Overview
Charlotte is a criminal barrister who accepts instructions to prosecute and defend.
Instructing Solicitors have said:
Additional Information
Professional Panel Appointments
- CPS General Crime Advocate Panel: Level 3
- ADR-OCR Civil and Commercial Mediator
Awards
- Inner Temple Pupillage Award (2018)
Education
- BSc (University of Bristol, 2015): First Class
- GDL (BPP University, 2016): Distinction
- BPTC (BPP University, 2017): Very Competent
Criminal Defence
Charlotte is regularly instructed to defend in single and multi-handed cases involving serious violence, drug supply, weapons, and importation offences.
Charlotte has particular experience in representing youth clients with complex mental health difficulties. She completed the Vulnerable Witness Training in 2018.
Charlotte continues to accept instructions in the Magistrates’ Court; most successfully representing defendants charged with offences involving the police. She has considerable experience in representing respondents at contested applications for Stalking Orders, Sexual Risk Orders, Criminal Behaviour Orders and Restoration Orders.
Criminal Prosecutions - Private & Public
Charlotte is a CPS Grade 3 prosecutor, with experience in all areas of general crime, both in the Crown Court and the Youth Court.
She was recently praised as being ‘a credit to the Bar’ by a Judge sitting at Kingston Crown Court, for the efforts she made to secure a conditional caution for a vulnerable defendant on the day of trial.
Business Crime & Financial Regulation
Charlotte accepts instructions in relation to Business Crime and Financial Crime cases.
Charlotte was instructed as Disclosure Counsel throughout the Financial Conduct Authority’s criminal investigation into NatWest, following the laundering of hundreds of millions of pounds through the Bank. See FCA press release here.
Professional Memberships
- Criminal Bar Association (CBA)
- Women in Criminal Law (WICL)
Cases of Note
R v LM, CB, SJ, JH and AW, Basildon Crown Court [2024]
Led Prosecution Counsel in a conspiracy to cause a public nuisance trial. The case concerned the defendants’ occupations of tunnels, designed to blockade an important national oil terminal and extensive legal argument over the availability and/or scope of any legal defence. All five defendants were convicted at the conclusion of the 5-week trial.
R v JS, Snaresbrook Crown Court [2024]
Led Defence Counsel in a trial involving 3 drive-by shootings. JS was said to be the shooter and/or driver on each occasion. The case involved questions over the admissibility of EMS tagging evidence, cell-site, “gang association” and bad character evidence, in addition to disclosure arising out of forensic examinations and intelligence. JS was acquitted of conspiracy to murder.
R v ZF, Nightingale Court [2023]
ZF was prosecuted because of the ‘detailed and credible’ account she gave, before and after caution, for her possession of a 5(1)(b) firearm. She later changed her account and was acquitted.
R v SF, Canterbury Crown Court [2023]
SF was acquitted of GBH. Whilst raising self-defence, the jury were directed to consider whether the complainant’s evidence had been undermined to such a significant extent that it could no longer be relied upon.
R v DB, Canterbury Crown Court [2023]
DB was acquitted of being a ‘runner’ in a county lines operation, following the successful exclusion of DB’s previous conviction for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs in a separate county.
R v DS and RS, Snaresbrook Crown Court [2023]
Represented the Crown at the two-week re-trial of DS and RS, both of whom were convicted of all counts, including conspiracy to supply a kilogram of Class A drugs.
R v MJ, Isleworth Crown [2022]
Instructed to represent a client charged with conspiring to import over 330kg of Class A drugs. The 4-week case involved extensive cell-site, ANPR, Encro and Sky ECC telecommunication evidence.
R v ME, Maidstone Crown Court [2022]
Represented ME, acquitted of a knife-point kidnap and assault.
R v RM, Inner London Crown Court [2022]
Prosecuted RM for fraud by false representation; satisfying the jury that his representations were not true, and he did intend to make a gain.
R v GR and others, Canterbury Crown Court [2021]
Represented the first of the defendants, GR, at trial; GR ultimately being acquitted of section 18 Wounding and Threatening with a Bladed Article.
R v BB, Aylesbury Crown Court [2021]
Whilst accepting that BB was a drug user, successfully persuaded the jury that BB intended to supply a handful of wraps.
R v WG, Canterbury Crown Court [2021]
Successfully represented WG; found not guilty of assaulting his ex-partner, having persuaded the jury that he was acting in self-defence.
R v BM and another, Central Criminal Court [2021]
Represented BM, alleged to have been jointly involved in an assault.
R v SF and HL, Canterbury Crown Court [2020]
Prosecuted HL, SF having pleaded guilty to offences of cultivating cannabis and possession with intent to supply, satisfying the jury that HL was involved in the operation SF had taken ownership of.
R v KS and AMD, Wood Green Crown Court [2020]
Successfully prosecuted AMD for robbery, notwithstanding his contentions that he was an innocent bystander.
R v PM, Court of Appeal [2019] EWCA (Crim) 2053
Successfully appealed a sentence imposed at Isleworth Crown Court for the importation of Class A drugs - the original sentence of 10 years’ being substituted for a term of 8 years’ imprisonment.
R v JD, Court of Appeal [2021] EWCA Crim 1470
The judgment provides guidance in relation to a complainant’s application to vary the terms of a Restraining Order, prior to the defendant’s release from the custodial element of their sentence.
R v VI, Court of Appeal [2022] EWCA Crim 582
The case provides guidance in relation to credit, following the withdrawal of a basis of plea on the day of the sentencing exercise, and sentencing within the range for a defendant convicted of importing Class A drugs over the indicative starting point for category 1 (in this instance, 10kg). The Court of Appeal commended Charlotte for “her written submissions and her concise and helpful oral submissions”.
R v MB, Court of Appeal [2022] EWCA Crim 673
Appearing as fresh Counsel, the original sentence of 9 years was successfully substituted for a term of 7 years, for an offence of GBH with intent.
R v AM, Court of Appeal [2023] EWCA Crim 21
Led by Richard Thomas KC in what have become known as the “small boats” cases; the legal challenge to the prosecution of persons under sections 24(D1) and 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by the 2022 Nationality and Borders Act.
