Tommy Seagull

Notable Cases

Client found not guilty after trial for possession of firearms, ammunition, criminal property and the supply of several kilograms of Class A drugs

Tommy Seagull, led by Gerwyn Wise, represented his client at Inner London Crown Court. Their client was one of three defendants charged on a 15-count indictment with possessing multiple firearms and being involved in a conspiracy to supply class A (cocaine) and class B (cannabis) drugs. A co-defendant was represented by King’s Counsel.

The prosecution case was that their client, along with others, ran a large-scale ‘drugs factory’ in south London, supplying cocaine and cannabis from a property armed with semi-automatic guns and ammunition.

The defence case involved consideration of substantial served and unused material, including mobile phone, fingerprint and financial evidence.

After a four-week trial, the jury at Inner London Crown Court returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty for their client on all ten counts against him.

Vulnerable female client found not guilty after trial for possession of a firearm and supply of Class A drugs

Tommy Seagull represented a female client who struggled with a lifelong drug addiction. She was charged alongside her partner (who was represented by Piers Mostyn) with the possession of a firearm, possession with intent to supply class A drugs and possessing criminal property.

Both the client and her partner explained in evidence that their property was ‘cuckooed’ by drug dealers who exploited their vulnerability to store a gun and drugs at their home. Those individuals threatened them with serious violence.

The case involved close legal consideration of the definition of being in ‘control’ or ‘in possession’ of a firearm. This was because the client accepted knowledge and handling of the firearm in her property. As defence counsel, Tommy argued that the client did not have control or custody over the firearm despite her knowledge and handling of it. As part of her defence, counsel utilised her medical records, custody records and interview transcripts to demonstrate her vulnerability: namely, that she was a drug user, rather than an armed drug dealer.

After a seven-day trial at Isleworth Crown Court, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty on all counts.

Client found not guilty for possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, non-fatal strangulation, making threats to kill and various assaults in serious domestic violence case

Tommy represented a young man – 21 years old at the time of the alleged offending – in a serious case of domestic violence that included threats with an imitation firearm. The Crown’s case was that the complainant genuinely believed the firearm to be real at that point of being threatened with it.

The case involved delicate cross-examination of the complainant who was blind. It also included consideration of legal arguments on reasonable belief in consent on the non-fatal strangulation charge.

After a week-long trial, the client was found unanimously not guilty.

Elderly autistic client with advanced Parkinson’s disease prosecuted for serious domestic violence including intentional strangulation

Tommy Seagull represented a vulnerable elderly man with complex needs, remanded into custody, facing a 10-count indictment alleging multiple counts of intentional strangulation, stalking involving fear of violence, various assaults and breaches of non-molestation orders. The complainant was his ex-wife of more than two decades.

As well as being factually complex given the 10-count indictment spanning many incidents over a prolonged period, representing the client was particularly difficult because of the defendant’s vulnerabilities. He was autistic and had advanced Parkinson’s disease with associated mobility, cognitive and mental health issues. He was assisted at trial with an intermediary and was assessed for fitness to stand trial multiple times before trial.

The case required careful and delicate witness handling of vulnerable witnesses. Defence counsel cross-examined a child witness who gave evidence in support of the prosecution case. The child was cross-examined to the effect that she was lying.

After a nine-day trial at St. Albans Crown Court, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all of the most serious counts (intentional strangulation, stalking involving fear of violence and the various assaults).

Hospital Order for client suffering from Delusional Disorder

Tommy Seagull represented an extremely vulnerable man charged with putting people in fear of violence by harassment. It was alleged that he had made multiple threats to kill against his female neighbours (including towards a child when they were home alone). When the police arrived, he was found sitting in the hallway of his flat – with the front door ajar – armed with knives either side of him on the floor.

The client had no known history of mental illness. After meeting with the client, Tommy identified that it was likely there were undiagnosed mental health conditions that had a nexus with his offending.

The psychiatric reports concluded that the client was suffering from Delusional Disorder which significantly impaired his perception of reality. He held deeply entrenched false beliefs. He could not distinguish reality from delusions. Given his lack of insight and the need for immediate treatment, the psychiatrists jointly recommended a hospital order.

The judge imposed a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The client was admitted to a psychiatric intensive care unit. He was grateful to receive medical help as a result of the court process.

Client’s sentence aggravated for steering inflatable boat as he arrived in UK waters

Counsel represented a Kurdish asylum seeker from Iraq, who was intercepted by UK Border Force in UK waters on an inflatable boat with others. The client was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, knowingly arriving in the UK without a valid entry clearance.

This case was significant because (at the time of the case) there was no Court of Appeal authority nor sentencing guidelines on dealing with this specific offence.

Although the client eventually opted not to lodge an appeal at the Court of Appeal (for personal reasons), counsel fully advised and drafts grounds of appeal. Those grounds raised issues that the Court of Appeal had not yet provided guidance on. For example, the judge aggravated the client’s sentence because he was seen to be steering the boat for a period of time. The grounds argued, amongst other things, that steering was not an aggravating factor, but rather inherent to the act of arriving without valid entry clearance (the offence itself).

The client was a vulnerable and traumatised in that he had spent significant periods of time homeless across the world since fleeing Iraq.