Thom Thom

Barrister: Thom Dyke


CPS Grade 3 Panel Advocate, CPS Rape List accredited, Level 2 Serious Crime Group Panel, Adjudicator for the Legal Aid Agency, International Criminal Court’s List of Counsel, Inner Temple Advocacy Trainer

Exhibition Scholarship and Paul Methven Prize, Inner Temple; LLM in Professional Legal Practice; BVC (Very Competent), BPP Law School; Graduate Diploma in Law (Distinction), College of Law; MSc Political Theory, London School of Economics (Merit); BA Hons History & Philosophy (First Class Hons.) University of Sheffield.


Thom is a barrister specialising in criminal, human rights and public law. He is described by his instructing solicitors as "an exceptionally talented young barrister" and "an excellent advocate whose personal approach to our clients is second to none".

He has expertise in a number of areas, including:

  • Appeals
  • Civil Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Inquests
  • Public & Human Rights Law

Thom brings a robust style of advocacy to representing clients and has obtained successful outcomes both in court and in negotiated settlement at mediation.

He has extensive experience of drafting pleadings in both civil and criminal cases and is happy to turn around work for clients in cases where time is of the essence.

Thom prides himself on developing and maintaining exceptional standards of oral and written advocacy, and continues to build a strong practice in serious crime, public law, inquests and civil and regulatory work.

Thom also accepts instructions from members of the public on a direct access basis.

Professional Memberships

Privacy Notice

Click here to download.


Thom has a busy criminal practice, both prosecuting and defending serious crime. Thom is a CPS Grade 3 Panel Advocate, and was recently seconded to work with the CPS Complex Casework Unit in the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) Unit, advising on charging decisions.

He has additional experience prosecuting on behalf of Royal Mail, the London Probation Trust, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC).

He is regularly instructed on complex and multi-handed cases, as well as those involving issues of human rights and public law.

Thom has experience of defending in road traffic prosecutions, whether instructed directly or through insurers, in particular where death or serious injury has resulted.

Notable Cases

  • R v Myftaraj (2020): Successfully obtained convictions at the trial of a drug dealer caught with 15 kilograms of cannabis and two loaded firearms, resulting in a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.
  • R v UA (2018) Harrow Crown Court: Successful prosecution of the historic sexual abuse of a three-year-old girl.
  • R v SF (2017) Central Criminal Court: Prosecution for possession of a sawn-off shotgun and ammunition, resulting in conviction and significant custodial sentence.
  • R v DR (2017) Croydon Crown Court: Successful prosecution in case of historic child sexual and physical abuse by a stepfather against his stepdaughter.
  • R v MA & Others (2017) Kingston Crown Court: Instructed by the CPS Specialist Fraud Division and HMRC to prosecute in a £250,000 six-handed VAT fraud. All six defendants were convicted and received significant sentences.
  • R v MB (2017) Wood Green Crown Court: Successful prosecution of a £500,000 fraud committed by a will writer against vulnerable elderly victims.
  • R v AD & Others (Southwark Crown Court): Prosecuted a three-handed conspiracy to supply multi-kilos of high purity cocaine. The defendants received 18 years’ imprisonment.
  • R v W & W (2016) Guildford Crown Court: Instructed for the second defendant in a trial of historic sexual abuse allegations. The case involved a complex issue concerning admissibility of confession evidence.
  • R v S (2016) Snaresbrook Crown Court: Secured not guilty verdicts in the case of a woman accused of stabbing her cousin's partner. The jury accepted she was acting in self-defence, after she accused him of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. The case involved delicate but detailed examination of a nine-year-old witness.
  • R v P & P (2015) St Albans Crown Court: Successfully prosecuted two dishonest estate agents for stealing from their tenants and defrauding landlords through presenting forged reference documents.
  • R v K & C (2014) Inner London Crown Court: Prosecuted two defendants for section 18 wounding and robbery. Both defendants pleaded not guilty but changed their pleas after the close of the prosecution case. Sentenced to 9 and 4 years imprisonment respectively.
  • R v LE (2013) Central Criminal Court: Successfully prosecuted a drug dealer for possession with intent to supply cocaine at 95% purity.
  • R v W (2013) Snaresbrook Crown Court: Prosecuted in a case of possession of a sawn-off shotgun by a gang member, as part of Operation Bubonic and Operation Trident.
  • R v PS & Others (2013) Croydon Crown Court: ,Represented the first defendant on the indictment, who was acquitted of a five-handed affray following a three-week trial, after running a cutthroat defence against her co-defendants, who were convicted.
  • R v CB & Others (2012) Guildford Crown Court: Instructed on a six-handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs case, brought as part of Operation Chalice. Advised in respect of complex PII issues surrounding the disclosure and admissibility of evidence from undercover test purchase officers.
  • R v H (2012) Inner London Crown Court: Represented one of the 2011 London rioters at trial.


Thom is frequently instructed to advise and appear in the Court of Appeal and High Court on appeals from the lower courts. He has experience of appeals against conviction, sentence and matters arising out of confiscation proceedings.

He has particular expertise in advising on the complex issues which often arise with the imposition of life sentences and sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection ("IPP"). Thom also has experience of responding in cases where the Attorney General refers a sentence to the Court of Appeal as 'unduly lenient', under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Notable Cases

  • R v Manders [2018] 1 Cr App R (S) 11: Appeal against a mandatory minimum five year sentence, imposed under firearms legislation for possession of a stun gun disguised as an iPhone. The court noted Thom's "clear and focused submissions".
  • R v Phillips [2017] EWCA Crim 624: Successful appeal against a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection ("IPP"), brought eight years after the sentence was imposed.
  • R v Roberts & Others [2016] 1 WLR 3249; [2016] 2 Cr App R (S) 14: Represented one of the appellants in a conjoined appeal before the Lord Chief Justice and a specially convened Court of Appeal to provide guidance as to the question of appeals brought out of time. Commentary on the case can be found in Criminal Law Review at Crim. L.R. 2016, 7, 510-512.
  • R v Shaheen [2016] EWCA Crim 2190: Appeal against sentence in a wounding where a security guard had been attacked with a knife. Foskett J noted, "Mr Thom Dyke, who appeared before the judge and before us [and] for whose helpful submissions we express our gratitude" (§20).
  • R v D [2015] 1 Cr App R (S) 23: Appeared for the appellant who had received an extended sentence of 19 years' imprisonment for child sex offences. The appeal raised an important issue of whether a sentencing judge had inherent jurisdiction to vary a sentence outside of the time limit imposed under section 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Commentary on the case can be found in Criminal Law Review at Crim. L.R. 2015, 3, 227-228 and it is cited in Archbold (2016) at 5–1293.
  • R v Dodd [2014] EWCA Crim 2296: Appeal against conviction for a section 18 GBH. The appeal was brought on the basis that trial counsel had failed to advise properly on a plea to an alternative count, and that as a result the appellant had been denied the opportunity to advance self-defence at trial.
  • Attorney General's Reference No. 80 of 2013 [2014] EWCA Crim 342: Appeared for the respondent in an appeal brought by the Attorney General in the case of an offender convicted of multiple counts of extremely serious sexual assaults against his stepdaughter.
  • R v Lewis [2014] 1 WLR 2027; [2014] 1 Cr App R 25: Appeal against conviction based on a point of jurisdiction under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Court of Appeal noted in their judgment, "Mr Dyke has argued that dry issue of law on paper and orally with fortitude and skill". The case is cited in Archbold (2016) at 1-134.
  • R v Barrett [2013] EWCA Crim 2583: Appeal against sentence in the case of a burglar who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl. The Court of Appeal praised Thom's "detailed written submissions, supported in commendably clear and focused submissions."
  • R v Power [2012] EWCA Crim 2374: Successful appeal against sentence in a £30,000 benefit fraud case. Custodial sentence overturned and replaced with a suspended sentence with 40 hours unpaid work.
  • R v Wroblewski [2011] EWCA Crim 2093: Successful appeal against sentence in case involving the evasion of £200,000 of excise duty.

Public Law

Thom has a busy public law practice, especially in areas where there is an overlap with criminal proceedings, for example in cases concerning prison law, search warrants, costs law, and the Victim's Right of Review. Thom has experience of running both discrimination and human rights claims. He is regularly instructed in judicial review cases concerning difficult questions of false imprisonment, breaches of Article 5 and Parole Board appeals. Thom also has extensive experience of cases brought under the Licensing Act 2003.

Notable Cases

  • R (on the application of Ashley) v Parole Board [2017] EWHC 3413 (Admin): Judicial review of the Parole Board's decision to refuse to direct the re-release of a prisoner on licence. The court noted Thom's submissions were made "concisely, forcefully, and even attractively" (at §12).
  • R (on the application of Usman) v Reading Magistrates' Court [2017] EWHC 2153 (Admin): Judicial review of a decision by the magistrates' court to refuse an adjournment, following late service of papers on the defence.
  • R (on the application of Haigh) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2017] EWHC 232 (Admin); [2017] 1 Costs LR 175: Led by Alun Jones QC in a judicial review of a decision of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court to award costs of £230,446 against Mr Haigh, following the withdrawal of his private prosecution. Mr Haigh had brought the prosecution against his former employers for human trafficking and conspiracy to defraud. Mr Haigh was imprisoned in Dubai following allegations of a $5m fraud. The case received widespread media interest and was covered by the BBC, The Guardian and The Daily Mail.
  • R (on the application of Ram) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] EWHC 1426 (Admin): Judicial review of a CPS decision to offer no evidence in a private prosecution. The judgment gives further guidance on the Victim's Right of Review scheme. The court noted Thom's "careful and elegant submissions" (at §32).
  • R (on the application of Stubbs) v Parole Board [2016] EWHC 28 (Admin): Judicial review of a refusal to transfer the claimant prisoner to open conditions, despite expert evidence recommending such a move.
  • R (on the application of Copp & Others) v Basildon Crown Court [2016] EWHC 2416 (Admin): Led by Alun Jones QC in a judicial review of a series of search warrants. The claim was brought on the basis that the warrants lacked specificity, were drafted too widely, and resulted in excessive search and seizure of property.
  • R (on the application of MF) v Governor of HMP X (2015) Administrative Court: Judicial review of the refusal to re-categorise the claimant prisoner following a quashed adjudication, coupled with the failure of the prison service to provide him with proper healthcare, contrary to Article 3.
  • R v F & Others (2014) City of Westminster Magistrates' Court: Instructed for the fourth defendant in a case relating to the right to protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice. F was the only defendant to be acquitted of offences under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, following a successful submission of no case to answer.
  • R (on the application of IM) v Governor of HMP X & Others (2014) Administrative Court: Judicial review of a prison's failure to release the claimant prisoner following his successful Parole Board hearing. The claim involved a complex mix of public law (breach of Article 5) and private law (false imprisonment and negligence) issues.
  • R (on the application of F) v London Borough of Bromley [2012] EWHC 4456 (Admin): Judicial review proceedings against a decision to permanently exclude, involving a novel point of law relating to transfer of property under the Academies Act 2010.

Civil Law & Inquests

Having originally trained as a civil barrister, Thom accepts instructions in many areas of civil and regulatory law. He is particularly interested in civil cases where issues arise of concurrent criminal liability. He has experience of the full spectrum of civil law practice, including property, landlord and tenant, personal injury and contractual claims, as well as licensing matters.

Thom is regularly instructed in civil claims against the police, including cases of unlawful searches and arrests.

He has recently been instructed in a number of cases relating to online privacy and harassment and has been able to bring his civil and criminal experience to bear on advising clients on how to secure the best possible outcome in a fast-changing legal landscape.

As an experienced jury advocate with a wealth of knowledge relating to prison and police law, Thom is well placed to appear at inquests on behalf of interested parties. Inquests often raise legal questions which sit at the intersection of civil and criminal law, and with his mixed background, Thom is able to bring a unique perspective to bear.

With his public law experience, Thom is able to advise fully as to any potential judicial review proceedings which can arise from an inquest. He has experience of cases involving detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

He is also prepared to accept appropriate cases on a pro-bono basis and supports the work of the Inquest Lawyers' Group.

Notable Cases

  • GFH Capital Ltd v Keystone Law and others [2016] EWHC 3810 (Comm): Instructed by a firm of solicitors to resist various applications concerning service and disclosure. The application was successfully resisted and Thom secured costs for the respondent firm.
  • Reflect Geophysical v Seaport International Shipping Co LLC (2016): Thom appeared as junior counsel in an international shipping arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules. He was instructed on behalf of the respondent, a UAE-based shipping agent, in a contractual dispute which concerned evasion of the international sanctions against Iran by the Singapore-based claimant.
  • RN (2015) Southwark Coroner's Court: Thom appeared on behalf of RN's mother in an Article 2 inquest concerning his death whilst in mental health detention. RN was a long-term psychiatric patient who presented with complex physical and mental health issues. The inquest involved detailed examination of both questions of causation of death, and the systems put in place by the NHS Trust to compel treatment of RN under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • TUH v Charity Commission (2015): Thom was instructed on a direct access basis by the trustees of a charity which was under investigation by the Charity Commission, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011. Thom represented the trustees at the various interviews conducted during the inquiry, and provided written advice on matters of privilege.
  • BH v FK and others [2014] EWHC 4925 (QB): Thom represented the applicant in a multi-handed case concerning the online harassment of a convicted sex offender by individuals within the jurisdiction and abroad. He drafted pleadings and appeared at an application for an interim injunction, which raised questions of the conflict between privacy and freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR and section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  • London Borough of Camden v RP Ltd (2013) Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court: Thom represented the defendant company in a contested civil claim for business rates, brought by way of a summons in the magistrates' court. The claimant local authority conceded their claim and were ordered to pay a significant sum towards the costs of the defendant, contrary to the rule in Perinpanathan.

Contact us

For more information please call our clerks on
020 7832 0500 or Email »

Follow us

twitter   linkedin   rss

Subscribe to our updates

Subscribe email