Charlotte Johnson

Charlotte Johnson - Barrister at St John's Buildings


Phone: 0161 214 1500

Year of call: 2013

Book BarristerDownload Details

Charlotte graduated from Chester University with a first class in LLB Law (Hons) before undertaking the Bar Professional Training Course at Manchester Metropolitan University, where she achieved a “very competent” grade.

Charlotte undertook pupillage at Lamb Building in Temple, London under the supervision of Mr Bernard Richmond QC. Charlotte assisted Mr Richmond on a number of murder trials, coroner’s inquests and cases involving sexual offences against children.

Charlotte accepted tenancy at St John’s Buildings in August 2016.


  • Crime

    In crime, Charlotte receives instructions in the Magistrates and Crown Court and has developed a reputation as an advocate who can engage with clients from all walks of life. Charlotte is motivated by her strong belief that everybody should have access to the best representation. Charlotte’s warm yet robust approach has led to her repeated instructions representing young and vulnerable clients.

    Charlotte also represents clients who face Proceeds of Crime and Trading Standards prosecutions, as well as accepting private instructions which include road traffic cases, such as Exceptional Hardship and Special Reasons applications.


    Charlotte has a busy prison law practice in which she represents prisoners with a variety of prisoner statuses in adjudications, parole hearings and Judicial Review. Charlotte represents clients who have been imprisoned for the most serious offences, including murder, manslaughter and sexual offences against children. Charlotte has gained experience in representing clients who have complex emotional and mental health needs and whose hearings often requires robust questioning of experts in psychiatry and psychology.


    Financial crime

    R v CB (2019): Charlotte represented a defendant who was subject to a Proceeds of Crime application. The crown’s suggested benefit figure was £291,635.00 and available amount was £254,000.00. The matter had not resolved within the two-year permitted period. Upon a successful defence application that this was not an “exceptional circumstances” case, the crown’s application was rejected and the matter dismissed.

    R v PW (2019): Led junior counsel. The client was charged with fraudulent evasion of duty in the amount of £441,904.50. The case was covered in the Bolton News.

    R v PM (2019): This defendant pleaded guilty to four offences of possession of counterfeit notes with intent, two offences of tendering counterfeit currency, two offences of assaulting a police constable and a number of driving matters. The defendant received a sentence of two years imprisonment. The case was covered in the Daily Post.

    R v VC (2016): Proceeds of Crime hearing which involved the amount of £177,000.00 being returned to the client. 

    Dishonesty offences

    R v DB (2019): Charlotte represented this client in a four-week trial at Ipswich Crown Court. The client was said to play a significant role in the operation which involved the theft, handling and sale of 2970 Sony Playstation 4 Slim Consoles worth £769,000.00, before they were available to buy in the UK. After conviction, Charlotte was able to persuade the court to impose a two year Suspended Sentence Order. The case was covered on the BBC.

    Offences against the person / Weapons

    R v BM (2019): Defendant acquitted after trial of possession of a firearm, the client having pleaded guilty to possession of firearm ammunition and not guilty to possession of a shot gun.

    R v ER (2018): Defendant pleaded guilty to s. 20 unlawful wounding, having admitted to stabbing the complainant in the stomach.

    R v MT (2018): This client’s acquittal was secured after trial. The client was accused of s. 47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a police officer whilst the client was being held in custody.

    R v SD (2018): Charlotte represented a defendant who had been charged with assault against his 7 year old son. The Crown offered no evidence against the defendant after a number of defence disclosure requests and a not guilty verdict was returned.

    R v JH (2017): Charlotte secured the acquittal of a 20 year old defendant who was accused of a stabbing a man repeatedly in his home. The defendant’s case was self-defence in that she admitted to the stabbing because the complainant had tried to rape her.

    R v HS (2017): The defendant was charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm of a 2 year old. After advice and a number of pieces of evidence disclosed upon defence request, the Crown offered no evidence against the defendant and a not guilty verdict was returned.

    R v PL (2017): Led junior counsel for the prosecution in which the defendant was charged with attempted murder. This case was reported in The Mirror.

    R v AS (2016): Charlotte represented this client who had been charged with Wounding with intent and firearms offences. After a successful defence objection to Crown adjournment application, the Crown offered no evidence and a not guilty verdict was returned.

    Driving offences

    R v MH (2017): Charlotte secured the acquittal of the defendant who had been charged with dangerous driving. This case was reported in the Macclesfield Express.

    R v DF (2017): The client was charged with Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving. Charlotte successfully persuaded the court to suspend the sentence of imprisonment. This case was reported in the Halifax Courier.

    R v AA (2017): Charlotte was able to persuade the court to impose a suspended sentence for the client, who had been found guilty of dangerous driving and possession of a knuckle duster. This was the client’s fifth conviction for possession of the same weapon.

    Drugs offences

    R v GM (2018): Charlotte represented this client who pleaded guilty to a third strike drugs matter and was able to persuade the court to impose the minimum custodial term. This case was reported in the ITV News.

    Sexual offences

    R v IE (2017): Charlotte represented this defendant who had been charged with public indecency. This case involved the cross examination of a child complainant. This case was reported in the Liverpool Echo.

    R v MG (2016): Led Junior Counsel. The case involved rape and sexual activity with children. The defendant was acquitted of all charges of rape. This case was reported in Get Reading.

    Book BarristerBack to top
  • Inquests

    Charlotte accepts instructions from both properly interested persons and for families in Inquests. Charlotte has been instructed in inquests involving deaths occurring in prisons, nursing homes and hospitals.


    Inquest touching the death of WVB (2020): Charlotte represented the family following the death of WVB who suffered poor mental health and who jumped from the fourth floor of the Liverpool Public Library in 2019. The Senior Coroner gave a narrative conclusion in which it was noted there was a ‘missed opportunity’ to assess WVB’s mental health six weeks before he died.

    Inquest touching the death of VM (2019): Charlotte acted on behalf of the care home following the death of a resident who suffered internal bleeding as a result of a fractured pelvis. No criticism of the home was found by the Assistant Coroner.

    Inquest touching the death of JH (2019): Charlotte represented the family in a four-week inquest at Bolton Coroner’s Court. The inquest was convened following the death of a man who had taken a significant amount of anti-depressant tablets, whilst on remand and HMP Forest Bank, Salford. The jury concluded the decision not to transfer the deceased to hospital once he’d reported taking between 60 – 80 tablets, was a gross failure.

    Book BarristerBack to top
  • Regulatory

    Regulatory Prosecutions

    Charlotte is instructed by Local Authorities to undertake regulatory prosecution, she developed her regulatory prosecution work during a three month secondment, working in house with Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council in 2019. During secondment, Charlotte assisted the Legal Services Team by conducting pre-charge advice, drafting summons and informations and conducting matters in court from first appearance, through to trial and sentence. Charlotte has prosecuted matters for Local Authorities in the following areas:


    • s. 89 Environmental Protection Act 1990: Littering
    • s. 34 Environmental Protection Act 1990: Duty of Care
    • s. 33 Environmental Protection Act 1990: Fly tipping. 

    Food Hygiene 

    • Reg. 17(1) Food Hygiene Regulations 2006 and 19(1) Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations 2013: Breach of Food Hygiene Regulations 
    • s. 14 Food Safety Act 1990: Selling food injurious for human consumption
    • s. 53 Food Safety Act 1990: Breach of Improvement Notice. 

    Trading Standards 

    • Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations: Misleading advertising 
    • s. 97 Trade Marks Act 1994: Counterfeit goods

    Town and Country Planning 

    • s. 215 Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Properly Maintaining Land
    • s. 216(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Failing to comply with conditions of a Notice. 


    • s. 444(1) Education Act 1996: Truancy, strict liability 
    • s. 444(1A) Education Act 1996: Truancy, intent. 


    • s. 43 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Community Protection Notices

    Taxi Licensing 

    • Failure to notify change of details 
    • Failure to notify of conviction. 

    Notable cases

    OMBC v GC – Fly tipping: The conviction was secured in relation to this individual who was, at sentence, ordered to pay a total of £3,981.00. 

    OMBC v MM – Food Safety: This individual was found guilty after trial and ordered to pay the council’s costs of £1,150.00, together with a fine and victim surcharge.  

    OMBC v DT – Food Safety: The company was convicted for selling food injurious to health, fined and ordered to pay costs of the Council.  

    OMBC v AH – Breach of Community Protection Notice: Upon conviction, this defendant was ordered to pay full costs to the council, a fine and victim surcharge. 

    OMBC v EB – Truancy: This defendant was convicted after trial, ordered to pay a fine, victim surcharge and the council’s costs.  

    OMBC v SS – Misleading advertising: Successful application to introduce bad character of defendant. 

    Book BarristerBack to top