Charlotte accepts instructions in all criminal defence matters in the Crown Court, Magistrates’ Court, and the Youth Court. Charlotte also represents clients in road traffic matters.
Charlotte successfully completed pupillage at Lamb Building under the supervision of Daniel Darnbrough, James Hay, and Joy Dykers.

Prior to joining Lamb Building, Charlotte worked in the Pro Bono department at the University of Law. Charlotte has a long history of mooting which includes: coaching the University of Law team to achieve the title of semi-finalists in the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition; representing her alma mater at the Symbiosis International Criminal Trial Advocacy Moot Competition in India; and assisting with cross-examining trainee police officers for Avon & Somerset Police.

“Her dedication to her work, brilliance and exceptional client relationship skills makes her an invaluable asset to any legal team.”

“Our clients have expressed nothing but gratitude…Charlotte leaves no stone unturned when looking for viable solutions towards difficult problems procuring the integrity of our clients.”

“The work that Charlotte has produced to date shows how dedicated she is, she will go the extra mile.”

“She has demonstrated particular skills in building rapport with challenging clients and has secured some excellent results both at trial and sentence”.

“Charlotte was quick and knew exactly what to say…she made me feel confident and, honestly, I would have trusted her fully to do the best for me in any situation.”

“The barrister that you assigned to me was amazing and really helped me.”


  • Bar Training Course, The University of Law London, Very Competent
  • LLB with study in Continental Europe (Hons), University of Bristol and Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2:1


  • The Hon. Soc. of Middle Temple


General Crime:

● R v ML- Successful submission of exceptional circumstances as a reason to depart from the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm. The client had in his possession a sawn-off shotgun and had also pleaded guilty to cultivation of cannabis. The client received a suspended sentence.
● R v TM- Client pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted sexual communication with a child. The client refused to engage with the Horizon sex offenders programme offered by probation, stating that he would rather go to prison. Secured a sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years’.
● R v EB- Client pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of 265g of cannabis. Convinced the Crown to accept a basis of plea designed to ensure the magistrates retained jurisdiction. The court was persuaded to impose a community order.
● R v RA- Successful application to exclude CCTV under s.78 of PACE. This resulted in the Crown offering no evidence and the client being acquitted.
● R v RK- Client pleaded guilty to assaulting an emergency worker; the court was convinced to issue a conditional discharge.
● R v EH- Made written submissions that proceedings would amount to an abuse of process in a case concerning a defendant with severe mental health difficulties The Crown reviewed their position in light of this skeleton argument and offered no evidence in respect of all three cases against the defendant.
● R v SA- The client pleaded guilty on the day of trial to threatening with an offensive weapon. Secured a sentence which fell below the mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment; this resulted in the client being released from custody the same day.
● R v SP- Client found not guilty of assaulting an emergency worker.
● R v RO- Secured acquittals on all counts in a domestic abuse case by successfully applying to exclude evidence under s.78 PACE.
● R v AC- Secured a suspended sentence for a client charged with robbery whereby the client threatened violence with a weapon which was not produced.

Road Traffic:

● R v FM- Successful submission of special reasons. The client ultimately received an absolute discharge and was not disqualified from driving.
● R v AC- Successfully argued exceptional hardship, preventing the client from being disqualified from driving.
● R v SE- Successful exceptional hardship submission. Disqualification avoided.
● R v BK- Client pleaded guilty to being drunk in charge and then fell within the totting provisions, Charlotte made a successful exceptional hardship argument which meant that the client was not disqualified from driving.