• R v CS [2025] Central Criminal Court (junior alone): CS is charged with attempted murder, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and possession of a bladed article in a public place. The Crown case is that the Complainant attended CS’s home to request outstanding money when CS confronted him on the doorstep, stabbing him 11 times in the back and right arm whilst making threats to kill him.     
   
• R v FC [2025] Woolwich Crown Court (junior alone): FC is jointly charged with aggravated burglary, violent disorder and criminal damage in relation to the Palestine Action protest on the weapons factory owned by Elbit Systems UK outside Bristol. The Crown allege that there is a ‘terrorism connection’ to these criminal proceedings arising from the aims and actions of Palestine Action. 
   
• R v AA & Ors [2023] Central Criminal Court (led junior): AA was acquitted of conspiracy to murder and possession of a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life following a successful ‘no case to answer’ submission by Defence following the close of the Crown case.

• R v SS [2026] Wood Green Crown Court: SS is charged with conspiracy to transfer firearms and ammunition and possession of ammunition. The Crown case is that SS was involved in the supply of prohibited weapons, including the supply of a Glock pistol and ammunition to a co-offender whilst under police surveillance.
   
• R v NL & Ors [2025] Birmingham Crown Court (led junior): NL is jointly charged with conspiracy to control prostitution for gain, trafficking persons within the UK and laundering money. The Crown case is that, alongside her husband, NL ran an agency for sex workers in the Midlands between 2017 and 2024. She was extradited from Spain to face these criminal proceedings, which involve over 75,000 pages of evidence. The Defence case involves experts on finance, mobile devices and IP networks.
   
• R v AH & Ors [2025] Snaresbrook Crown Court: AH is jointly charged with three others with conspiracy to possess firearms and ammunition with intent to endanger life, as well as four counts of conspiracy to possess Class A and B drugs with intent to supply. AH was arrested whilst driving a car travelling in convey with close family members. From AH’s car 41-kilogram blocks of mixed MDMA and ketamine and two self-loading pistols were seized. AH was also linked to addresses where air rifles, drugs and drug paraphernalia were found.
   
• R v RB & Ors [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: RB is jointly charged with two others of offences of kidnap, false imprisonment, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, possession of an imitation of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and blackmail. The Crown case is that RB confronted the Complainant on the street, forcing him into a car at gunpoint. RB then drove the Complainant to an address where he and others tortured the Complainant for several hours.
   
• R v MP [2025] Harrow Crown Court: MP is charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Crown case is that, whilst at his flat, MP stabbed the Complainant in her neck with a kitchen knife to prevent her from leaving.
   
• R v ZN & Anor [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: ZN, a mental health nurse, was unanimously acquitted of causing grievous bodily harm and ill-treatment by a care-worker. ZN and his co-defendant had restrained a patient, causing a fracture in the patient’s arm. At trial, the defence argued that ZN’s restraint was lawful and involved experts called by the Crown and Defence on the lawful use of force in healthcare settings.
   
• R v BR [2024] Inner London Crown Court: BR was found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The Crown case was that, whilst at a bus stop, BR had attacked the Complainant, causing two fractures to his jaw, before off-duty police officers intervened. The Defence argued lack of intent and self-defence at trial.
   
• R v BH & Ors [2024] Birmingham Crown Court: BH stood trial with 7 others charged with violent disorder following a street fight between two families attending a wedding. On day 9 of trial the Defence successfully applied to discharge the jury and the prosecution subsequently offered no evidence.
   
• R v UH [2024] Aylesbury Crown Court: UH was charged with possession of a firearm. The trial involved cross-examination of the Crown’s expert on transference of DNA and opposing the Crown’s application for UH previous conviction for a firearms offence. 

• R v GW & Anor [2025] Lewes Crown Court: GW was charged with offences under the Environmental Protection Act. It was alleged that GW was part of a sophisticated and longstanding conspiracy to illegally deposit baled waste on multiple farm sites across Surrey, Sussex and Kent between 2017 and 2019. 
   
• R v DK & Anor [2025] Southwark Crown Court: DK was charged with fraud offences. It was alleged that DK purchased ‘bot’s containing stolen credentials using bitcoin currencies from a website on the dark web. 
   
• R v CE & Ors [2024] Southwark Crown Court: CE was found not guilty of fraud by false representation arising from her alleged involvement in £1 million fraud on NatWest Bank following a 12-day trial at Southwark Crown Court with five other defendants. 

• R v PD [2026] Croydon Crown Court: PD is charged with drug importation in relation to 8 kg of cocaine located within her suitcase whilst leaving Gatwick Airport following a flight from Jamaica.
   
• R v RM & Ors [2025] Chelmsford Crown Court: RM is jointly charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The Crown case is that more than 250 kg of cocaine was supplied to wholesale customers throughout the duration of the conspiracy in which RM held a leading role.   
   
• R v EM & Ors [2025] Lewes Crown Court: EM was the sole defendant found not guilty of being concerned in the supply of Class A and B drugs following a multi-handed trial. The Crown case was that EM was part of an Albanian organised crime group (‘OCG’) and had been tasked to move wholesale quantities of cocaine following the arrest of another member of the OCG earlier that day. EM denied any knowledge of the drugs in his removal truck, asserting that he ran a legitimate waste removal business.
   
• R v RH [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: RH was charged with drug importation in relation to 20 kg of cannabis located in his suitcase whilst exiting Heathrow Airport. RH pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence following extensive mitigation concerning the defendant’s youth, mental disorders and learning disabilities and his difficult personal circumstances.
   
• The Commissioner of the Metropolis Police v TA [2023] Stratford Magistrates’ Court: The Met police applied for a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order (‘STRO’) against TA, who had been convicted of multiple drugs conspiracies for which he was serving a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. The application was successfully opposed on the basis an order was not necessary to manage the asserted risk. Laura Stockdale was instructed as fresh counsel for the STRO application and related appeal against sentence.

• R v NP [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: NP was found not guilty of rape, coercive control and multiple assaults against his former partner. The trial involved careful cross-examination of his former partner to avoid any application by the Crown to adduce the defendant’s bad character whilst advancing the Defence case that the Complainant had made a false complaint to obtain independent accommodation after NP’s infidelity towards her.
   
• R v YM [2025] Isleworth Crown Court: YM was found not guilty of attempted rape. The trial was prosecuted by King’s Counsel. The Complainant, a disabled woman, had made an immediate complaint to police, however, the Defence relied upon the 3-minute delay in reporting the rape during her 999 call.
   
• R v SA [2024] Croydon Crown Court: SA was found not guilty of attempted rape and sexual assault. The trial involved cross-examination of the Complainant regarding her criminal convictions for fatal driving offences and previous allegations of rape against other men.
   
• R v HH [2024] Kingston Crown Court: HH was found not guilty of rape against the Complainant whilst she was asleep. The trial was prosecuted by King’s Counsel and involved review of hundreds of messages on the Complainant’s phone between the HH and complaint witnesses.
   
• R v BR [2024] Leicester Crown Court: BR was acquitted of two counts of sexual assault against his former partner. Laura Stockdale successfully applied for an intermediary to assist BR for the duration of the trial, as her client had recently been diagnosed with autism.

Laura Stockdale is regularly instructed as counsel in protest cases in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). She has represented members of Palestine Action, Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, and Animal Rising charged with a wide range of criminal offences.

• R v JM & Ors [2025] Worcester Crown Court: JM stood trial for public nuisance alongside six others for affixing himself to a fence outside an industrial diary in protest against the dairy industry’s contribution to climate change and animal cruelty. At the conclusion of the Crown case at trial, a successful ‘no case to answer’ submission was made by Defence, which was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal following the prosecution’s appeal. The Defence then applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which has been granted.
   
• R v RS & Ors [2024] Southwark Crown Court: Laura Stockdale represented two of five defendants who stood trial charged with criminal damage over £5000 for their involvement in a protest at the Queen Victoria Monument outside Buckingham Palace. The protest was targeted at dispensations from green initiatives obtained by the Royal Family in respect of Crown land and involved adding plant-based dye to the fountain water.
   
• R v MN & Ors [2024] Lewes Crown Court: MN, a Catholic priest, stood trial for public nuisance alongside nine defendants for his involvement in the Insulate Britain protest at the Port of Dover. During trial, Ms Stockdale sought a ruling in principle that MN’s wearing of his clerical collar did not create a ‘false impression’ for the purposes of the ‘bad character’ provisions, an infringement of MN’s rights to manifest his religion.
   
• R v MD-J & Ors [2024] Oxford Crown Court: MD-J was jointly charged with affray alongside two others in relation to a street brawl. Following service of an application to dismiss based on the Crown’s incorrect identification of MD-J, the Crown offered no evidence against MD-J.

• R v JM & Ors [2026] Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (led): permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted on the legal question of whether rights ‘held by the public at large’ extend to persons attending business premises in any capacity. This question arose during trial proceedings in which Laura Stockdale represented one of the defendants charged with public nuisance for his involvement in a protest at the threshold of a private industrial dairy.
   
• TA v R [2025] Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): TA received a total sentence of 14-years imprisonment for four counts of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, offences committed when he 20-21 years old. The central ground of appeal was that the sentencing judge had taken insufficient account of TA’s young age and lack of maturity, particularly given his disadvantaged background.
   
• RS & Ors v R [2025] Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): RS received a suspended sentence for an offence criminal damage arising from a peaceful protest at the Queen Victoria Monument outside Buckingham Palace. The grounds of appeal centre on the disproportionality of a custodial sentence against the defendant’s rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
   
• OH v R [2023] Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): OH’s sentence of 2 years’ immediate imprisonment for a Class A drugs offence was quashed on appeal following submissions that the sentencing judge had failed to reduce the starting point for the small quantity of cocaine and to apply a further reduction for OH’s strong mitigation. A suspended sentence with no punitive requirements was substituted by the Court of Appeal.

• OA v Germany [2025] Westminster Magistrates’ Court: OA was a 17-year-old Syrian refugee, whose extradition was sought to stand trial for multiple offences of attempted murder. Challenges to his extradition centred on the suicide risk if he was extradited, given OA’s diagnosis of complex PTSD related to his previous experience in German prison, as well as his other vulnerabilities.
   
• IB v The United States of America [2025] Administrative Court (led junior): IB was a UK national allegedly involved in conspiracies to import cocaine from Curaçao to the USA and launder money. Challenges to his extradition centred on the inadequate care and support available in federal prisons for prisoners with IB’s mental health and learning disabilities, as well as racial disparity in federal sentencing.
   
• FS v Portugal [2025] Administrative Court: FS was a Romanian national arrested on an accusation warrant for offences of aggravated robbery and kidnapping in Portugal. Challenges to his extradition centred on the poor conditions in Portuguese prison, particularly the inadequate healthcare, and FS’s suicide risk if extradited given his PTSD related to his past attempt at suicide in a Portuguese prison.
   
• TA v Germany [2024] Administrative Court: TA was a Syrian refugee whose extradition was requested for the prosecution of drug offences. His extradition was challenged on grounds that it would be ‘oppressive’ given the impact on TA’s mental health and disproportionate with TA’s right to private life.
   
• RT v Romania [2024] Administrative Court: The High Court quashed the order imposed by Westminster Magistrates’ Court for RT’s extradition to Romania to serve a 10-month prison sentence for an offence of failing to provide a blood sample. The High Court agreed with the arguments advanced on appeal that, despite RT’s fugitive status, extradition was a disproportionate interference with his rights to private and family life given the expert psychiatric evidence on the impact that extradition would have on RT’s adult son, who suffered from mental disorders and relied on his father’s support.
   
• PH v Poland [2024] Administrative Court: The warrant for PH’s extradition to Poland to serve a sentence for fraud offences was withdrawn following an application on behalf of PH to amend the grounds of appeal to add a time served argument.