Katrina is instructed in a range of criminal cases, the recent of which include:

Serious violence and weapons 

• R v OH (Reading CC) – defended a man accused of threatening his ex-partner at knife point, in the presence of their young child. He was tried for witness intimidation and possession of a bladed article. Acquitted (Unanimous).
• R v  LA – defended a 18-year-old man accused of assault on an emergency worker during a drug search. The Crown relied on the evidence of four officers. Following the defence submission on application of the law, it was found that the officers had conducted an unlawful search and used unlawful force. No evidence offered.
• R v PG – defended a young man with learning disabilities, accused of harassing his ex-partner. Defendant cleared following a successful submission of no case to answer.
• R v JB (Kingston CC) – led by Philippa Eastwood in a multi-handed attempted murder and firearms case. JB his co-defendants were accused of shooting the complainant at close range – JB drove his co-defendants to and from the scene. The complainant was the brother of a man who accused of kidnapping JB a year prior. JB was acquitted of attempted murder (convicted of possession with intent/GBH).
• R v LM (Wood Green CC) – defended a man accused of coercive control, assault, criminal damage and sending a communication threatening death or serious harm and witness intimidation. The complainant was LM’s ex-partner. The Crown offered no evidence for the communication offence, and LM was unanimously acquitted of coercive control, criminal damage and assault.
• R v DH (Kingston CC) – defended a man accused of threatening his 11-year-old child with a bladed article and ABH. The complainant accused her father of holding a butcher’s knife to her throat and whipping her with a tea towel. The defence made a successful application under s.100 of CJA 2003, adducing the fact that the young complainant had twice before made serious false allegations. DH was unanimously acquitted of both charges.
• R v JH (Snaresbrook CC) – defended a man accused of assault, criminal damage and possession of class A and B drugs. The complainant was JH’s neighbour whom he was alleged to attack in a drug-induced rampage. JH pleaded Guilty to criminal damage and possession. JH was unanimously acquitted of assault after 20 minutes of deliberation. 

Extradition 

• Sweden v WN – defended a man who was requested by Sweden on a conviction warrant. He had a young family and a wife who suffered with a range of health issues. Following the FEH, extradition was deemed disproportionate to the RP’s Article 8 rights and was discharged.

Protest 

• R v EB and ors – represented a protestor accused of common assault in a high-profile trial. The complainant was Sir Iain Duncan Smith. Client cleared after a successful submission of no case to answer. Read here.
• R v DB and ors – Junior counsel in high-profile Just Stop Oil case. Represented a protestor charged with statutory public nuisance, accused of trespassing on the Silverstone track during Formula 1. This was the first statutory public nuisance Crown Court trial.

Fraud 

• R v MC (Guildford CC) – instructed to represent a Brazilian national, charged with possession of an identity document with improper intention and improperly obtained identity documents. MC is charged with her twin sister and is alleged fraudulently obtain an Italian ID card and passport in order to apply for citizenship in the UK.
• R v MO (ILCC) – instructed in conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation case. MO is alleged to make false representations to open student bank accounts to withdraw the overdraft. Loss estimated over £100,000.
• R v RS (Wood Green CC) – instructed in fraudulent trading and engaging in unfair commercial practices case. RS is alleged to falsely advertise a partnership with another business to entice customers into contracting with him, and not provide the services they paid for.
• R v AD (Nottingham CC)  – instructed in fraud and converting criminal property case. AD is alleged to frequently apply for a bounce back loan and withdraw money, used to purchase high value items. Loss estimated of £50,000.
• R v TJ (Stratford YC/Guilford CC)  – defended a 16-year-old, charged with 17 offences which included 11 counts of fraud by false representation and supplying articles for use in the course or in connection with fraud. Google, Uber and Discord made referrals to the National Crime agency, as had received fraudulent emergency disclosure requests (EDRs). TJ was identified as sending the fake EDRs, and had also hacked local government email addresses and obtained passwords. TJ pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to a YRO.
• R v PD (Wood Green CC) – defended a woman accused of robbery and fraud. PD was alleged to attend her neighbours’ address in breach of a community protection notice and assault him, before taking cash and his bank card which she later used. Crown offered no evidence. 

Sexual offences 

• R v AE (ILCC) – defended a man accused of sexual assault. It was alleged that AE had groped the complainant in a busy lift at London Bridge station. The Crown’s case relied on CCTV footage and the live evidence of the complainant. AE’s defence was that he did not intentionally touch the complainant. AE was unanimously acquitted after under 2 hours of deliberation.
• R v SW (Wood Green CC) – defended a man who was accused of rape of his ex-partner. It was alleged that he had raped his ex-partner at her place of work. SW’s defence was consent. The complainant later accused SW of witness intimidation. KW drafted a 9-page letter of representations, following receipt of late-stage disclosure of text messages which undermined the Crown’s case. The Crown offered no evidence.
• R v JF (ILCC) – defended a young man accused of sexual assault. It was alleged JF grabbed the complaint from behind and touched the complainant’s breast, nearby Brixton Station. JF was with a friend at the time of the alleged offence. JF denied the offences. The complainant was cross-examined on the basis that her identification of JF was incorrect, and that it may have been JF’s friend who touched her. The jury were hung, and the Crown later offered no evidence.
• R v AR (Kingston CC) – defended a 55-year-old man with severe learning disabilities, charged with two counts of assault by penetration. AR was accused of sexually assaulting the vulnerable complainant, a resident of their supported accommodation. KW was instructed to apply for earlier Guilty pleas to be vacated and to represent AR for trial. KW successfully vacated the plea on the basis that AR had been, and remained unfit to plead. An actus reus trial followed, resulting in a finding of fact. KW successfully argued that AR should receive an Absolute Discharge and subsequently, not be subject to notification requirements.

Gang injunctions 

• R v RW (Brighton YC)  - defended a 17-year-old, one of five youth respondents to an application for a Gang Injunction Order. Sussex Police sought an injunction to restrict the respondents’ movements and contact with one another, alleging they formed part of a prominent gang in the area. This was the first application of this kind by Sussex Police. KW successfully argued that the injunction was disproportionate and did not take into account RW’s needs as a neurodivergent young person.