Charles has been a qualified solicitor for 8 years. He began his legal career working at what is now one of the largest criminal law firms in England and Wales, representing clients who had been detained at police stations for a range of offences. He was later retained as a trial advocate, dealing with a very high case load, in some of London’s toughest areas.
Charles has extensive experience and understanding in helping people with mental health issues, learning that mental issues are completely specific to the individual, often deeply rooted with hidden effects on day to day life that many people fail to appreciate. Charles has spent much time with people diagnosed with anxiety, depression, autism and paranoid schizophrenia.
Whether you have a case at the police station, court or are worried that the police may want to speak to you, Charles can calmly and confidently guide you through process of making the right decision regardless of the situation.
“If you find yourself being investigated or under suspicion at the police station or subject to a charge at court, obtaining proper legal advice is essential in making sure you manage this difficult, challenging time.”
Proper legal advice and representation will ensure that you make the best decisions possible and take the most appropriate action to guide you towards the best outcome in your case.”
Charles and the Criminal & Motoring team were recognised in the 2017 edition of The Legal 500, the UK's leading guide to law. They said:
The ‘committed and hard-working’ team of lawyers attract praise for having ‘a wealth of experience in the area of criminal defence law’.
The team are also noted in the well respected Chambers & Partners Guide this year, ranking in the top tier.
As much as Charles loves the court room, he relishes the challenges of physical activity, training in jiu-jitsu and bush craft leading him to send time in the great outdoors. Charles is currently undertaking the 3N Challenge which will see him navigating and surviving in the great northern wilderness of Ontario, Canada. Charles will travel by canoe and on foot through 300km of arduous terrain raising money for triple negative breast cancer. When relaxing at home, Charles can either be found gardening or concocting new recipes in the kitchen.
Areas of Expertise
Recent Notable Cases
R v N - September 2018 The defendant was charged with speeding and entered a guilty plea.She already had 9 points endorsed on her licence. The magistrates endorsed a further 3 points in accordance with the sentencing guidelines meaning she had 12 points and faced a minimum 6 month disqualification from driving. Charles submitted that exceptional hardship would be caused if a ban was implemented. The loss of job, home and mental health issues were all taken into account. The defendant left court retaining her driving licence.
R v K - August 2018 The defendant was charged with speeding in excess of 108 mph and was facing a driving disqualification or an endorsement of 6 penalty points plus a fine. The defendant accepted driving at a lower speed of 90mph where an endorsement of 3 points and a fine would have been the appropriate sentence. The police refused to accept the lower speed and the court also refused to accept that the difference between the likely sentences did not warrant a contested hearing. Charles persisted and persuaded the Crown Prosecution Service to accept a plea to 90mph meaning the defendant was finally sentenced to a fine with 3 points being endorsed on his licence.
R v E - August 2018 The defendant was charged with careless driving following a significant road traffic collision on a major A road. On review of the prosecution evidence it was clear the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service had chosen to ignore an independent witness statement that fully exonerated the defendant. At Court Charles raised this issue and formally asked the Crown Prosecution Service to review the file and drop the case. The Crown Prosecution Service initially refused but later served a notice of discontinuance having realised that Charles would raise evidence at trial that would show how unfairly the innocent defendant had been treated.
R v G - July 2018 The defendant was charged with benefit fraud to the value of over £10,000. She had made admissions during a police interview and faced a significant prison sentence. Despite the severity of her case Charles was able to mitigate and conclude the case with his client receiving a fine rather than a prison sentence.
R v J - July 2018 The Crown Court sitting at Bristol. The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, possession of an offensive weapon and drug driving. He entered guilty pleas at the magistrates’ court but due to the serious nature of the offences his case was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. He was to expect a prison sentence in excess of 12 months. Charles carefully mitigated on the defendants behalf and persuaded the Judge to sentence the defendant to a community order and an 18 month driving ban. A very lenient sentence in the circumstances.
R v R - June 2018 The defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The defendant fell victim to two individuals who accused him of pushing then kicking a man on the ground. Charles raised significant inconsistencies within the prosecution witness accounts and reports to the emergency services. This detailed and ‘no stone left unturned’ approach led to the magistrates finding the prosecution witnesses’ evidence very concerning and finding the defendants’ evidence consistent and credible. The defendant was acquitted having been fully believed by the court. Charles obtained permission for an application to recover the defendant’s costs.
R v B - March 2018 The defendant instructed Charles to appeal a driving ban of 6 months that he received for accruing too many penalty points in the magistrates court. Charles advised and assisted the defendant with preparing his case. Charles represented him at court persuading the Crown Court that the ban was wrong. The defendant left court without a driving ban.
R v D - January 2018 - Client was contacted by the police regarding a historic matter which he knew nothing about. He had been accused of speeding and failing to provide driver details years before. The court had found him guilty in his absence and had spent years trying to find him to proceed to sentence. The client knew nothing of this and been living at the same house, registered to vote with vehicles registered to that address. At court he was warned by the magistrates’ that he would lose his driving licence if he was guilty of the offences. Charles was instructed who then made submissions that it was not in the public interest to pursue the case due to its age and other reasons. The police accepted these submissions and the case was withdrawn.
R v W - September 2017 - Acquittal at trial. Client accused of sexual assault. Fully denied and contested at trial. The prosecution evidence was full of inconsistencies which were carefully examined in court. The court was not satisfied that the assault took place and the defendant was acquitted.
R v T - July 2017 - The defendant was charged with driving otherwise in accordance with a license, driving without a seatbelt and driving whilst using a mobile phone. Charles prepared representations that were served on the police. Despite police evidence, the police reviewed the case and at a case management hearing at court, all three charges were dismissed. Charles’ client did not enter a police station or court once.
R v M - May 2017 - The defendant had pleaded guilty to being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle and was sentenced with their licence being endorsed with 10 points. Due to previous endorsements the total reached over 12 which required an exceptional hardship argument presented by Charles. This was successful and the defendant was not banned from driving. Soon after the defendant faced a further speeding allegation. Charles noticed that the prosecution had failed to provide the court with basic details of the offence within the allotted period of time. The speeding charge was withdrawn.
R v J – May 2017 – Appeal of sentence. The defendant received a 12 month driving ban in the magistrates’ court for totting after accumulating 18 penalty points. Charles appealed this case at the Crown Court and the 12 month ban was reduced to 2 months. As a result of the 2 month ban the 18 penalty points have been wiped out.
R v D (March 2017) - removal of driving license. Making an application after serving two years of a disqualification. Following carefully prepared submissions the court reduced the driving disqualification by 6 months. The court accepted the need of the applicant to drive to allow him to earn more money to care for his family.
R v AW – Magistrates Sentence (Feb 2017) – client sentenced in relation to drink driving. Magistrates ordered a disqualification lower than the recommended range accepting Charles’ representations.
R v JD – Magistrates Trial (Sep 2016) - client allegedly failed to provide a provisional sample of breath, drove without due care and attention and resist arrest. Acquitted at trial. Successfully arguing that the police had acted unlawfully and factually incorrect. Defence costs recovered. One of the police officers in associated proceedings stated that the defendant had paid for superior legal representation (Charles), who successfully cast doubt on the prosecution case, drawing on technical inconsistencies in the officers statements.
R v FM - Magistrates Trial (June 2016) – client allegedly speeding. The client was unable to attend for trial due to business commitments. Prosecution unable to prove speed. Acquitted.
R v FA -Magistrates Trial (2016) - A vulnerable client who was initially convicted of harassment related offences. Charles determinedly pursued this case. On appeal the prosecution did not open their case and the client was acquitted. The person who originally made a complaint regarding her has been charged and prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.
R v TH – Magistrates Trial (Nov 2016) – client charged with using a mobile phone whilst driving, obstructing a police officer and driving in a weight restricted area. The case was reliant on police witness accounts which the magistrates were not persuaded by. Acquitted on all charges.
R v AS – Magistrates Trial (Oct 2016) – client charged with driving without due care and attention. Fully denied the allegations. Attended court with witnesses to contest matter. The prosecution offered no evidence when they finally accepted that they could not prove the case.
Please note that if Charles is in court, a friendly member of the team will be available to speak to you and will put you in touch with Charles as soon as possible.
"Thank you so much for the hard work and determination you put into my case, for guiding me so well through the court case and reassuring me. I'm sure for you it was just another day in court, but to me it was genuinely frightening. I really do appreciate everything you have done for me."