Charley Pattison

Charley is regularly instructed as trial counsel in matters relating to drugs supply, sexual offences, violence, fraud and burglary. She also has experience of confiscation proceedings for both prosecution and defence at all stages.

Charley is a Grade 3 panel advocate and a member of the CPS Serious Crime Group.

Charley was recently successful in the Court of Appeal where she argued that a sentence be reduced from six years to three.

Recent instructions include:

Violence:

• R v KM (2024): As junior counsel alone in a case prosecuted and co-defendant by Kings Counsel and Junior Counsel, represented KM who faced murder and conspiracy to rob charges, as well as a simple robbery. Following day long legal argument, the prosecution did not proceed with the conspiracy to rob. Admissibility of prosecution voice recognition evidence was challenged and on the written arguments alone the prosecution conceded the admissibility challenge.
• R v NS (2023): Led junior instructed to represent NS, a man accused of the murder of his best friend. Defences of both self defence and crossover into accident raised and NS acquitted of murder and manslaughter.
• R v CN & TS (2023): Led junior representing CN in two handed murder of an 18 year old boy. CN is a youth of 15 years old. Submissions made regarding defence special measures secured protections to questioning that were not afforded to his co-defendant.
• R v B and C (2022) – Led junior prosecuting multi defendant, double homicide with highly complex forensic, scientific material. Issues arose regarding witness anonymity and validity of translation evidence.
• R v CB (2021) – Led junior in murder and attempt murder case. Highly complex issues of diminished responsibility emanating from defendant’s mental disorder and belief he was saving a child from her mother. The child is the complainant in respect of the attempted murder, and her mother the murder victim. See BBC News article.
• R v AA (2021) – Prosecuted young male for the s18 GBH in which he bit the victim’s finger off.
• R v JP (2021) – Representing the defendant in a s18 GBH case where he has allegedly stabbed the victim, another 19 year old male. Complex issues relating to disclosure and background of gang involvement.
• R v JD (2021) – Representing one defendant at multi defendant aggravated burglary trial. Issues arose relating to admissibility of hearsay evidence and the case was not proceeded with against that defendant.
• Op B (2020) – Junior counsel instructed in multi-handed murder case, responsible for disclosure. Complex issues in relation to anonymous witnesses, large investigation and PII. All convicted.
• R v AG (2020) – Junior alone representing the defendant, an adult who lacks mental capacity, in the attempted murder of another service user at the same psychiatric unit. Complex psychiatric issues.
• JN (2020) – Representing JN who is a highly vulnerable 19-year-old young person accused of arson. Significant mental health difficulties and developmental delay. Adapted communication strategies significantly to take instructions, falling short of necessity for an intermediary due to JN’s distrust of people.
• R v PR Bristol Crown Court (2017) – Instructed to prosecute a prisoner accused of inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm on another prisoner whilst serving at HMP Bristol. The complainant is deceased and his statement was adduced as hearsay. The defendant was convicted and three years added to his existing sentence.

Sexual Offences:

• R v TC (2024) – Represented TC, a man accused of rape who was acquitted despite confession evidence. Prosecuted by Kings Counsel.
• R v KB (2024) – Instructed for KB who faced trial on charges of rape made by 5 complainants. KB was acquitted of rape counts, but convicted of some sexual assault charges and acquitted of all counts of sexual activity with a child.
• R v CO (2023) – Leading counsel for CO in 5 complainant rape case. Some youth complainants and s28 procedure engaged. Complex background and multiple issues relating to mental health of complainants and defendant.
• R v LTG (2021) – Representing defendant at Court martial where he faced allegations of sexual assault and perverting the course of justice.
• R v BF (2021) – Led junior in multi complainant historic sexual abuse case.
• R v PH (2021) – Representing defendant in historic sexual abuse allegations.
• CR (2021) – Representing CR, a young person with learning disability and significant mental health problems who is said to have committed sexual assaults against a vulnerable woman. Issues around specific previous sexual conduct relevant, as well as previous allegations of a similar type made.
• CB (2021) – Defending CB in allegations relating to inciting a girl under age of 13 to engage in sexual activity. Features of the case were sexsomnia, non-physically originating blindness. Applications made on the basis of discrimination in prosecution and data sharing.
• R v JS Worcester Crown Court (2018) – Represented at trial JS, accused of historic sexual offences committed against his step-daughter. Following mixed verdicts and highly relevant, prejudicial previous convictions secured a suspended sentence.
• R v GA Bristol Crown Court (2017) – Junior Defence Counsel in complex multi-complainant Historic Rape and Sexual Assault case. Sensitive third-party disclosure and novel non-defendant bad-character issues.  Responsible for cross-examination of witnesses and argument as to admissibility.

In the news:

Defended ‘a sex offender who molested a dementia-suffering grandma while on a suspended sentence for abusing a child has been jailed for three-and-a-half years.’ Click here for further information.

Fraud and Dishonesty Offences:

• R v SF & Others (2024) – Prosecuted high value, multi defendant fraud securing convictions of all but one defendant who remains at large.
• R v RJ – successfully prosecuted case involving fraudulent application for ‘bounce back loan’.
• R v JC – instructed to prosecute fraud and kidnap charges.
• Op Midas (2019) – Led junior in multi-million-pound fraud case. Key role in disclosure process as prosecution junior. Significant volumes of disclosure reaching tens of thousands of documents. Discreet disclosure issues around highly sensitive material relating to elected Government representatives. The case resulted in guilty pleas shortly before trial. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48227597
• R v RK Bristol Crown Court – Acted as a led junior in the defence of a historic fraud case.
• R v SK Bristol Crown Court (2017) – Instructed to prosecute a robbery whereby the complainant was gagged, had his hands bound and his house ransacked in a drugs-related feud.
• R v  JB and Others (2017) – Instructed to prosecute a multi-handed fraud. Complex issues as to disclosure arose

Drugs:

• R v RI & others (2024): represented defendant charged with being concerned in the supply of class A drugs.  Following guilty pleas to lesser charges she was sentenced to 4 years 9 months imprisonment. Successfully appealed and sentence quashed and a 20 month suspended sentence imposed in its place.
• CJ & Others (2021) – Prosecuting County Lines drugs case. Considerations as to GDPR in disclosure of raw billing data relating to defendants. Responding to dismissal applications
• JA & Others (2020) – Prosecuting county lines drugs conspiracy. Several issues relating to admissibility of telecommunications analysis: RF propagation, cell-site analysis and data protection.
• R v SH Bristol Crown Court (2017) – Instructed to represent SH who is accused of Possession with Intent to Supply Class A drugs. Issues of entrapment arose out of this large police operation.
• R v SS and Others Bristol Crown Court (2016) – Representing SS in a multi-handed drugs conspiracy. Following successful legal argument relating to public interest immunity issues, the case against all three defendants was not proceeded with.

Charley undertakes work in the Court of Protection. She covers a broad range of areas under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with an emphasis on health and welfare issues, as well as cases in the High Court’s jurisdiction in relation to vulnerable adults. Her work includes:

• Personal welfare applications
• Serious medical treatment applications
• Section 21A applications challenging authorisations of deprivation of liberty in a care home or hospital under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)
• Emergency applications
• Advising on local authority safeguarding duties and on the community care law issues arising in Court of Protection cases
• Contested applications for the appointment of deputies (welfare/financial affairs), and other property and affairs applications

Charley accepts instructions from RPRs, the Official Solicitor, family members, local authorities and the Office of the Public Guardian in relation to applications to the Court of Protection. Her previous work at the ECtHR included considering appeals against detention under the Mental Health Act, and gives her a solid understanding of the law and of the inter-relationship between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act.

Recent instructions include:

• T (2021) – Ongoing complex case concerning P’s capacity to safely conduct sexual relationships.
• MP (2021) – Highly complex advice relating to the application to set up a disabled persons trust to receive inheritance money from P’s mother. Considerations as to the likely best interests decision court would make in determining whether a deputyship would be more appropriate. Consideration of issues relating to deprivation of capital.
• Re MS (2020) – Instructed to represent P in complex, contested case involving revocation of Enduring Power of Attorney. Issues of complexity arose around capacity and the vitiating effect of alcohol, in addition to featuring criminal allegations and litigants in person opposing the application. Successfully applied to revoke the EPA and appoint property and affairs deputies.
• MM v A Local Authority (2020) – Representing MM at three-day final hearing following application by the OPG to remove LPA’s for both health and welfare and property and affairs. Article 8 issues form basis of the application and alleged financial abuse. The application was refused on all matters.
• B (2020) – Representing local authority in challenging case involving the long term abuse suffered by P. Significant issues relating to respect for cultural differences and wishes and feelings of P.
• A Local Authority v RS and The Clinical Commissioning Group (2019) – Instructed by the Local Authority in this ongoing case where P has highly complex needs around compulsive behaviour and eating disorder. She is a highly intelligent woman who retains capacity to litigate but lacks capacity to make decisions about her care. There is ongoing dispute as to where she should live and previous issues around cultural beliefs have had to be considered. There have been issues around adequacy of capacity evidence.
• CD v A Local Authority (2019) – Instructed in this ongoing case where CD is a young woman with an acquired brain injury and a history of serious self-harm and absconding. Issues have arisen in relation to new methods of care for CD within the community, centred on Positive Behaviour Support in a domestic setting. CD’s needs are so complex that she has been detained on s2 and received 3:1 support. There have been issues around her deputyship and managing her relationship with her family.
• PMG (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v A Local Authority (2019) – Represented the PMG via the Official Solicitor in this case involving a man who suffered an acquired brain injury following a road traffic accident. Issues included the adequacy of the capacity evidence and the court’s power in ordering reports under s.49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There was the added complexity of a close family member for whom orders restricting contact had to be made.
• IC (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v A Local Authority (2019) – A case involving significant safeguarding issues around the faith and religious practice of IC’s son and the impact of that upon her capacity health and welfare. There were also issues around property and affairs and as such, the Office of the Public Guardian were a party to proceedings. In representing the local authority, Charley had to demonstrate cultural sensitivity toward IC’s son’s faith, whilst advocating for a position that was ultimately determined to be in the best interests of IC.
• JS (by his litigation friend TB) v A Local Authority (2019) – Represented the Local Authority in this case concerning the very complex needs of JS, whom had resided in a care placement for over 15 years. Safeguarding issues arose from that placement, and JS (who suffers from learning disability with challenging behaviours, mobility problems, autism, general anxiety and epilepsy) had to be moved to alternative care whilst a challenge was mounted by the care home to be readmitted to a LA approved list. Issues in the case also involved a challenge to the high levels of medication administered for JS’.
• SC (by her litigation friend AL) v A Local Authority (2018) – Represented the protected party in this case where there were concerns raised over the covert medication of SC and significant dispute over how her placement should be funded.