Kate is an empathic, persuasive and thorough advocate predominantly with a criminal defence practice. She has significant experience in all areas of criminal law, but is particularly instructed in serious sexual offences, drug offences and violent offences.
She is highly regarded for her oral and written advocacy, and charismatic approach when representing clients in all types of criminal proceedings.
Throughout her practice, Kate has acted in cases involving vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Her experience therefore involves dealing with children, vulnerable adults and young offenders in a respectful and compassionate way.
Prior to commencing practice, Kate spent time working as a prison officer at HMP Holloway and HMP Pentonville on the mental health unit and residential wings.
• Middle Temple
• Criminal Bar Association
R v – D (2023) – Rape x 4, attempted rape, False imprisonment, ABH. Instructed to represent the Defendant. Matter involved in depth cross examination of the Complainant and multiple disclosure requests. The case also involved several legal arguments including abuse of process, admissibility of evidence, bad character and s.41 application. The Defendant was acquitted of all counts.
R v SS (2023) – s.20 GBH. Instructed to represent the Defendant. The case involved complex legal argument on causation of injuries and a legal argument on whether there was a case to answer. The Defendant was acquitted of the offence.
R v O (2023) – s.20 GBH. Instructed to represent the Defendant. The Defendant was a bus driver charged with causing grievous bodily harm to a passenger. The incident was captured on CCTV camera. The Defendant was acquitted of the offence.
R v A (2023) – Attempted Burglary. Defendant was charged alongside 4 others of a burglary and stopped by police in the vicinity within 5 minutes of the burglary. Crown’s case relied upon clothing comparisons and the vicinity of the property. The Defendant did not attend trial. The Defendant was acquitted.
R v G (2023) – Blackmail and Robbery. Instructed to represent the Defendant charged with Blackmail and Robbery. The Defendant failed to attend trial and the issue at trial was whether the Complainant was telling the truth. The Defendant’s case was that the Complainant had been involved in illegal business whereby he trafficked people into the UK illegally force these victims of Modern Day Slavery to provide free labour to him. The case involved very careful cross examination of the Complainant and several disclosure applications.
R v S (2022) – Conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. Instructed as Junior Counsel on behalf of the Fourth Defendant. All Defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. The case involved complex analysis of cell site data, phone download and preparation of a defence sequence of events to demonstrate the Defendant’s defence that he was not engaged in a conspiracy to possess a firearm, but rather an entirely separate conspiracy to supply cannabis.
R v C (a youth) (2022) – s.18 GBH. Instructed to represent the Defendant charged with s.18 grievous bodily harm. The issue at trial was whether the Defendant and his Co-Defendant acted jointly with the First Defendant who had already pleaded guilty to s.18 grievous bodily harm. The Defendant was of good character and the stabbing occurred in broad daylight. The Defendant’s case was that he acted in the defence of another, namely the First Defendant. All Defendants were under 18, the case was tried in the Crown Court due to the extremely serious and life threatening injury sustained by the Complainant. During the trial an abuse of process argument was made and an application of no case to answer, however the Defendant was convicted after a 13 day trial of s.20 grievous bodily harm and sentenced to a Youth Rehabilitation Order.
R v T (2021) - Junior Counsel representing a Defendant charged with 4 counts of money laundering. After a 9 week trial, the Defendant was acquitted of all allegations.
R v G (2021) - Represented the Defendant charged with 5 counts of child abduction. Following a successful argument re inadmissible evidence, the Crown offered no evidence in respect of 2 counts on the Indictment. After trial, the Defendant was acquitted of a further count on the Indictment.
R v K (a youth) (2021) - Represented a youth charged with s.18 wounding and possession of a bladed article. Successfully cross-examined the Complainant and the eye-witness which lead to the Court finding the Defendant not guilty and dismissing both charges.
R v B (2020) - Represented the Defendant charged with robbery. The trial involved the identification / recognition evidence from an 11-year-old Complainant. Although the Defendant was convicted after trial (and pleaded guilty to a further robbery and burglary) Kate successfully mitigated resulting in a total sentence of 33 months imprisonment.
R v R (2020) - Represented the Defendant charged with various child sexual offences. During trial, Kate successfully made a no case to answer submission in relation to one of the counts on indictment.
R v M (a youth) (2020) - Represented a Defendant charged with possession of an offensive weapon. Successfully argued that the Defendant had a reasonable excuse for having in his possession a knuckle duster. The case was dismissed by the District Judge.
R v D and others (2019) - Represented the Defendant in a large multi–handed conspiracy to supply class A drugs and Modern Slavery Act offences. Kate was instructed on the second day of trial after the previous counsel withdrew. The Jury was discharged on week 3 in relation to this Defendant. The Defendant eventually pleaded guilty to the conspiracy to supply class A drugs and the Crown did not proceed in relation to the Modern Slavery Act offences. The case involved extensive telecommunications, CCTV, ANPR and cell-site evidence.
Chief Constable of Humberside Police v S (2019) - Instructed on behalf of the Respondent. Successfully opposed an application for a Sexual Risk Order. The matter involved legal arguments based on case law addressing similar orders as the legislation directed at Sexual Risk Orders has not been litigated by the upper courts.
R v M (2019) - Appeared on behalf of the Defendant charged with two public order offences. Successfully argued that firstly, the recognition evidence was not reliable and as such the identification of the Defendant could not be proved to the criminal standard of proof and secondly, that the conduct alleged did not amount to the offences charged.
R v M (2019) - Appeared on behalf of the Defendant charged with possession with intent to supply Class A drugs. Successfully argued that although the Defendant had attained the age of 18 at the time of conviction the matter ought to remain in the youth court for sentence. Later successfully mitigated and the court unusually imposed a community order.
R v M (2019) - Appeared on behalf of the Defendant in the Magistrates’ Court charged with the offence of common assault. Successfully made a s.78 PACE application to exclude ID evidence on the grounds that the Crown had not complied with their disclosure obligations and there was suggestion that the Defendant’s photograph used in the ID procedure was edited. Following the decision to exclude the evidence, the CPS offered no evidence and the charge against the Defendant was dismissed.
R v M (a youth) (2019) - Appeared on behalf of the Defendant charged with criminal damage. Successfully argued that evidence purporting to identify the Defendant ought to be excluded under s.78 of PACE which lead to the CPS offering no evidence in the matter.
R v W (2019) - Appeared on behalf of the Defendant charged with assault. The Defendant was alleged to have thrown a 10-inch knife towards the Complainant. At the time of sentence, the Defendant was a serving prisoner in relation to unconnected matters. Kate successfully argued that the Court should impose a concurrent sentence which meant that the Defendant’s release date was unaffected.
R v L (2019) - Appeared on behalf of the Defendant charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Successfully cross examined the complainant which lead to the District Judge determining there was no case to answer.
R v M (2018) - Appeared at the Crown Court on behalf of the Defendant who was in breach of a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment. Successfully argued that the Court ought not to activate the term of imprisonment.
R v D (2018) - Appeared at the Crown Court on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment for an offence occasioning actual bodily harm committed in prison. The case was reported in the Sheffield Star.
R v B (2018) - Appeared on behalf of the Defendant in a road traffic matter. Successfully put forward an exceptional hardship argument which resulted in the Defendant being able to keep his license.
R v C (2020) - Instructed on behalf of the Appellant. Successfully argued that a sentence of 21 months imprisonment for offences of conveying class B drugs and mobile phones into prison was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 21 months imprisonment and imposed a total sentence of 15 months imprisonment.
R v H and others (2019) - Instructed on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant was sentenced to a total imprisonment of 3 years for an offence of causing grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The three defendants violently assaulted two Complainants. The first Complainant suffered significant injuries including subdural haematoma, incontinence, required language therapy and was unable to swallow. The second Complainant suffered bruising which amounted to actual bodily harm. Successfully argued that a total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 3 years imprisonment and imposed a total sentence of 2 years 3 months.