Catherine Rose

CROWN COURT

R v AM & Ors, Croydon Crown Court [2023] – Catherine defended a young man charged with a Conspiracy to Rob involving 7 other defendants. The case involved detailed examination of cell site material and legal argument as to its admissibility.

Op Shark, Northampton Crown Court [2023] – Catherine prosecuted a large-scale Conspiracy to Supply Class A and B drugs involving numerous defendants across three trials. In the first and third trials, she was led by Nicola Moore. In the second trial, Catherine prosecuted as a junior alone. Each trial involved the presentation of complex and detailed evidence.

R v KB, Northampton Crown Court [2023] – Catherine defended a man charged with Fraud by False Representation and Fraud by Abuse of Position, having obtained and spent his late wife’s £200,000 life insurance policy, which she had intended to benefit her son. The case involved the analysis of financial and trust documentation and the detailed cross-examination of the defendant’s step-daughter.

R v JW, Isleworth Crown Court [2023] – Catherine prosecuted a woman charged with making a Bomb Threat at Heathrow Airport by suggesting that there was a bomb in the coffin with her father’s body, which was due for repatriation that day. The case involved legal argument about the admissibility of psychological evidence relating to IQ.

R v EW, St Albans Crown Court [2023] – Catherine prosecuted a man charged with Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent and other offences, after his repeated assaults on his partner were alleged to have caused her two miscarriages. The trial involved the careful examination of a vulnerable complainant and considered submissions regarding the weight to be attached to “screenshot” evidence provided by both parties.

R v SK, Central Criminal Court [2022] – Catherine was led by William Harbage KC defending a woman charged with Perverting the Course of Justice arising out of a Manslaughter alleged to have been committed by her two sons. The case involved detailed examination of cell site, mobile phone, CCTV and ANPR evidence.

R v LB, Derby Crown Court [2022] – Catherine was led by Simon Ash KC prosecuting a “hit-and-run” Murder trial involving complex witness and evidential issues.

R v AK, Stafford CC [2022] – Catherine defended a young man of good character charged with Dangerous Driving, arising from an allegation that he was racing on a major road, which was caught on “dash cam” footage.

R v HA, Harrow Crown Court [2022] – Catherine prosecuted an alleged Armed Robbery of a vehicle from a car dealership in London.

R v MW, Reading Crown Court [2021] – Catherine defended a young man charged with Attempted Kidnapping. He accepted committing the act but raised the defence of Insanity. Expert evidence was called to support his defence that he suffers from Schizophrenia and was experiencing paranoid delusions at the time of the incident.

R v ES, Southwark Crown Court [2021] – Catherine defended a man charged with Attempting to Escape Lawful Custody after he ran from a police cell. Expert evidence was called to support his defence that he had experienced hallucinations in the form of voices threatening to kill him.

R v MC, Cambridge Crown Court [2021] – Catherine was led by Wayne Cleaver defending a man charged with nine counts of Fraud by False Representation and one of Acquiring Criminal Property, arising from a “ghost broker” insurance fraud scheme. The evidence in the case included a high volume of banking documents.

R v DB, Aylesbury Crown Court [2021] – Catherine defended a man charged with Witness Intimidation, Controlling and Coercive Behaviour and Aggravated Vehicle Taking in a domestic context. This case involved robust cross-examination of the complainant.

R v SG, Northampton Crown Court [2020] – Catherine defended a man at trial who was charged with Criminal Damage with Intent to Endanger Life and Threats to Kill, having allegedly threatened to kill his wife and then driven his vehicle through his step-daughter’s living room when she and her children were inside. This case involved careful cross-examination of the defendant’s step-daughter and legal argument regarding the admissibility of the client’s previous conviction for Murder.

COURT OF APPEAL

R v Lord [2020] EWCA Crim 753 – Catherine successfully appealed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment for a young man who committed a string of Thefts when aged 19-20. In a judgment delivered by Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, the Court of Appeal acknowledged Catherine’s “able submissions” and the Appellant’s personal mitigation, which was “very well explained by Ms Rose”, and were persuaded that the sentence should be reduced to 21 months, primarily to reflect the Appellant’s age, immaturity and personal mitigation.

R v Gayle [2020] EWCA Crim 1159 – Catherine successfully appealed a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment for a man convicted of Possession of an Offensive Weapon, Shoplifting and Common Assault. The court acknowledged Catherine’s “focussed and well prepared submissions” and were persuaded that the sentences should run concurrently, reducing the overall term to 20 months.

R v AC, Court of Appeal [2020] – Catherine successfully appealed the terms of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order on the basis that they were variously unnecessary, disproportionate and/or insufficiently clear to be enforceable.

EXTRADITION, CONSUMER & TRADING STANDARDS

PC v Poland, High Court of Justice (Administrative Court) [2022] – Catherine represented Poland in successfully resisting an appeal against extradition on Article 8 grounds.

Romania v IP, Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2021] – Catherine successfully argued that the EAW should be discharged as the assurance provided by the Romanian authorities in respect of prison conditions was inadequate to satisfy the court that the Requested Person would not be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment if extradited (section 21/Article 3 ECHR). The IJA did not appeal.

Hungary v OR, Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2019] – In this Hungarian case involving extra-territorial offending, Catherine successfully argued that the EAW should be discharged as the offences in the warrant were not extradition offences for the purposes of Section 10 of the Act. The IJA did not appeal.

Leicestershire County Council v AAR and KIS Ltd, Loughborough Magistrates’ Court [2019] – Catherine successfully prosecuted a company and its director for 26 trademarks and tobacco offences. This involved the careful presentation of a large volume of documentary evidence in relation to several complex offences to a bench of lay magistrates.

Catherine is a calm and tenacious advocate, performing beyond her year of call. She is particularly good at handling vulnerable clients and witnesses.Legal 500 2024

Catherine’s very calm and gets things done Chambers & Partners 2024

She handles clients with professionalism and compassion … It is always clear to me that her submissions are the product of detailed and comprehensive consideration of the evidence and the tactical approach to be taken to meeting it … The manner in which she conducts each stage of her cases is, in my experience, wholly as one would expect of a highly respected and professional member of the Bar.Solicitor