About Andrew Scott
Andrew was called to the Bar in 2002, prior to this he worked as a qualified nurse and has also worked as a Regional Official for the National Association of School Masters & Union of Women Teachers.
In 2007 and 2012 Andrew was appointed by the Attorney General as Junior Counsel to the Crown (Regional Panel) and undertakes civil work for HMRC, DWP, MOJ, DVLA in areas as diverse as Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Employment Law, Judicial Review, Personal Injury Claims.
Andrew presents lectures and training days on Employment Law for Schools and Colleges. Headteachers grade his presentations as “Outstanding”.
Andrew speaks German to level B1 under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
He joined Parklane Plowden in 2008 from 37 Park Square (Leeds) and undertook Pupillage at Doughty Street Chambers under Robin Oppenheim QC and Jill Evans.
|Education:||LLB (Hons), 1st Class, Teesside Univeristy where he was also awarded the Sweet & Maxwell, HSBC and Jacksons prizes at University; Gray's Inn - awarded a Master Bedingfield Scholarship (2001), The Roy Wilson Award (2003) and The Stuart Cunningham Macaskie Award (2003).|
|Professional Associations:||Attorney General's Junior Counsel to the Crown (Regional Panel)|
Specialist Practice Areas
HOUSE OF LORDS
R (On application of SACKER) v HM Coroner for the County of West Yorkshire (2004)  UKHL 11
In the context of an inquest into a prisoner's death, the word "how", as given in the Coroners Act 1988 s.11(5)(b)(ii) and Coroners Rules 1984 r.36(1)(b), was not simply to be interpreted as meaning "by what means" but rather "by what means and in what circumstances."
H (A Child) (2005)  ECWA Civ 1059
Case involving the re-evalution of evidence concerning whether the child's father was within a pool of possible peretrators of abuse of his daughter and the subsequent disclosure of a collusive relationship between a child protection teacher and the child's mother.
Re U (A Child) (2005), sub nom Uddin (Layla)(A Child)  EWCA Civ 52
Successfully applied to re-open an appeal on the grounds of fresh evidence and demonstrated a powerful probability that an erroneous result was arrived at in the earlier proceedings.
R v Davies (2004)  EWHC2422 (QB)
Trial Counsel had not acted contrary to reason and good sense in failing to object to the admissibility of certain visual and voice recognition evidence. The trial judge's summing up in respect of the visual recognition evidence could not be faulted.
False Move: Metal-on-metal Hip Replacements - Claims Magazine, June 2012
Andrew Scott gives a specialist view on Jenni Marsh's feature article