“Excellent work done by Kate. Her diligence and expertise remains greatly appreciated”
Kate is a highly skilled and knowledgeable common law barrister, accepting instructions in civil, Court of Protection and crown court criminal matters. She applies the skills and expertise from each area of practice across the other areas, and is particularly in demand for cases where there is a crossover between Chambers’ main practice areas. Kate’s efficiency and personable nature makes her very popular with solicitors.
Kate is extremely bright, very focused and quickly masters the detail of any brief. She has a comprehensive knowledge of the law and procedure in her practice areas. She is excellent when dealing with particularly technical and detailed points, is clear and concise in writing and is a strong and determined advocate.
Kate accepts instructions in personal injury cases in the fast track and multi-track. She is experienced in cases involving allegations of fraud and dishonesty and represents some of the country's largest insurers. Kate's criminal practice means that she has exceptionally good skills of cross examination, and she is often instructed in cases where there are issues of witness credibility.
Kate has a specialist practice in credit hire cases (a subset of contract law) both with and without associated personal injury proceedings. She is chosen by insurers to deal with the higher value cases especially if there are more unusual contract points to be explored.
Kate accepts instructions for written work or representation in court for a range of civil matters including contractual disputes, guarantees, indemnities and land mortgages. She is very good at advising in cases which are technical and detail-oriented.
Kate is experienced at dealing with HMO cases, and is very familiar with the civil and criminal regulations and procedures in this area.
Kate’s background and experience in civil and criminal work make her a natural choice for regulatory crime cases.
Kate is experienced in cases alleging housing benefit fraud, planning enforcement and HMO enforcement.
Kate has an active defence practice across traditional crown court matters, including multi-handed cases, conspiracy, cases involving firearms, cases depending on analysis of cell site evidence, fingerprint, DNA or other expert evidence.
Kate has a specialism in cases involving mental health, and has a compassionate and knowledgeable approach. Her familiarity with mental health law, and how this intersects with the criminal jurisdiction, is particularly valuable. She is also very good at dealing with witnesses with mental health issues, ensuring that her cross examination is effective but not overbearing.
Kate leads a specialist Court of Protection team in chambers. She welcomes instructions in welfare cases and property and finance matters. She is also experienced in cases where the Court of Protection’s remit crosses with the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and with mental health regimes.
Kate has also developed a specialist interest in mental health and community care cases, and in the high court’s jurisdiction for vulnerable adults. Prior to coming to the Bar, Kate worked for a specialist mental health and community care law firm and she has a long standing interest in cases of this nature.
- B.A. (Hons) University of Manchester
R v Spinks & Parkin: Represented the 2nd Defendant in an electoral fraud case which attracted media interest
R v Mirza  EWCA Crim 924: Prosecuting in a case defining the two stage approach to s.179(3) (defence to the s.179 owner breaches of planning enforcement notices)
R v De’Viana: Junior counsel for the defendant in an unusual child cruelty case which attracted media interest. The defendant father was accused, and acquitted, of mental and physical child cruelty by tennis training. The defence case included evidence from the Lawn Tennis Association, and from high level coaches on sports training regimes. The case attracted significant media attention: BBC News Report
AM v Partnerships in Care Ltd  UKUT 659 (AAC) - (for the patient) (case concerning the proper approach to evidence in mental health tribunals, in particular that findings as to risk under s.72 of the Mental Health Act 1983 must be based on findings of fact, mere suspicion does not suffice)
Attorney General's Reference (No.94 of 2014) (R v Baker)  EWCA Crim 2752: Rerepresented the Defendant in a Court of Appeal case which radically interpreted the new sexual offences guideline for ‘incitement’ cases)
Re: RGS  EWHC 4162 (COP): Represented the Local authority in a case regarding the litigation capacity of a party other than P in the Court of Protection in the context of financial applications. Case involved welfare considerations and media reporting