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
• CPS Level 1
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 T (2019) - Appeared on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service in a committal for sentence. The Defendant was charged with 2 x criminal damage, assault by beating and threats to cause damage. The case was reported in the Mirror.
R v P (2019) - Appeared on behalf of the probation service. The Defendant had been sentenced to a community order for an offence of affray. The Defendant’s lack of compliance resulted in an application to revoke and resentence the Defendant for the original offence. The case was reported in the Sheffield Star.
R v F (2018) - Appeared on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Defendant was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment for racially aggravated harassment. The case was reported in the Sheffield Star.
R v M (a youth) (2018) - Appeared on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service. Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and was committed to Crown Court for sentence.
BDC v C (2018) - Appeared on behalf of the Local Authority prosecuting a young man for anti-social behaviour offences. Successfully made an application for an interim Criminal Behaviour Order which was opposed by the Defence. The substantial order was thereafter agreed. The case was covered on Lincolnshire Live.
NK v SoS for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2018) - Appeared at the Crown Court on behalf of DVLA in an appeal against conviction. Successfully represented the DVLA and the appeal was dismissed.
R v D (2018) - Successfully prosecuted a Defendant charged with exposure under s.66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. All eye witnesses in the case were under the age of 16.
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.