Stuart Denty


Contact tel

07739 499 573


Stuart Denty joined Tuckers in 2005 and has since conducted matters of varying degrees of seriousness and complexity within the police station, prisoner rights, Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court departments; and is now a senior member the team at our branch office in Birmingham.

He is accredited by the Law Society to deliver advice, assistance and representation (both own client and duty solicitor cases) to those facing prosecution; and has a reputation for robustly defending his clients.

Stuart is routinely instructed by privately and publicly funded clients in relation to serious, complex and sometimes sensitive matters; and has acted for high profile commercial clients in both regulatory and criminal proceedings.

Stuart has particular knowledge and understanding of matters that involve motor vehicles, water vessels, plant and machinery; and aircraft (both fixed wing and rotor).

He is considered commercially astute given his background in industry and swiftly instils confidence in those who instruct him, who include premiership footballers, company directors, high-net-worth individuals; and other professionals.

Stuart also has a particular interest in and experience of representing individuals classified as vulnerable by virtue of age, learning disability or mental ill-health, drawing upon his experience as a Chair of Governors at a Special Educational Needs school.

Stuart has long held the view that early instruction can significantly assist with matters dealt with by investigatory and enforcement agencies, including the Gangmasters Licencing Authority, HM Revenue and Customs, Serious Organised Crime Agency (now the National Crime Agency and their individual units), Counter Terrorism Unit(s), Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP); and Economic Crime Unit(s) and can make the difference between being prosecuted or not.

Should you wish to discuss your specific needs in confidence, then please do make contact with Stuart directly or ask to speak with any member of his team.



  • R –v- N & Ors: Terrorism case – client prosecuted under s.5 Terrorism Act 2006

  • Re: RO & Others – Multi-handed, multi-jurisdictional money laundering/banking fraud to value of £950 million.

  • R v I: Murder of cohabitee – wholly circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Crown.
  • R v G & Others: High profile violent disorder outside a mosque.
  • R v S: Sexual assault – D successfully advances non-insane automatism ‘sleepwalking’ defence.
  • R v K: D (15yrs presenting with ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome) discharged firearm multiple times into the face of schoolteacher – issues as to D’s fitness to stand trial.
  • R v R: Serious sexual assault by D on friend’s 14-year-old daughter in next room.
  • R v V: Historic sexual abuse of 4 year old and 7 year old by D.  False Memory Syndrome raised by the Defence.
  • M and HM Prison Service: Access to legal representatives prevented by security services with ‘deniable’ attendances by relevant officers at high security establishment in relation to allegation of arms dealing/conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism whilst in custody.
  • Re: E: Murder of young infant where client had significant learning differences and where pathologist’s report remained inconclusive as to actual cause of death; and where inconsistencies in chronology of injuries sustained by deceased came to light.
  • L and HM Prison Service: Denied access to right and proper food stuffs in accordance with prisoner’s religion.
  • R v T: D (15 yrs jointly charged on Indictment with robbery) alleged to have acquiesced to the offence, being in company with large group of youths, including the principal offender.
  • R v V: Ex-serviceman suffering with PTSD charged with Grievous Bodily Harm.  Inculpatory conduct manifesting itself as a result of his untreated condition.
  • S and HM Prison Service: Prisoner approved for security re-categorisation and transfer to another establishment, yet prevented from doing so by undue delay on behalf of HM Prison Service, through deficiencies in allocation procedures and flaws in decision-making process – client seeking judicial review.
  • R v G: High profile case where D jointly charged with Possession of Firearm with Intent to Endanger Life and Affray.  Expert evidence of firearms discharge residue, facial mapping and mobile phone analysis formed essential elements to the defence; issues arose as to the Crown’s very late disclosure; multiple ‘cut-throat’ defences.
  • R v B & Others: VAT carousel fraud to value of £53 million.
  • R v O: High profile murder.  Issues raised as to reliability of ‘deathbed’ hearsay by the deceased and expert evidence as to useful levels of human consciousness.
  • R v B (L): D initially arrested on suspicion of Complicity in Attempted Suicide, but later charged with Attempted Murder.  Issues arising out of D’s fitness for detention and interview and significant breaches of PACE Code C; Annex G.  Facets of matter (pre-charge) in relation to staged disclosure (withholding forensic evidence).