.

R v R – Secured Acquittal by jury of threats to kill, actual bodily harm and further domestic assaults, defendant had significant previous convictions for domestic violence and Crown had injury photographs and recent complaint evidence.

R v C – Witness Intimidation trial before Reading Crown Court. Despite a guilty verdict the defendant received a suspended sentence.

Dishonesty

R v M – Successfully appealed the imposition of a mandatory 3-year sentence followed a third consecutive burglary. Court of Appeal overturned the imposition of the mandatory minimum and replaced with a suspended sentence.

R v CLarge-scale Proceeds of Crime Act (£500,000 +) proceedings relating to trademark infringement and evasion of income tax.

R v N et al21 Count fraud indictment including use of false trademarks and targeting of vulnerable victims.

R v BDefendant acquitted of burglary by jury despite DNA evidence linking him to the scene.

Professional Associations

Download CV