Rochelle is solicitor with over 5 years Post Qualification Experience, who is regularly commended for her compassionate and diligent approach to working with clients. Providing legal representation for those at the police station, to magistrates’ court and within the Crown Court, Rochelle has extensive experience in both litigation and as a High Court advocate. Representing clients in relation to allegations ranging from drink driving and knife possession, to drug conspiracy and rape.

Frequently working with defendants with vulnerabilities due to age, addiction and/or mental health, Rochelle has regularly instructed psychiatrists/psychologists, liaised with Probation/Drug Diversion Services and mitigated before the Courts, in favour of non-custodial, rehabilitative sentences to assist those in need of additional support in the community. She has also made successful representations to the Crown Prosecution Service, leading to the discontinuance of prosecution in a number of cases; due to thoroughly drafted arguments challenging the strength of evidence and highlighting the interests of justice. Rochelle goes above and beyond to ensure that her clients and their loved ones are comforted and guided through the challenges that come from police investigation and criminal prosecution.

Rochelle’s training originated from a military and criminal defence firm, where she practiced in Courts and military tribunals throughout Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and Berkshire. Moving to the city, she has developed her expertise, heading the extradition department in two city firms. Rochelle has worked with Counsel to champion immigrant Human Rights in the UK, leading to the discharge of European Arrest Warrants from countries such as Hungary and Poland.

Further to the above, Rochelle’s practice extends to regular instruction in Proceeds of Crime confiscation and enforcement proceedings. Her convincing oral representations and meticulous preparation of statements/responses to the Prosecution, habitually persuades the Court against the activation of a default sentence and in favour of reductions to available/benefit amounts within confiscation orders.

Notable Cases

Extradition

. Poland v K – The Requested Person (RP) was wanted by the Polish Judicial Authorities due to allegations involving participation in a criminal gang and extortion, for which a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment could be imposed, upon conviction. The RP had moved to the UK as a student in 2001 and had been residing here ever since. Given that the alleged offences were said to have taken place some 22 years prior and the RP had been living an open and settled life in the UK for a substantial period of time, the District Judge agreed to discharge the European Arrest Warrant.

. Poland v B – The Requested Person (RP) had a sentence of 9 months and 29 days remaining from Poland, for an offence of attempted theft. As the RP had been living in the UK for some 10 years and was suffering from an array of complex medical conditions, the District Judge agreed that extradition would not be compatible with the RP’s Article 8 Human Rights and discharged the European Arrest Warrant.

Crime

. 2023 R v T – Wood Green Crown Court

As advocate, represented client who had pleaded guilty to Possession With Intent To Supply Class A drugs. The Prosecution submitted that the case should fall within a category 3, significant role, which carried a starting point of 4.5 years imprisonment. Given the client’s young age and inexperience within the criminal justice system, successfully persuaded the judge to reduce this sentence to 16 months suspended for 18 months.

. 2022 R v G – Kingston Crown Court

As advocate, represented client charged with assaulting an emergency worker, jointly with co-defendant, who was also charged with dangerous driving. At trial, it came to light that the Prosecution had failed to disclose evidence that was crucial to the defences of both defendants. Therefore successful submissions were made in relation to this breach of disclosure duties, persuading the Prosecution to offer no evidence in relation to both defendants.

. 2022 R v B – Southwark Crown Court

The client was charged with criminal damage and two assaults on emergency workers. They had long-standing mental health issues including diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and antisocial personality disorder. As litigator, prepared instructions for a full psychiatric examination; which concluded that the client was not fit to plead or stand trial. This assisted counsel in advancing successful submissions to the Prosecution, leading them to offer no evidence in relation to all charges.

. 2022 R v L – Leeds Crown Court

The client sought representation in Proceeds of Crime confiscation proceedings. They had pleaded guilty to production of Cannabis and were sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. The Prosecution initially argued that the client made a total benefit of £70,683.25 from the relevant offence and sought to seize that funds from their vehicle, pension and the entirety of their savings. As litigator, through the thorough preparation of bundles providing numerous statements and receipts from the client’s work as a Personal Trainer, assisted counsel in reducing the benefit and available amount to £42,050.70.

. 2022 R v C – Stevenage Youth Court

The client pleaded guilty to possession of an offensive weapon, namely, a knuckle duster. Due to two recent previous conviction for possession of a blade, the client faced a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 4 month’s Detention and Training Order. Given the rapport built with this client, their mother and their Youth Offending Team worker, a collection of psychological reports and references were advanced at the sentencing hearing. As advocate, a successful argument was made that it would be unjust to impose the mandatory minimum sentence and the client was instead sentenced to a 12 month Youth Rehabilitation Requirement.