Charlotte Morrish

Charlotte has extensive trial advocacy experience; she is known for her meticulous preparation and the care and attention she gives each client, meaning she is always ready and willing to assist and advise at all stages of the case in an effort ensure the best outcome. Charlotte regularly deals with cases involving young people or those with mental health difficulties and is well regarded for her approachable and sensitive manner.

Charlotte also has experience of regulatory crime and has been involved in RSPCA, HSE, Environment Agency and Insolvency Service prosecutions. She is on the CPS panel (level 2).

Selected Cases

• R v T (2019): Multi-handed s.18 trial. Successful submission of no case to answer.
• R v O (2018): Conspiracy to commit s.18 GBH. Multi-handed trial involving telephone and cell site evidence.
• R v C (2018): Assault by penetration. The trial involved the use of telephone evidence to undermine the complainant’s account in cross-examination.
• R v D (2018): Rape and other sexual offences. Led junior at trial where the defendant was charged with multiple offences rape and similar offences against 4 different complainants over a 25 year period. The case involved extensive third party material and legal arguments about joinder and admissibility of ABE evidence.
• R v G (2018): Rape. The prosecution case at trial was that the complainant was so drunk that she lacked the capacity to consent.
• R v B (2018): Theft. This case involved the cross-examination of an elderly complainant giving evidence from another jurisdiction.
• R v H (2017): Conspiracy to produce cannabis. Successfully appealed against sentence in the Court of Appeal where leave had been refused by the single judge.
• R v L (2017): Rape. The trial involved issues of previous sexual history and s.41 YJCEA 1998.
• R v M (2017): Sexual assault of a child under 13. This case involved cross-examination of a young child regarding allegations made against her step-father.
• R v P (2017): Affray and offensive weapons. Not guilty verdicts were directed following successful submission of no case to answer.
• R v D (2017): Conspiracy to convey prohibited articles into prison. Junior alone in 8 week trial involving extensive analysis of telephone and banking evidence.
• R v S (2017): ABH. Prosecution offered no evidence following cross-examination of the complainant on issues of Facebook identification.
• R v R (2017): jury acquitted client charged with theft and fraud of an elderly lady
• R v H (2017): Conspiracy to produce cannabis. Led junior in multi-handed trial.
• R v B (2016): Sexual assault. The trial involved issues of identification where the client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a stranger.
• R v K (2016): Harassment. Abuse of process argument led to Crown offering no evidence against a mentally unwell defendant.
• R v S (2016): Attempting to arrange sexual activity with a child. The issue for trial was whether the defendant’s chatroom activity had amounted to an attempt.

Charlotte is instructed on a broad range of cases involving regulatory offences. She prosecutes on behalf of the Insolvency Service and has experience in cases involving alleged breaches of director’s disqualification undertakings. She has also been instructed to prosecute on behalf of the Environment Agency.

Charlotte recently secured a reduction in a fine from £80,000 to £12,000 on appeal against a sentence imposed for breaches of Health & Safety regulations.

Charlotte has represented the RSPCA in animal welfare prosecutions.

Charlotte accepts work from lay clients via Direct Access. You can view her profile here.