Phone: 01244 323070
Year of call: 2021Book BarristerDownload Details
Rosemary is a specialist Criminal practitioner.
Before coming to the Bar, Rosemary excelled in her studies, achieving the overall grade of Outstanding on the Bar Professional Training Course, and graduating top of her class in her original degree in English Language and Literature. She brings her love of language to her role as advocate, crafting lucid and precise written submissions, and presenting her clients’ cases engagingly and empathetically in court.
Rosemary has a lively personality that shines through in her advocacy and her interaction with clients. Having volunteered as an Appropriate Adult, she is attuned to the particular needs and experiences of Defendants who suffer from mental illness or are otherwise vulnerable. She prides herself on being able to put those she represents at ease.
- BPTC, Outstanding, BPP Manchester
- GDL, Commendation, University of Law Chester
SCHOLARSHIPS AND PRIZES
- Lincoln’s Inn: Lord Denning BPTC Scholarship
- BPP University: BPTC Advocacy Scholarship
- Lincoln’s Inn: Lord Brougham GDL Scholarship
Rosemary has substantial trial experience in the Magistrates’ Court and regularly appears in the Crown Court.
R v S (Crown Court): Represented a Defendant who fell to be sentenced for an offence of attempted sexual communication with a child and attempting to cause a child to watch sexual activity. Successfully argued for a suspended sentence.
R v W (Crown Court): Successfully argued for the lifting of one of the prohibitions of a restraining order, drawing the Court’s attention to Jackson  EWCA Crim 901. The order had been imposed on conviction for an offence of stalking involving fear of violence, and its variation was strongly opposed.
R v H (Crown Court): Represented a Defendant who fell to be sentenced for two offences of attempted sexual communication with a child. Successfully argued for a suspended sentence, and for the amendment of the proposed sexual harm prevention order so that the Defendant was prohibited only from contact with female children rather than contact with both female and male children.
R v F (Magistrates’ Court): Defended in the trial of a vulnerable Defendant charged with common assault on an emergency worker. Four police officers gave evidence for the Prosecution. The Defendant was found not guilty.
R v S (Crown Court): Represented a Defendant who fell to be sentenced for dangerous driving, drunk driving, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, using a vehicle without insurance, and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. Successfully argued for a suspended sentence. The sentencing hearing was reported in the press.
R v J (Magistrates’ Court): Represented a Defendant pleading guilty at his first hearing for driving with excess alcohol. The Defendant received the minimum period of disqualification for the level of alcohol detected.
R v F (Magistrates’ Court): Represented a Defendant who fell to be sentenced for a revenge-attack criminal damage, a section 5 public order offence, and possession of cannabis, and fell to be re-sentenced (having breached a previous community order, with very low over all compliance) for a section 4 public order offence, a section 127(1) malicious communications offence, a further criminal damage offence, and a further possession of cannabis offence. The Defendant received a suspended sentence with no requirements.
R v W (Crown Court): Represented a Defendant who fell to be sentenced for breach of a community requirement of his suspended sentence order. The Defendant had significant mental health issues, meaning that his compliance with one particular requirement of the order had been minimal. Successfully argued that activation of the custodial sentence would be unjust.
R v B (Magistrates’ Court): Acted for the Prosecution in a trial of controlling/coercive behaviour, ABH and two assaults by beating. Highly undermining evidence of the Complainant’s bad character was adduced. The Defendant was found guilty of all charges.
R v O (Magistrates’ Court): Acted for the Prosecution in a trial of failure to provide a specimen of breath. The defence of reasonable excuse had been raised – it was argued by the Defence that a panic attack had rendered the Defendant unable to produce a long enough breath. Cross-examined Defence’s expert witness, who gave evidence on this issue. The Defendant was found guilty.Book BarristerBack to top