Caroline is an experienced barrister and criminal law specialist who both prosecutes and defends. She accepts instructions from both private and publicly funded clients and appears regularly in a variety of courts having experience across a wide spectrum of criminal cases.
When Caroline prosecutes she seeks to deal sensitively with witnesses and their families and has experience calling young children as witnesses.
When defending Caroline is scrupulous in spending time with her clients seeking to ensure that they understand the legal process and the evidence and law involved in their cases.
Caroline is an extremely thorough barrister who prepares her cases meticulously. She is willing to raise any arguable point of law and enjoys exploring interesting legal issues.
She was described early on in her career by a CPS Area Advocacy Trainer who was watching her prosecute as "clear, natural and well organised. Dealing with matters in a well-structured and persuasive way".
After being acquitted clients have had the following to say about Caroline:
• "Although I knew that I was innocent without your skill and expertise the outcome could have been different."
• "When I was first charged the evidence against me looked so strong I thought I had no chance at all . . . You attacked all aspects of the case against me . . . I doubt there have been many cases where a totally overwhelming case has been pulled apart in such a manner. All of your questions were excellent and you did not miss a single point throughout the whole trial".
• She was "very impressive".
R v W - Defending a man Charged with murdering his mother. The Crown accepted a guilty plea to Aiding and Abetting Suicide.
R v H - Defending a man Charged with sexually assaulting his two children and his step-daughter. The Charges relating to two of the children were historic Charges. The Charge relating to the youngest child was recent. The Defendant was acquitted of all Charges.
R v A - Defending a Doctor Charged with Sexual Assault. He was acquitted.
R v T - Prosecuting a Sexual Assault trial; teacher on pupil. Complainant was aged 13.
R v S - Defending a man Charged with Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent. An Abuse of Process Argument was successful as the CCTV had not been retained.
R v D - Defending a woman Charged with Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent; hitting a man over the head three times with a glass. The Defence was one of self-defence and the Defendant was acquitted.
R v B - Defending a man Charged with Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent; punching a man to the floor and then repeatedly kicking and punching him as he lay on the floor. The Defence was that the Defendant was present but was not one of the men involved. The Crown said that they would accept a guilty plea to Grievous Bodily Harm without Intent and the Co-Defendant accepted that and was informed by way of a "Goodyear Indication" that he would not receive a sentence of immediate custody. The Defendant did not accept the offered plea and was acquitted after the Crown offered no further evidence after cross-examination of the Complainant.
R v B - Defending a man Charged with Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent; stabbing a man repeatedly in the back. His Defence was one of self-defence and he was acquitted.
R v M - Defending one of nine defendants jointly Charged with burglary and robbery during the August 2011 London riots. The Defendant was acquitted of the robbery.
R v C - Prosecuting a domestic violence assault. Two witnesses called by the Crown aged 5 and 7 at the time of the allegation.
R v P - Defending a man Charged with having a dog dangerously out of control who then bit a passer-by. Expert evidence was called by the Defence to establish that the marks on the injured person were not consistent with the teeth of the dog in question. The Defendant was acquitted.
LL.B (Hons) First Class
Bar Vocational Course, Inns of Court School of Law
Lincoln's Inn (Hardwicke Scholarship)