“Sam Elliott is an excellent advocate; he is the best junior barrister I’ve seen for some time and is more than capable of holding his own with more senior opponents. He has a particular skill for private children law matters. He is always thoroughly prepared, has a great attention to detail and ensures clients are at ease when dealing with difficult issues”.
– Tracey Cassidy, Head of Family Law at Ewings Solicitors
‘Having instructed Sam on a number of highly contested matters involving significant allegations of domestic abuse, parental conflict and fact-finding hearings, I am confident in recommending his advice and skills in representation to my clients. He deals with difficult matters practically and with a thorough understanding of the law including the more technical provisions of the FPR. His approach to client care is down to earth, sensitive and clear’.
– Rajan Thandi, Solicitor at Southgate Solicitors
“Sam constantly goes above and beyond for his clients. He is always meticulously prepared and consistently achieves great results in court”.
– Liliana Pina, Solicitor at Rustem Guardian
“Sam is a persuasive advocate; he is calm under pressure and quick thinking on his feet. He is brilliant with vulnerable clients”.
– Tom Bradley, Solicitor at Shelter Cymru
“I can highly recommend instructing Sam Elliott. He has always provided an excellent service in representing clients due for parole. The feedback from clients has always been positive including good clear communication, understanding and good quality advice and representation”.
– Jo Lovelock, Independent Prison Law Consultant for Carringtons Solicitors and RMNJ Solicitors
“I couldn’t have asked for a better barrister. Sam was highly professional and dedicated to my case throughout the whole trial, and wasn’t afraid to go in strong on witnesses when it was needed. He’d clearly studied every aspect of the case, despite only having been instructed at short notice, and he knew exactly how to approach it to get the result we wanted. If I ever need a barrister again he will definitely be the first person I go to”.
– Lay client (family law)
“I have nothing but praise for Sam so thank you very much for the recommendation/appointment. Extremely professional throughout, adapting to an evolving situation and giving me sage advice. I’m absolutely delighted with the result in court, it was the absolute best result that could have been hoped!”
– Feedback by lay client to Sam’s instructing solicitor (family law)
Sam primarily practises in family law with a specialism in children law (both public and private law). He is frequently instructed in matters of complexity such as cases of child abduction, applications to permanently remove the children from the jurisdiction, and cases of implacable hostility between the parents. His background in criminal law makes him highly sought after in cases where robust cross-examination of witnesses is required, such as in fact-finding hearings regarding allegations of domestic abuse.
He is also highly experienced in dealing with applications for Non-Molestation Orders and Occupation Orders, on behalf of both applicants and respondents.
Examples of recent instructions include:
- Represented a respondent father at a 5-day fact-finding hearing. The father faced allegations of six separate allegations of raping and abusing his 6 year old son. The father was cleared of all allegations.
- Represented a respondent at a non-molestation order final hearing. Successfully obtained a discharge of the non-molestation order and, unusually for the family court, obtained several thousand pounds in costs against the applicant.
- Successfully represented a mother in obtaining a discharge of a care order.
- Represented a 15 year old father throughout care proceedings. The client father was himself the subject of care proceedings.
- Obtained a transfer of residency order on behalf of an applicant father at a final hearing.
- Represented an applicant mother at a 2 day fact-finding hearing in which all eight allegations of domestic abuse against the respondent father were proven.
- Successfully represented an applicant wife at committal proceedings relating to the respondent father’s persistent failure to comply with court orders.
- Represented a respondent mother against an applicant father who was making claims of sexual abuse. After cross-examination at the final hearing the judge determined that the applicant father’s claims were vexatious. Successfully obtained a section 91.14 barring order against the applicant father preventing him from making further such applications.
- Successfully opposing an interim care order on behalf of a respondent father.
Sam is a committed criminal defence practitioner. He is frequently instructed in cases involving vulnerable clients. He has delivered guest lectures to undergraduates about the criminal justice system.
His notable cases include:
R v UP – Inner London Crown Court – Trial for possession of a bladed article. The defendant was stopped by police in a known drug dealing area in possession of a disguised ‘credit card knife’. Defence of reasonable excuse. Not Guilty verdict.
R v SD – Isleworth Crown Court – Trial for possession of cannabis and common assault against a police officer. The alleged offences were witnessed by 5 police officers and the Defendant’s previous convictions for similar offences were before the jury. Not Guilty verdict on both counts.
R v ND – Chelmsford Crown Court – Instructed as trial counsel. Defendant was charged with aggravated vehicle taking; the Crown accepted a guilty plea to the lesser charge of taking without consent. Defendant received a suspended sentence.
R v SE – Aylesbury Crown Court – Instructed as trial counsel on an aggravated burglary matter and failure to comply with the sex offenders register notification requirements. Successfully made representations to the Crown that the aggravated burglary matter should not be pursued and this charge was duly dropped. Successfully made representations to the Crown that the prosecution for the failure to notify was an abuse of process and this charge was also dropped.
R v TM – Snaresbrook Crown Court – Instructed as trial counsel on a multi-handed possession with intent to supply Class A drugs case. Successfully made representations to the Crown that there was not sufficient evidence against the defendant to pursue a prosecution and the prosecution was duly dropped.
R v RM – Snaresbrook Crown Court – Sentencing hearing for arson of a residential premises and failure to surrender to bail. Successfully obtained a 28 week suspended sentence.
R v DG – Luton Crown Court – Possession of firearms Newton hearing. Defendant was found in possession of over 80 bullets, including “cop-killer” bullets. Sentenced to 27 months custody after the previous judge had indicated that he expected the defendant to receive at least 5 years custody.
R v RM – Lewes Crown Court – Represented defendant at trial for possession of knife. Represented defendant at a separate sentencing hearing for a GBH in which he had broke into the victim’s property and stabbed him multiple times in a frenzied attack. The defendant was assessed to meet the dangerousness criteria and was sentenced to a 14 year extended sentence.
R v BC – Guildford Crown Court – Sentencing hearing for a GBH and affray that occurred at Lingfield races. Defendant received a 16 month suspended sentence.
R v VH – Kingston Crown Court – Sentencing hearing for a category 1 joint-enterprise domestic burglary. Successfully obtained a 2 year suspended sentence for the client. The co-defendant received a 6 year custodial sentence.
R v NM & others – Croydon Magistrates’ Court – Represented two co-defendants brothers charged with assaulting police officers after they refused to exit their vehicle at the request of the police. Not Guilty verdicts for both defendants.
R v N – Willesden Youth Court – Trial for possession of a knife in the context of an ongoing affray. Not Guilty verdict.
R v YA – Willesden Magistrates Court – Trial for 2 charges of assaulting a police constable in the defendant’s home. The police had been called to the property by the defendant’s mother alleging that the defendant was threatening violence against her. Not Guilty verdict.
R v AM – Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court – Successful s78 application on day of trial resulting in no evidence being offered on charges of ABH and criminal damage.
R v RL – Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court – Common assault where the complainant was the defendant’s mother. Not Guilty verdict.
R v TS – Willesden Magistrates’ Court – Assault PC trial. The Magistrates described the police officers as inconsistent and not credible under cross-examination. Not Guilty verdict.
R v SI – Romford Magistrates’ Court – Assault by beating allegation made against defendant landlord by his tenant. Not Guilty verdict.
R v JP – Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court – 2 charges of s4 public order offences where the defendant had a previous conviction against the same complainant for the same offence. Not Guilty verdict on both charges.
R v DG – Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court – 2 day assault by beating trial. 4 prosecution witnesses gave evidence against the Defendant. Not Guilty verdict.
R v DB – Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court – Four-handed assault by beating trial. The ‘group attack’ was caught on CCTV. Not Guilty verdict.
R v FA – City of London Magistrates’ Court – 4 counts of breaching a Criminal Behaviour Order. Not Guilty verdict on all 4 counts.
R v JH – Feltham Magistrates’ Court – Suspended sentence obtained for possession of a knife where the Defendant had recently served 6 years imprisonment for a gang-related s18 wounding with a knife and ABH.
Sam is regularly instructed to represent prisoners at oral hearings before the parole board. Sam has a reputation for achieving impressive results for his prison clients, such as securing the release of prisoners serving life sentences for, but not limited to, murder, rape and armed robbery.
Sam also attends prisons to represent clients at independent adjudications before the District Judge.
Personal Injury and Civil Law
Prior to commencing pupillage, Sam appeared as an advocate in hundreds of County Court hearings. Sam has been instructed in fast-track trials; small claims trials; commercial and residential landlord disputes; mortgage possession hearings; applications to set aside default judgment; applications for summary judgment and enforcement hearings.
Sam maintains a small but consistent personal injury practice. He has primarily acted for Claimants at Stage 3 disposal hearings, infant approval hearings and RTA trials.