Charlotte Hole practises exclusively in criminal law.
Charlotte is a fearless and committed advocate, with first class client care and a willingness to go the "extra mile". She has experience of the full range of criminal conduct and has recently been involved in cases involving violence, guns, drugs, sex and fraud.
She has experience of post-conviction confiscation proceedings including appellate work and applications to vary existing orders, cash seizure and forfeiture and confiscation enforcement.
Regulatory work includes prosecutions for benefit fraud and prosecuting on behalf of the Architects Registration Board.
Charlotte has also undertaken Independent Counsel disclosure work on behalf of HMRC in relation to ‘Operation Amazon’, an investigation into tax fraud connected to the carbon credit industry, requiring assessment of tens of thousands of seized documents.
Paul Jackson Led Charlotte Hole for the Defence of male charged with the historic rape, buggery and sexual assault of eight males over three decades. This trial involved an application to stay a count as an abuse of process, the analysis of volumes of third party material, section 41 applications, section 100 and 101 applications and submissions of no case. Instructed by TS Law.
Charlotte Hole, instructed by the CPS SE Complex Casework Unit, was led by Martin Yale, Senior Crown Advocate, in a 5 week prosecution of 5 defendants charged with conspiracy to supply drugs with a street value of over £10m, after 951kg of cannabis was found in a lorry load of rabbit hay. The case involved large volumes of telephone records, cell site evidence, and disputed evidence of co-location.
Charlotte Hole defended a 21 year old social worker in an Operation Trident case, after live ammunition was found in her bedroom. The defendant faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years, but was acquitted after trial.
Charlotte Hole defended an 84 year old man with Alzheimer’s disease who was charged with assaulting his elderly partner, causing her significant facial injuries. The complainant was unable to attend Court, raising issues of hearsay, and the defendant was unfit to plead.