Rachael has an extensive criminal practice, prosecuting and defending across the spectrum of criminal offences in the Crown Court. This includes multi-handed conspiracies, rape and serious sexual offences, serious violent assaults, and public order matters.
Rachael is recognised for her thorough approach to cases and careful witness handling. She takes an assertive approach on behalf of her clients, robustly representing their interests throughout. Moreover, she builds a good rapport with her clients, providing advice to them in a way which is clear and uncomplicated.
Rachael is a strong jury advocate, adapting to her audience, so that her advocacy is effective and easily accessible for those whom she addresses.
Rachael’s written and preparatory work is widely appreciated by those instructing her, for its clear analysis and helpful guidance. Rachael has received praise from the judiciary for her persuasive and well-argued skeleton arguments.
Rachael has successfully appeared in the Court of Appeal.
Rachael’s criminal practice has proved of considerable benefit in care proceedings, particularly those involving police investigations. Rachael is frequently instructed in Family Court matters on behalf of Local Authorities, parents, and children. Rachael advises on and conducts cases involving a range of issues, including serious sexual abuse, non-accidental injuries, and neglect from first hearing to conclusion. Rachael’s experience of representing the various parties in care proceedings enables her to take a well-informed and rounded approach.
Rachael regularly represents parents and children in contact and residence proceedings. Rachael approaches cases pragmatically and sensitively, recognising the difficulties which parents experience in these proceedings.
Rachael is provides pre-charge advice in criminal cases, including those with complex issues.
Rachael advises on trading standards matters.
Regina v SG: Successfully opposed the making of a Restraining Order along side a SOPO. Following receipt of Rachael’s skeleton argument, the sentencing judge conceded – inviting the prosecution to do the same – that there could be no argument against the defence representations. The sentencing judge commented that Rachael’s skeleton argument was a model of how such documents should be drafted.
Regina v AB: Defended a prisoner serving life for murder in a sexual assault trial. After conviction, Rachael successfully opposed the imposition of a consecutive sentence to the Defendant’s life sentence.
Regina v CW: Defended a young male in a multi-handed violent disorder trial. The case involved issues of Facebook identification, subsequent identification procedures, and bad character. Successfully opposed the admission of the Defendant’s bad character and methodically cross-examined witnesses, highlighting the unreliability of the Facebook identification and credibility of those witnesses. The Defendant was acquitted following a two-week trial.
Regina v DD: Represented the Defendant, who was alleged to have assaulted his nephews, aged 9 years and 10 years at the time of trial. Secured the acquittal of the Defendant following careful cross-examination of the children.
SS v Department of Public Prosecutions: Appeared on behalf of the 14 year old Appellant charged with theft. The appeal was allowed and the Appellant acquitted following a successful Section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 argument relating to the purported recognition of the Appellant by a Police Officer.
Re: D (a child): Represented the father in proceedings brought in relation to a new born baby. Contested the applications for Care and Placement Orders at final hearing. Following 5 days of contested evidence, the Local Authority withdrew its application for a Placement Order and changed its plan to rehabilitation to the parents’ care.
Re: OB (children): Rachael represented the Local Authority in a fact finding hearing in respect of serious sexual abuse of one of the children, perpetrated by the father. The case involved a number of complex issues, including applications for the child to give evidence, learning disabilities, and a concurrent police investigation. Following contested evidence, the trial judge made the findings as sought by the Local Authority.
Re: A (a child): Acted for grandparents, from whom the child had been removed following suspected non-accidental injuries. The Local Authority sought to place the child and unborn baby for adoption. Secured the return of the child and a recommendation that the Local Authority prepare a report for the placement of the unborn baby with maternal grandparents. The case resulted in the granting of a Special Guardianship Order in favour of the maternal grandparents for both children.
BA English Language & Literature (2:1) University of Leicester (2005)
LLB (2:1), College of Law (2006)