Nicola Hoskins
Call: 2019 (Solicitor 2004)
Nicola Hoskins
North Eastern Circuit
Vulnerable Witness Trained
Gray’s Inn
CPS Grade 3
Nottingham Law School – LL.B (Hons) 2.1
Guildhall University, London – Legal Practice Course, commendation
Admitted as a solicitor February 2004
Contact
T: 0113 246 2600
Nicola is a member of the criminal team and prosecutes and defends in the Crown Court in all areas of crime.
Nicola is also a member of the regulatory team and specialised in regulatory law when she was a solicitor admitted in 2004.
Nicola is a Grade 3 prosecutor.
Reputation
GDPR and Criminal Litigation
Sentencing Guidelines Update
Previously Nicola was a freelance trainer and delivered seminars for CLT and GC Legal on topics such as youth justice and licensing.
Expertise
Crime
Grade 3 Crown Prosecutor. Regularly prosecutes and defends in the Crown Court in matters involving serious violence, weapons, drugs, road traffic, robbery, burglary, handling stolen goods, fraud, perverting the course of justice, sexual allegations and domestic violence including controlling/coercive behaviour.
Regulatory
Nicola prosecutes on behalf of local authorities in matters such as animal welfare and food labelling regulations.
Nicola qualified as a solicitor in 2004, acting as a regulatory prosecutor in matters including planning, licensing, Trading Standards, Environmental Health and food safety. She went on to advise banks and others on regulatory and compliance issues. She is described as having a reassuring presence together with a personable and practical approach.
Notable Cases
City Council v H (2026) - successful prosecution of a landlord for multiple breaches of the Homes in Multiple Occupation Regulations in respect of three separate properties.
R v H (2024): Bradford Crown Court. Nicola Hoskins and Fen Greatley-Hirsch secured suspended sentences for father and son clients who were charged with intent to pervert the course of justice. ttps://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24427369.lying-father-sons-story-fell-apart-police-dug-deeper/
R v S and S (2024): Bradford Crown Court. Successful prosecution of two siblings who produced a fraudulent codicil to their father’s will, which had the effect of excluding two other siblings from a share in the estate. Both received custodial sentences.
R v K (2024): York Crown Court. Prosecution of a fraudster who had created a scam claiming refunds from LNER whilst selling on the ‘refunded’ ticket for profit. In the course of the proceedings he produced a document purporting to be from a doctor at the LGI with the aim of reducing his sentence, which was investigated and charged as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/24235323.paul-king-jailed-defrauding-lner-rail-tickets/
R v F (2024): Newcastle Crown Court. Led in complex rape trial by Peter Makepeace KC, in which the complainant had passed away prior to the trial. The defence put up many technical obstacles to prevent the case proceeding before a jury, including objecting to hearsay evidence and arguing abuse of process, but these were defeated by detailed and carefully researched submissions on nuanced legal points.
R v M (2024): Bradford Crown Court. Represented a client facing a third conviction for supplying Class A drugs, and hence the minimum term of seven years’ custody. The judge was persuaded to depart from the guidelines and imposed a term of four years instead.
R v K (2023): Bradford Crown Court. Represented one of two defendants prosecuted for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply. Client acquitted whilst the other defendant received an immediate custodial sentence.
R v S (2023): Bradford Crown Court. Successful prosecution of breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order where the defence was one of reasonable excuse following a technical issue with the wording of the original order. Jury convicted and an immediate sentence of custody was imposed.
R v H (2023): Client facing a custodial term of around five years for child sexual offences; the court was persuaded to depart from the sentencing guidelines and imposed a community order instead.
R v G (2023): Secured an acquittal for a taxi driver accused of sexually assaulting a young female passenger.
EA v A (2023): Secured a suspended sentence for sustained breaches of environmental regulations, together with a much reduced contribution to the prosecution’s costs.
R v G and others (2023): Successful application to dismiss in respect of client charged with affray at a football match.
R v S (2023): Obtained a suspended sentence in a case of discharging a firearm in public.
R v H and N (2022): Successful prosecution of two individuals for inflicting grievous bodily harm where the issue was identification.
R v S (2022): Acquittal of client on a rape charge within 30 minutes of jury retiring.
R v S (2022): Acquittal of client on a charge of taking a car without consent following a successful exclusion application under s78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
R v L (2022): Prosecution for obstruction of bailiff in the course of his duty and common assault; also assault of two police officers who came to assist the bailiff. Defendant acquitted of all charges when it was proved that the bailiff did not comply with his codes of practice, and accordingly the police officers were not acting in accordance with PACE.
R v F (2022): Prosecution for incurring 6 speeding offences in 10 days, potentially facing a total of 18 points. Court was successfully persuaded that the sentencing guidelines could be set aside and a short discretionary disqualification was imposed instead of points, which meant the client avoided ‘totting up’ and any points at all.
Clerks
