Prior to commencing a third six pupillage with Park Square Barristers, Tabitha gained four and a half years, pre and post qualification experience working within a Legal 500 recognised Criminal Defence firm within North Yorkshire. Whilst working as a Barrister employed within the firm, she has gained experience dealing with cases at all stages of the criminal justice system including at the Police Station, Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts. Tabitha also has experience dealing with drafting appeals to the Crown Court and the Criminal Cases Review Commission and representing prisoners at adjudications.
As an accredited Police Station Representative, Tabitha has obtained a working knowledge of dealing with detainees in police custody, providing advice pre and post interview, and making any pre-charge submissions to the Police as required. Tabitha also became accredited by the Law Society for the Criminal Litigation Accreditation Scheme, allowing her to act as the duty advocate at the Magistrates Courts for defendants who otherwise did not have representation. Due to the nature of this work, Tabitha has built up experience digesting and forensically analysing evidence, obtaining instructions and providing advice to Client’s in a time pressured environment.
As an advocate, Tabitha routinely appeared in the Magistrates and Youth Courts across Yorkshire defending all manner of offences and involving a variety of hearings, including trials. In the Crown Court, Tabitha has experience conducting appeal hearings, bail applications, plea and trial preparation hearings and sentences. As a litigator, Tabitha independently managed a case load of Crown Court matters, working closely in partnership with Counsel and advising Clients as required. As such, Tabitha has experience dealing with all manner of serious offences, including defending an offence of fraud brought as a private prosecution, a matter of international business fraud involving UK nationals indicted in foreign proceedings, and a high-profile sexual assault which attracted significant media attention.
Upon commencing her third six pupillage, Tabitha has gained significant prosecutorial experience in both the Magistrates and Crown Court, and has been appointed a Grade 2 Prosecutor by the Crown Prosecution Service. Tabitha also routinely defends cases in both Courts. Tabitha was instructed on a matter involving large-scale motor vehicle theft within the countryside and multiple defendants, where her client was first on the indictment, within a month of starting with Chambers.
Carlisle thief jailed as stolen motorhome used to ram police – BBC News
Tabitha has undertaken the Law Society’s, Advocacy and Vulnerable Witness Training, for the cross-examination of vulnerable and youth witnesses.
Notable cases:
- R v RF – Sentence in the Crown Court for an offence of dwelling burglary in circumstances where Client was a third striker. Successful mitigation that it was unjust in all the circumstances to impose the minimum term and convinced the Judge he could take a step back from imposing immediate custody and suspended the sentence.
- R v RE – Sentence for sexual assault by penetration amongst other offences, dealing with submissions regarding dangerousness.
- R v JF – Successful Appeal to Crown Court regarding sentence. 20 week custodial sentence imposed for four counts of criminal damage and two counts of common assault. The Appellant had also been disqualified from driving as per s147 Powers of Criminal Courts (sentencing) Act 2000. The Appellate Judge agreed that there was merit in the appeal and concluded that the Appellant should have never been sent to custody and instead imposed a purely rehabilitative community order and revoked the disqualification.
- R v DT – Sentence in Crown Court for an offence of Assault on Emergency Worker where the Defendant, a serving prisoner, had punched his healthcare worker whilst in his cell and attempted to strangle her only stopping due to being overpowered. The Defendant had various behavioural issues and following submissions the Sentencing Judge was minded to agree that a suspended sentence as oppose to immediate custody was appropriate in these circumstances.