Charlotte Brewer

Appeals

Charlotte is experienced in appellate work, having appeared to represent Appellants before the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.  She has also appeared on behalf of Respondents in appeals against conviction and sentence and in judicial review proceedings.

Reported Cases:

• R v McLeod [2017] UKPC 1 Successfully obtained permission to appeal from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on behalf of a client who had been convicted of murder in Jamaica. Appeared before the Board led by Christine Agnew QC and successfully argued that the case should be referred back to the Jamaican Court of Appeal which had previously dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• R v Gopee [2019] EWCA Crim 601 – Appeared on behalf of the Financial Conduct Authority in an appeal against conviction and two appeals against sentence. All appeals were dismissed and a loss of time order was made against the Appellant.
• R v Gopee [2019] EWHC 568 (Admin) – Appeared on behalf of the FCA in an application for judicial review arising out of the imposition of a victim surcharge order in civil contempt proceedings. The Court reconstituted itself as the Court of Appeal, the claim having been commenced by the Claimant in the wrong court.

Confiscation

Charlotte accepts instructions in a wide variety of Proceeds of Crime Act matters. She is experienced in acting for individuals at the pre-charge restraint stage through to confiscation order enforcement proceedings. She has also acted in civil contempt proceedings on behalf of both the prosecution and the defence arising from breaches of restraint orders.

Charlotte was recently instructed by the FCA in a complex confiscation matter which resulted in a confiscation order being made against the Defendant in the sum of £5.1m. Further details about the case can be found here: FCA press release.

Defence

Charlotte has represented individuals in the Crown Court who have faced allegations spanning the full spectrum of criminal offences, from drugs supply and possession of weapons, through to murder and manslaughter.

As well as defending individuals, Charlotte also has experience of assisting a multi-national company which was being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority for suspected breaches of competition law in the European Union and potential criminal cartel offences.

In the Magistrates’ Court, Charlotte has a particular expertise in road traffic matters and frequently represents individuals charged with drug or alcohol related driving offences, failing to furnish driver details and those seeking to advance exceptional hardship arguments.

Cases

• R v D: Instructed as junior counsel to represent D, in a seven handed case involving allegations of murder and aggravated burglary. The allegations arose out of an attack by a group of men armed with chainsaws, samurai swords and baseball bats. The case involved complex issues of causation in relation to the death of one of the victims of assault. D was acquitted of all charges prior to the case being opened to the jury following a successful argument to exclude the sole piece of evidence against him.
• R v G and M: Instructed as junior counsel to represent M, who stood trial facing allegations of manslaughter and possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.
• R v K: Instructed to represent K, who stood trial before the Central Criminal Court in respect of an allegation of possessing a controlled drug with intent to supply. K was acquitted.
• R v S: Defending S who was charged with 7 offences, including possession of a bladed article, breach of a restraining order and common assault. The bladed article charge was dismissed at half-time and S was acquitted of the remaining six offences.
• FCA v N: Instructed to represent N in contempt of court proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court. It was alleged by the FCA that N had breached his Restraint Order by failing to disclose assets, by opening and operating new bank accounts of which the FCA were unaware and by dissipating assets valued at over £65,000.
• R v V: Instructed to represent V who was accused of stalking her ex-partner, primarily via Twitter. Successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case as the overwhelming majority of the alleged course of conduct had occurred in jurisdictions other than England and Wales. The Crown were therefore unable to proceed with the case.

Prosecution

Charlotte accepts instructions on behalf of various prosecution agencies including the Crown Prosecution Service and the Financial Conduct Authority.

She has been appointed to the CPS Advocate Panel at Level 3 and prosecutes across the full range of criminal offences, including allegations of serious violence, money laundering, sexual assault and child cruelty.

Charlotte has recently been instructed to prosecute increasingly serious and complex matters, including:

Cases:

• R v G: Instructed as junior counsel in the first ever criminal prosecution brought by the FCA in relation to its consumer credit powers. The defendant was an unlicensed money lender who illegally lent in excess of £1m to consumers and received in excess of £2m in loan repayments after his consumer credit licence was revoked by the Office of Fair Trading.  Following conviction, a confiscation order was made against G in the sum of £5.1m.
• R v DG, RG and PM – Instructed by the FCA to prosecute a three-handed application to commit the alleged contemnors to prison for contempt of court. It was alleged that DG, RG and PM had acted together in a concerted effort to breach the terms of a Restraint Order which the FCA had obtained against DG.
• R v D: Prosecuted a mother who stood trial facing an allegation of child cruelty against her 6 month old baby.
• R v B and R: Instructed as disclosure counsel in the prosecution of two former Christian Brothers who faced multiple allegations of physical abuse against children in their care. Further details can be found on the BBC Website 
• R v C: Prosecuted C, a lodger, who was charged with sexually assaulting one of the female occupants of the property in which he was residing.
• R v W:  Prosecuted a ‘trial of the facts’ involving allegations of robbery and public disorder.
• R v J: Instructed as disclosure counsel in the high-profile prosecution of a former Parliamentarian who was accused of numerous historic sexual offences against children.