Ed Youlton joined GT Stewart Solicitors & Advocates as a paralegal in 2019 after graduating from University with a LLB (Hons) in Law & Criminology and thereafter the LPC with MSc in Law, Business and Management. Ed’s interest, motivation and commitment to representing clients at the police station and in the criminal justice system resulted in him qualifying as a Police Station Accredited Representative, an Assistant Solicitor with Higher Rights (Criminal), and a Duty Solicitor by November 2021. His progress and dedication has been exemplary and he has set a high standard for others to follow.

He has a dedicated and passionate approach to defending clients and to the principles and practices of publicly funded criminal defence work. Ed is a Higher Court Advocate which enables him to represent clients from the police station through to the Crown Court. He is also an experienced litigator, having represented clients at the Crown Court for a variety of offences including serious sexual offences. He has a particular expertise in defending clients in confiscation proceedings commenced under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).

He is a strong advocate with a sympathetic and understanding approach to clients which compliments his academic qualifications, particularly clients with fitness to plead issues and youths charged with serious criminal offences.

Education and Qualifications

• LLB (Hons) Law & Criminology
• LPC with MSc in Law, Business and Management
• Police Station Accredited Representative
• Higher Rights Advocate (Criminal)
• Law Society Qualification in the examination of vulnerable witnesses

Notable Cases

R v S

Client charged with the rape of a 14 year old girl whose case was listed for trial at Leeds Crown Court.  Client provided crucial instructions in respect of scene photographs and maps which allowed us to instruct an expert to produce documents for the jury to consider during the trial.    S found not guilty.

R v D

D was arrested by local police in order to prevent a breach of the peace.   The issue of the lawfulness of the arrest was a live issue in this case and the disclosure of crucial body worn video footage allowed us to examine the conduct of the police during D’s arrest.  Representations were made to the Crown to consider their position in line with the content of the BWF and they subsequently amended the charge to one of resisting a police officer in the exercise of his duty as opposed to Assaulting an Emergency Worker.  D maintained his instructions that he was not responsible for any unlawful conduct and a not guilty plea was entered.  The prosecution subsequently offered no evidence and a not guilty verdict recorded.

R v S

S was arrested and charged with sexual assault of a 12 year old child.  We instructed an expert to enhance significant video evidence along with photographs, all of which were put to the jury.  S was found not guilty after trial at Leeds Crown Court.

R v S

S was charged with an offence of criminal damage and having an offensive weapon in a public place at Leeds Magistrates’ Court.   Representations were drafted for the Crown to review the case and they subsequently offered no evidence in relation to the offence of possession of an offensive weapon and the charge of criminal damage was referred back to the police for an out-of-court disposal to be issues. S subsequently kept her good character.

R v P

S was arrested and charged with two counts of rape and two counts of controlling and coercive behaviour.  S provided us with his mobile phone which contained thousands of messages between him and the complainant which we subsequently reviewed and created exhibits showing the nature of the relationship between S and the complainant.  As a result of obtaining this crucial evidence, S was found not guilty of the two counts of rape at Leeds Crown Court.    S subsequently received a non-custodial sentence in respect of the offences of controlling and coercive behaviour.

R v H

H was charged with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, assaulting an emergency worker and criminal damage.  Representations were made to the prosecutor regarding the charge of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place which resulted in the prosecutor offering no evidence on the day of the trial.  On the day of the trial, half way through the trial, a submission of no case to answer following the evidence of the police officer and CCTV from custody.  The Magistrates agreed with the submissions and returned a not guilty verdict.

Client & Professional Feedback

• “Excellent”
• “Patient” and “deserving so much credit…..”
• “Without him I wouldn’t have got through my case”
• “He had a real grasp of the case and was meticulously prepared throughout the Crown Court case management process.
• “Responsive, efficient, and a no-nonsense approach. Works incredibly hard, thinks outside the box, and delivers. Always follows up on calls/emails. Comes forwards with constructive ideas, and assimilates a deluge of materials with ease, and extracts what really matters.’