Harry Snook

Crime, Employment, Family, Civil

  • Called: 2006

Practice Profile:

Harry Snook is an experienced criminal and civil practitioner whose principal areas of expertise are crime, personal injury and employment law. He is qualified to accept instructions under the Direct Access scheme.


Harry’s busy criminal practice involves acting for both the defence and prosecution in the Crown Court, Court of Appeal and Magistrates’ Courts. His defence work is largely on a private client basis, and spans the full range of cases from serious violence, fraud and drug supply offences in the Crown Court to motoring cases in the Magistrates’ Court. He is regularly instructed in Youth Court proceedings and is practised in dealing with young or vulnerable defendants and witnesses. Harry’s prosecution work includes regular instruction by the Crown Prosecution Service, and also extends to cases on behalf of local authorities and the Probation Service.


Personal Injury

Harry regularly acts for both Claimants and Defendants in County Court proceedings. In addition to trial advocacy, he is frequently instructed to provide written advice on liability and/or quantum of damages. He has developed a growing practice in the related jurisdiction of criminal injuries compensation, helping victims of criminal offences to have their compensation increased by the Tribunal where it has been underrated by the Authority.


Employment Law

Harry’s employment practice includes representing both claimants and respondents in proceedings before the Employment Tribunal in relation to wrongful or unfair dismissal, discrimination, unlawful deduction from earnings and breach of statutory duties. In addition to oral advocacy before the tribunal Harry is regularly instructed to draft pleadings or provide advice on the conduct of a claim or response.


Other Civil Work

Harry’s practice includes commercial disputes, landlord and tenant cases, financial orders on divorce, claims involving professional negligence and social security tribunal cases.


Prizes and Qualifications

Best Advocate, Bar Vocational Course Providers’ National Mock Trial Competition, 2006

Bar Vocational Course (Outstanding) (Inns of Court School of Law, 2006)

CPE/Postgraduate Diploma in Law (Commendation, with a distinction in Criminal Law) (City University, 2005)


Notable Cases


R v Huda (Blackfriars Crown Court, 2013): Defended in a large social security fraud case. Identified legal issues which resulted in the Crown withdrawing 8 out of the 10 counts against the Defendant.


R v TF (St Albans Youth Court, December 2011): Defendant (client) acquitted of assault, having admittedly caused burn injuries to the victim with a firework. The case turned on a close examination of the law of objective and subjective recklessness and the distinction between reckless and negligent conduct.


R v Stevenson (Cambridge Crown Court, August 2010): Plea in mitigation resulting in a suspended 12-month sentence for a knifepoint robbery, where the sentencing guideline indicated a starting point of four years’ imprisonment


R v DP (Luton Youth Court, October 2009): Defendant (client) acquitted after a successful application to exclude prosecution evidence due to breaches of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Conduct by police.



Petty v Magog Industries Ltd (Huntingdon Employment Tribunal, 2014): Acted for the Respondent in a case involving numerous issues of law, including whether a settlement agreement was rendered unenforceable through failure to comply with statutory conditions, whether a contract was voidable for duress, and whether a duty to mitigate loss applied. The Respondent was successful on every issue and the claim was dismissed.


Malins and Bunker v The Motivaction Group (Bedford Employment Tribunal, 2013): Acted for the Respondent in a case where two employees claimed to have been unfairly dismissed; a case which involved every aspect of the Burchell test. The claims were dismissed.


Forbes v CM Facilities Management (Watford Employment Tribunal, 2013): Acted for the Claimant in an unfair dismissal case where procedural fairness was the main issue. The Claim was upheld.



Warrington v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (First-Tier Tribunal, 2014): Compensation for injury sustained during armed robbery increased from £1,500 to over £9,000 on appeal.


Brown v Hunt (St Albans County Court, 2013): Represented the Defendant in a personal injury claim stemming from an accident at the Defendant’s business premises. The accident was not in dispute, but the Claimant was held to be mostly responsible, and damages were reduced by two-thirds.


Acuity Solutions v S & I Electronics (Watford County Court, 2013): Represented the successful Claimant under the Direct Access scheme in a commercial dispute involving issues of misrepresentation, incorporation of terms and the fitness for purpose of supplied goods.


Emmerson v Emmerson (Luton County Court, 2013): A case concerning financial orders on divorce, where an interesting issue arose concerning the status in Thai law of property subject to without-notice demolition by the Royal Thai Navy in the event of war.