“He shows excellent attention to detail and focus on the case at hand.” – The Legal 500 (2016)
‘A persuasive advocate with a keen eye for detail’ – The Legal 500 (2014)
In the criminal courts, Tom specialises in motor crime and regulatory work.
Over the years, he has developed an excellent reputation with many of the leading insurers, having defended cases for:
- Direct Line Group
- NFU Mutual
- Mitsui Sumitomo
He has been invited to speak at several large training events at which representatives of many of these insurers have attended – usually technical claims managers, claims directors and claims controllers as well as the Directors of Safety, Health, Environment and Quality of large corporates.
In relation to road traffic offences, he frequently defends in fatal and near-fatal cases, but has a detailed and wide knowledge of all aspects of road traffic legislation and is happy to accept instructions in all such cases.
He enjoys a reputation as a skilled trial advocate but equally recognises the importance of providing a powerful mitigation in those cases where a defendant’s principal concern is the loss of their licence.
Notable recent cases include:
R v Page (2018) – allegation of causing serious injury by dangerous driving at Woolwich Crown Court. Defence of automatism. Not Guilty verdict in a case where the reserve was in excess £7 million.
R v Andrews (2017) – allegation of manslaughter in circumstances where the defendant had driven deliberately into a collision with an oncoming vehicle at Derby Crown Court.
R v Whitfield (2017) – Allegation of causing death by careless driving at Shrewsbury Crown Court. Defence that vehicle spontaneously sped up as a result of engine run-away (mechanical defect). Acquitted.
R v Georgiev (2017) – Death by careless driving. Turning across path of motorcycle. Non-custodial disposal at Lincoln Crown Court.
R v Millington (2017) – Allegation of careless driving that caused life changing injury to motorcyclist. Acquittal following 3 day trial at Brighton MC.
R v Williams (2017) – Trial at Chester Crown Court in relation to allegations of causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving.
R v Tomlinson (2017) – Nottingham Crown Court. Acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving. Overtaking manoeuvre resulting in oncoming vehicle losing control and colliding with a LGV.
R v Marlow (2016) – Death by careless driving at Liverpool Crown Court. Collision with pedestrian as she crossed the road behind a bus. Not Guilty verdict.
R v Naylor (2016) – Peterborough Crown Court. Acquitted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. LGV driver in collision with stationary vehicle ahead on A1(M).
R v Burgess (2016) – Allegation of careless driving . Collision with pedestrian at low speed in poor visibility. Very serious injuries that later resulted in death. Acquitted.
R v Amos (2016) – Allegation of causing death by careless driving. Low speed impact with pedestrian at Heathrow. Acquittal following re-trial, Isleworth Crown Court.
R v Thompson (2016) – Lincoln Crown Court. Non-custodial disposal for young man who drove into a collision with a vehicle in the opposing carriageway.
R v Bates (2016) – Nottingham Crown Court. Allegation of causing death by dangerous driving. Acquitted, but convicted of lesser offence of causing death by careless driving. Non-custodial disposal.
R v Benson (2016) – Acquitted of dangerous driving at York Crown Court.
R v Howe (2015) – Non-custodial sentence following guilty plea to causing death by careless driving (collision with motorcycle in opposing carriageway). Lincoln Crown Court.
R v Hutchison (2015) medical defence to allegation of careless driving (loss of consciousness due to medication). Acquitted.
R v Hill (2015) – Two counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving; crossing into opposing carriageway causing collision. Lincoln Crown Court.
R v Dakin (2015) – Careless driving allegation where catastrophic injury caused to injured party. LGV driver alleged to have caused multiple vehicle collision by drifting into opposing carriageway. Acquitted.
Tom Gent may accept Public Access work, where he can be instructed directly by a member of the public rather than a solicitor.
Contact Tom’s clerk