Ruth Williams Photo


“Ruth was very competent, friendly, informative and made every step of the process very clear. I can't speak highly enough of her or thank her enough for what she has done for me.”
“Ruth supported me very well throughout and really understood my points. She was very clear with explaining everything and represented me well in court, resulting in a positive outcome. Thank you, Ruth.”

Ruth Williams

Solicitor & Team Leader

High Wycombe

01494 418 628

Areas of law:

Crime and Investigation, Magistrates’ Court, Youth Court, Police Station, Motoring Solicitors

Ruth is a Solicitor in the Magistrates Courts Team and Team Leader at our High Wycombe office.  Before she joined Reeds, having attained her law degree, Ruth gained valuable practical experience in the field of criminal law working as a paralegal at OWN solicitors, before ultimately completing her qualifications to become a solicitor.

Now, as a duty solicitor at Reeds, Ruth advises and defends clients facing all manner of criminal offences, both at the police station and at the Magistrates Court.  As a passionate advocate, Ruth specialises in the conduct of trials for a wide range of offences, and she is acutely skilled at acting for and advising clients detained at the police station.

An abundance of experience dealing particularly with vulnerable clients and those who suffer from mental health issues, ensures that each client’s unique needs are considered and met by Ruth.  She is personable and approachable, with an excellent attitude to the provision of quality client care.  Part of the high standard of service she delivers to clients comes not just from her natural organisational ability and the thorough preparation she undertakes of every hearing she deals with, but also her ability to excel under the pressure of negotiating and arguing unexpected and sometimes complex legal arguments that can often arise at Court.

In accordance with the Solicitors’ Regulatory Transparency Rules for motoring offences we confirm that Ruth Williams charges Level B hourly rates.

Notable Cases

R v N [2022] - The client faced charges of failure to provide a sample after refusing to allow police to take a sample of her blood at the police station due to a phobia around needles which allowed her only to provide a blood sample in familiar surroundings. At Trial it was argued that the client had a reasonable excuse for her actions and a psychiatrist was engaged to give evidence about the nature of the client’s anxiety about needles. On considering the arguments made the Court found the client not guilty, agreeing that her phobia amounted to a reasonable excuse.

R v G [2021] - The client had been charged with an offence of drug driving, however he was a vulnerable adult who at the time of the incident was being “cuckooed” and forced to drive a number of males around in his vehicle. A defence of duress was therefore raised and after extensive disclosure requests it became apparent that police were aware of the “cuckooing” and were actively involved in trying to safeguard the client at the time of the alleged offence. Repeated and detailed representations were made to the prosecution, that the police information clearly outlined and evidenced the client’s account, and that given the circumstances and the particular vulnerabilities of the client, it was not in the public interest to continue with a prosecution in this case. The prosecution confirmed the day before the Trial that they would be offering no evidence in relation to the charge of drug driving.

R v N [October 2020]
On representing a youth for offences relating to the supply of drugs, submissions were made to the National Crime Team that they consider the client’s case on the basis that he had been a victim of child exploitation and/or child trafficking by County Lines Drug Dealers. This referral was successful and resulted in the CPS discontinuing the drugs charges against the client.

R v H [August 2020]
Successfully argued that the client’s behaviour in messaging his ex-partner did not amount to harassment. Following extensive legal research and the provision of a number of stated cases at Trial, it was argued that that although the client had made the contact alleged, that this conduct did not amount to harassment in the circumstances. The Court found that the client’s actions had been reasonable and that they found the victim’s complaint had been unreasonable. This allowed the client to make a successful case in the Family Court, and secure regular contact with his child.

R v H [February 2020]
Secured client’s acquittal and his subsequent release from prison, where the client was accused of a violent assault against his ex-partner. An application to adduce the client’s previous convictions at trial was successfully argued against, and as a result the client’s bad character was not referred to as part of his Trial. On cross examining the victim at Trial she conceded that she had lied in her statement and that the client had not assaulted her in the manner alleged. The Court therefore acquitted the client at Trial.

R v W [2020] – represented defendant charged with two burglaries and persuaded the Court in respect of both charges that the evidence of the Crown was not sufficient to convict. Following a half time submission of no case to answer the Court were persuaded that in respect of one of the charges they should stop the case. In respect of the second charge the Court found after considering closing arguments, that the evidence given by the Defendant was credible and that the prosecution case was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Defendant was therefore acquitted.

R v K [2019] – secured the acquittal of a defendant charged with having failed to comply with a dispersal order served upon them by police, by arguing that the basis on which the order was served upon the defendant was erroneous and that the order was therefore unenforceable in law. The Court found that police had acted wrongly in serving the order on the defendant and therefore found them not guilty of having breached the order.

R v M [2018] – represented the defendant accused of assault at a Newton hearing. After robust cross examination of the victim and a witness who was the friend of the victim, the Court were persuaded that their evidence was unreliable and found in favour of the defendant.