Dominik Morton

Dominik attends courts across the Western Circuit, assisting clients in highly emotional and complicated care proceedings. He is regularly instructed to represent parents and the children’s guardian at initial hearings, EPOs and ICOs through to case management and contested final hearings.

Dominik has been instructed on many occasions to represent privately paying and legally aided clients in all disputes relating to the welfare of the children.

He has also supported and represented a number of vulnerable individuals in proceedings relating to non-molestation orders and occupation orders. Dominik has considerable experience in dealing with clients at ex-parte and return date hearings through to contested final hearings.

Recent cases:

• W v P (2020) – represented the Respondent in a case where the applicant had applied for a Non-Molestation Order. Dominik was able to finalise these proceedings at the return date hearing as a result of the respondent accepting the continuation of the Non-Molestation Order provided that no findings of fact were made against him and that the overall duration of the order was reduced to one year. Dominik was able to effectively persuade the court to make a final order in the above terms.
• T v T (2019) – successfully represented the Applicant Wife at a final hearing for a Non-Molestation Order against the Respondent Husband. This case involved several live witnesses as well as substantial police disclosure, all of which provided detailed proof of the significant historical and ongoing domestic violence and abuse that the applicant had been subjected to at the hands of the Respondent. The court found in favour of the applicant and subsequently made a Non-Molestation Order protecting her from any future abuse.
• Re L (2019) – represented the Second Respondent Father in care proceedings. After lengthy discussions and negotiations, the Local Authority agreed to adjust its care plan from a Foster Care Placement to a twelve-month Supervision Order. The matter was effectively concluded at the IRH.
• Re A (2019) – represented the First Respondent Mother in care proceedings. Dominik successfully argued against the Local Authority at a contested ICO hearing that the test for immediate removal of the relevant child had not been satisfied. As a result, the Local Authority changed its care plan to a Mother and Baby Placement. This matter also involved lengthy and complicated arguments in respect of which Local Authority should be the designated authority in the case.
• C v S (2019) – represented the Respondent Mother in private law proceedings. Dominik was able to successfully negotiate a progressive plan for contact with the Applicant Father. This plan progressed from infrequent indirect contact to regular periods of overnight contact.
• S v B (2019) – represented the Respondent Mother in private law proceedings. Dominik successfully argued that direct contact between the Applicant Father and the relevant child should be suspended due to safeguarding concerns. The court found in favour of the Respondent Mother and ordered that indirect contact should be arranged in lieu of direct contact.

Dominik has been instructed by the CPS to prosecute a large number of trials along with bail and sentencing hearings within the Magistrates’ Court. He has also been instructed to defend on road traffic matters and other criminal offences.

Dominik is a Grade 1 prosecutor and has appeared in various Crown Courts on the Western Circuit. He has been instructed to defend and prosecute in relation to bail applications, sentencing hearings, mentions, and appeal hearings.

Recent cases:

• R v G (2020) – represented the Respondent (CPS) in an appeal against conviction. The Appellant appealed against two counts of assault by beating; one of which was in respect of an eight-week old child. Dominik was successful in highlighting several inconsistencies in the Appellant’s evidence. As a result, the appeal was dismissed by the court and the convictions were upheld.
• R v K (2019) – represented the Defendant during a two-day trial in Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court. The offences in question included charges of stalking, harassment, assault by beating, and petrol bomb threats. Dominik also represented the Defendant at his committal for sentence hearing in the Crown Court.
• R v B (2019) – represented the Respondent (CPS) in an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was appealing against her driving disqualification on the grounds that it would present her with exceptional hardship. During intensive cross-examination of the Appellant, Dominik was able to show that she would not suffer exceptional hardship as a result of such disqualification. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.
• R v W (2019) – instructed by the British Transport Police to prosecute a bomb hoax trial in North Somerset Magistrates’ Court. The Defendant was charged with deliberately communicating information which he knew was false to other persons on the train with the intention to cause these passengers to believe that a bomb would be detonated. After hearing live evidence from various witnesses, the court found that the Defendant was guilty of this offence.
• R v M (2019) – instructed by the CPS to prosecute a Dangerous Dogs Act trial in Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court. The Defendant was charged with being an owner in charge of a dog that was dangerously out of control. This offence was aggravated due to the fact that the dog in question caused a significant facial injury to a five-year-old child. The court found that the Defendant was guilty of this offence. In addition, Dominik was successful in applying for a Contingent Destruction Order in respect of the dog.