Nick is skilled in appellate advocacy having appeared in 30 appeals before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), namely 9 appeals against conviction and 21 appeals against sentence. In one appeal against sentence Aikens LJ held that Nick "presented the arguments very concisely, clearly and persuasively" (R v Sherriff  EWCA Crim 2381). In another Moses LJ held: "There is ample authority for the proposition that counsel for the defence has so skilfully identified both in his written grounds and in his oral submissions and we are indebted to Mr Robinson for them"(R v Kluver  EWCA Crim 3237). In the appeal of R v Bennett  EWCA Crim 1032, Davis J held “Mr Robinson, on behalf of the Appellant, has put the case very well” and in the appeal of R v Woodcock  EWCA Crim 1347, Blair J held “Mr Robinson has argued the case well for the applicant".
R v Edirin-Etareri  EWCA Crim 1536;  2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 641(82), C.A. - Appeal against a sentence (with Leave of the Single Judge) of 12 months’ imprisonment for knowingly having custody of counterfeit banknotes, contrary to section 16(2) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. The Court held that 12 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. This case was reported and is now a leading authority. The commentators of CLW [14/42/10] called the Judgment “depressingly predictable” before stating that “it is surely unforgivable when the liberty of a 21-year-old person who has never been in trouble before is at stake to overlook that in [analogous] cases [of Miller and Forde], the offenders were being dealt with for more serious offences (under ss.14(1) and 15(1) of the 1981 Act) that carried a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, whereas an offence under section 16(2) carries a maximum of a mere two years’ imprisonment”.
R v H  EWCA Crim 168 - Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against sentence. The Crown Court Judge had imposed a sentence of 4 years, reached a finding of "dangerousness" and passed an extended license period of 6 years. The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentence was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. The sentence was quashed and substituted with a term of 2 years and 8 months. As the sentence was less than 4 years the finding of dangerousness and the extended license were also quashed.
R v Mark Lee H EWCA Crim 855 - Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against conviction and sentence. The Appellant had been tried and convicted by a jury in respect of serious sexual offences. He appealed against his conviction on the basis of information that came to light after the trial, which indicated that the Prosecution had failed to disclose relevant evidence. The Prosecution's investigation resulted in an admission by them that there had been a material non-disclosure. The Court of Appeal held that whilst this caused them "considerable concern" the convictions were not unsafe. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 3 years and substituted it with a term of 2 years.
R v Mansell  - Nick represented the Applicant in her appeal against conviction for murder at Winchester Crown Court: BBC News.
R v Melling EWCA Crim 742 - Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against conviction for murder at Liverpool Crown Court having pleaded guilty to the murder of his son: BBC News.
R v Smyth  EWCA Crim 385 - Nick appeared on behalf of the Appellant who successfully appealed his sentence of 18 months. The hearing took place over two days and the Court (Lord Chief Justice, Mackay J and Sweeney J) unanimously allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence of imprisonment and substituted it with a 2-year community order with a mental health treatment requirement.
R v Morris  EWCA Crim 350 - Nick represented the Applicant in his application for leave to appeal against his sentence of 16 months, which had been imposed by a Judge at Bournemouth Crown Court in November 2012. The sentence had been passed for 6 offences of breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order ("SOPO"). Nick argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive in terms of its length; that it should have been less than 12 months imprisonment. The second ground of appeal was that the sentence should have been suspended and a programme requirement attached, namely a Sex Offender's Treatment Programme. Whilst the Court rejected the second ground, they allowed the application for leave in respect of the first. Their Lordships held that the sentence of 16 months was manifestly excessive. This was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 10 months.
R v Knight  EWCA Crim 2486 – Nick defended the Appellant in his appeal against a conviction for rape on the principle ground that the trial Judge erred in refusing to admit the evidence of the complainant’s previous false complaint of rape. The Court dismissed the appeal although it clarified the law in relation to the grounds for admitting such evidence, namely there must be a ‘proper evidential basis’ for concluding that there was a previous false complaint. Fulford J held (at para.50) that Nick’s submissions were “detailed and able”.
R v Windle  EWCA Crim 2379 - Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against sentence. Mr Windle successfully appealed against a sentence passed upon him at Oxford Crown Court. The learned sentencing Judge had wrongly imposed a sentence pursuant to section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The Court of Appeal held that this was unlawful because section 116 was not in force at the time having been repealed in April 2005. Nick was instructed as fresh Counsel following the Crown Court proceedings on the basis of his experience of Appellate advocacy.
R v Sherriff  EWCA Crim 2381 - Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against a sentence of 9 years for an offence of wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In the judgment (at paragraph 8) Lord Justice Aikens held: "Mr Robinson has presented the arguments very concisely, clearly and persuasively".
R v McDonald  EWCA Crim 1757 - Nick represented the Appellant in his appeal against sentence from the Crown Court at Bournemouth. He had been sentenced to 32 months for an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The appeal was successful and Moses, LJ; Field, J and Keith, J reduced the sentence to 18 months.
R v Dillon  EWCA Crim 1454 - Nick represented the Appellant in an appeal against three convictions for sexual and indecent assaults on children. Owing to material misdirections in the Judge's summing up, Nick successfully argued that the convictions were unsafe and accordingly the convictions were quashed.
R v Ahmed  EWCA Crim 775 - Successful appeal against sentence for a sexual offence. The Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of six months' imprisonment with a community order.
R v Lewis  EWCA Crim 1510– The Court reduced a sentence of 16 weeks to 10 weeks in respect of an offence of possessing a bladed article in a public place.
R v Woodcock  EWCA Crim 1347– The Appellant received a sentence of 7 years and 6 months for six offences of dwelling burglary and a single offence of aggravated vehicle taking. The Recorder’s starting point for the burglaries was 9 years. Blair J held (at para.11):“It is submitted by Mr Robinson, who has argued this case well for the applicant, that this is excessive”. The Court agreed and quashed the sentence and substituted it with one of 6 years and 4 months.
R v Moss  EWCA Crim 2896 and  EWCA Crim 252;  Crim.L.R. 560, C.A. - Appeal against conviction revolving around (i) the admissibility of recognition evidence of police officers, (ii) Turnbull, (iii) Code D of PACE 1984, (iv) the jury being invited to look at a still image (from CCTV footage) of a person that is alleged to be the accused, and (without the benefit of any body mapping evidence) contrasting this with the defendant in the dock.
R v Jacobs  EWCA Crim 3074 - A contested confiscation hearing where the Crown sought to confiscate over £200,000 resulted in an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The Court acknowledged (at para.15) the “draconian” nature of the POCA regime.
R v Kluver  EWCA Crim 3237 – Successful appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal reduced a compensation order of £23,000 to £2,880: see Bournemouth Echo. Moses LJ held (at para.4): "There is ample authority for the proposition that counsel for the defence has so skilfully identified both in his written grounds and in his oral submissions and we are indebted to Mr Robinson for them".
R v Bennett  EWCA Crim 1032 – A sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment for an offence of making a threat to kill was reduced to 15 months on the basis that the Crown Court Judge afforded insufficient weight to the cogent mitigation in the case (good character, young family, provocation caused by partner’s infidelity, full admissions, guilty plea and ill-health). Davis J held (at para.10): “Mr Robinson, on behalf of the Appellant, has put the case very well”.