Aleister Adamson

Barrister

Aleister Adamson is a criminal defence advocate with a background in public law. He is instructed in a broad range of criminal matters, including fraud, serious violence, drugs, public order, and sexual offences.

Aleister is known for his careful preparation and forensic approach to his cases. He is committed to protecting his clients’ interests from the earliest stages of proceedings and has secured numerous successful outcomes through submissions of no case to answer, abuse of process arguments and challenges to the admissibility of evidence. His practice includes cases where careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence and strategic legal argument are central to the defence.

He has particular experience representing young and vulnerable defendants, including those that are neurodivergent or have complex personal circumstances. He is adept at identifying procedural failings in police investigations and ensuring that the rights of defendants are properly protected throughout the criminal process.

Background

Before coming to the Bar, Aleister worked in public law, policy and advisory roles focused on holding public authorities to account. As a senior legal adviser at Release, he managed complex caseloads involving housing, debt management and social security appeals, frequently securing substantial backdated awards following unfair decision-making. Alongside his casework, he led the organisation’s policy responses to proposed legislative and policing reforms, including the provision of evidence to Parliamentary committees.

Aleister also worked as a legal adviser at the Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network, supporting migrants and refugees with housing, welfare benefits and subsistence claims, often in the context of multiple and overlapping vulnerabilities.

Prior to this, Aleister worked in the civil department at Hickman & Rose, where he assisted on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and on actions against the police and other public bodies, gaining experience in scrutinising systemic failures and public authority decision-making.

Education

Bar Professional Training Course, BPP Holborn (2021)
LLM in Human Rights Law, University of Nottingham (2017)
LLB (Hons) Law with New Zealand Law, University of Nottingham (2014)

Awards

Inner Temple Exhibition Scholarship
Inner Temple Duke of Edinburgh Award

Memberships

The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple

R v A: Proceedings effectively discontinued following an abuse of process challenge where the prosecution had previously given an unequivocal undertaking that the charge would not be pursued to trial. Following the defence application, the CPS allowed the matter to lie on the file.
R v R: Three-day Crown Court trial for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs. Following cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, Aleister successfully submitted that the evidence was insufficient to go before the jury. The submission of no case to answer was upheld and the defendant was acquitted.
R v D: Youth trial for section 18 GBH before a lay bench. Aleister secured an acquittal following a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case. The defendant had previously offered a plea to the lesser offence of unlawful wounding and retained full credit for that plea.
R v F: Defendant acquitted of stalking involving allegations of repeated contact with the complainant and criminal damage to her workplace. Through cross-examination the prosecution case was significantly undermined, and by the conclusion of her evidence the complainant no longer sought a restraining order.
R v M: Youth charged with possession of an offensive weapon in private. The defence instructed expert evidence establishing that the item did not meet the statutory definition. Following service of the report and an application under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude any suggestion to the contrary, the prosecution offered no evidence.
R v L, L and M: Acting for D1 in a large-scale altercation between members of the public and licensed security staff. Aleister secured his client’s acquittal at half-time on the basis that the identification evidence was too weak to safely support a conviction.
R v K: Youth trial for failing to provide a specimen of breath. Multiple failures to comply with PACE Code C were identified in the detention and questioning of a vulnerable suspect with ADHD and autism. The court upheld a submission of no case to answer and the defendant was acquitted.
R v B: Represented a defendant who pleaded guilty to section 20 GBH and further offences including assault on an emergency worker and having a dog dangerously out of control, while subject to a suspended sentence. Following detailed mitigation addressing the client’s personal circumstances and risk factors, the court imposed a suspended sentence.
R v N: Represented a defendant charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving who had previously been deemed unfit to stand trial. Following a later finding of fitness and a guilty plea, Aleister’s mitigation resulted in the court imposing a conditional discharge.