Neil Brooker has been practising as a criminal defence solicitor and Duty Solicitor for 20 years. He works at Bristol office in the Private Client Department and represents clients all over the Southwest.
Neil represents clients at the police station and Magistrates Court, covering all aspects of criminal law from basic to serious assaults, murder, theft, burglary, drug offences and sexual offences. He often takes instructions from clients following their arrest and interview under caution. Clients will instruct him on a private basis, when Legal Aid is not available, and he takes a proactive approach when communicating with the police. He is skilled at drafting written representations to the police and the CPS in order that potential prosecutions against his clients are discontinued before they get to court.
He is an extremely confident and skilled advocate. He takes pride in thoroughly preparing his cases and enjoys making effective legal arguments. He regularly represents his clients at court and has successfully defends them at trial.
In accordance with the Solicitors’ Regulatory Transparency Rules for motoring offences we confirm that Neil Brooker charges Level B hourly rates.
Recent and notable cases
April 2025 – AJ
NFA to historic sexual offences by ex-partner of client following written reps to police
May 2025 – HG
NFA to rape allegation by female following night out against following written reps to police
July 2025 – SA
NFA for sexual assault following VA at PPC
May 2025 – BT
NFA for assault, controlling behaviour following reps to police
August 2025 – AA
Client was a paramedic acquitted after trial of DV assault. Maintained her good character and her employment, which would have been lost if convicted
March 2025 – IB
Acquitted after trial drunk in charge of Motor Vehicle
July 2025 – JP
Acquitted after trial of failing to give driver details
August 2025 – VM
Successfully argued to CPS Dangerous Driving should be reduced to Careless Driving and resulting in her keeping her driving licence
2012 – K v DPP
On appeal, the Court held that the test to be applied to a non-aggravated offence, was whether the dog posed a danger to the public. If so, a destruction order was correct, as section 4A provides for the Court to make a destruction order in the event that the dog was not kept under proper control. The Court stated that the correct approach would have been an immediate destruction order if control measures and new arrangements would not have prevented the dogs being dangerous. In this case, the Court ruled that the matter should be remitted back to the Crown Court for reconsideration in light of the above ruling and the destruction order against the client’s dog was revoked.