Charlotte has experience both in crime and professional discipline. She has practised in-house preparing and presenting fitness to practise cases before healthcare tribunals.
Prior to this, Charlotte was a Senior Crown Prosecutor at the CPS, reviewing and taking charging decisions on a caseload of serious criminal prosecutions.
Whilst in practice in chambers, Charlotte gained experience in a broad range of criminal cases as both a defence and prosecution advocate, including offences of serious violence, fraud, weapons and the supply of drugs.
Charlotte also has appellate experience, having achieved success in the Court of Appeal as a junior alone, and in the Crown Court against convictions and sentences.
She is described by those who have instructed her as “charming and very able” with “impressive advocacy skills, sound judgement, decisiveness and integrity”. Her commitment as defence counsel is “first class”.
R v Khan (Ibrahim) [2019] EWCA Crim 1202 – for the Appellant (junior alone) – appeal against a 14-month sentence for dangerous driving and false plates imposed on a 20-year-old at Reading Crown Court. Found on appeal to be manifestly excessive and reduced to 10 months.
R v Melin [2019] EWHC Crim 535 – for the Appellant – Charlotte assisted in drafting an advice and grounds of appeal against conviction, on which leave to appeal was granted on a novel point of law, the extent to which lying about being a doctor undermined the consent to botox injections which had resulted in grievous bodily harm.
R v MC (2020) – appeared for the Prosecution at trial for inflicting grievous bodily harm, involving the stabbing of two police officers who had attended supported housing to assist a mental health team with the Defendant, which had resulted in both being attacked with a knife.
R v DD (2019) – Charlotte was instructed as Defence counsel at sentence after the Defendant (and his co-Defendant) had previously pleaded guilty to two dwelling burglaries which attracted a minimum sentence of three years. Charlotte successfully argued, over the course of several hearings, to vacate those guilty pleas on the basis that the burgled building did not amount to a dwelling. This argument was accepted, the pleas were vacated. Pleas to non-dwelling burglary were accepted instead, avoiding the minimum three year sentencing provisions. Both Defendants were released on non-custodial sentences.