Call Date: 2011

Practice Overview | Recent Cases | Download Profile | Contact
Back to Members


Natalie specialises in criminal defence and has experience in public law cases challenging government policy decisions.

Natalie combines a fearless approach to representation with both professionalism and warmth.

She practises in a wide variety of criminal matters, from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court. She has experience in appellate work, including appearing in the High Court for matters appealed by way of case stated, as well as in the Court of Appeal. Natalie is particularly adept at representing vulnerable defendants, particularly clients with mental health problems. She also has a strong interest in matters which involve state powers and human rights.

Natalie is also instructed in extradition proceedings, prison law, immigration, judicial review claims, regulatory matters and applications involving the police.


Natalie is originally from California and studied Political Science at University of California, Santa Barbara. After moving to the UK, she successfully completed her GDL and BPTC, and went on to achieve a Distinction on her LLM in Labour Law at King’s College London.

Prior to commencing pupillage, Natalie worked as an outdoor clerk, as a police station representative and legal advisor, and as a housing and homelessness caseworker at law centre.

Natalie has also worked on a large number of pro bono matters, including assisting on the blacklisting case of Smith v Carillion (JM) Ltd, acting as a Free Representation Unit representative in employment law, and founding the City Law School Human Rights Group and the City Liberty Letters Clinic.



R v S: Junior counsel in an international, multi-million pound fraud case, where the defendant in this multi-handed case was the only one acquitted by the jury.

R v H: Defended at trial a client charged with possession of a bladed article; the jury acquitted the defendant in 20 minutes.

R v A: Represented a defendant who was not fit to plead, including throughout process of obtaining relevant psychiatric reports, the fitness hearing, actus reus hearing and sentencing hearing. Defendant in the Crown Court following some findings being made received an absolute discharge.

R (Pinkney) v DPP [2017] EWHC 854 (Admin): Appeal by way of case stated in the High Court regarding relevant legal considerations for an assault on police constables during arrest.

R v S: Appeal against conviction in the Court of Appeal, following introduction of dated bad character at trial, following leave from the single judge, in a case regarding a robbery in the home involving a knife.

R v N: Represented the client for sentence following an earlier plea of guilty for perverting the course of justice; although the relevant guidance states that sentences of imprisonment for this offence should not normally be suspended, the Judge exceptionally suspended the term of imprisonment in this case.

R v A: Successfully convinced the Court to exclude all Prosecution evidence by way of a section 78 argument (following the Crown’s refusal to offer no evidence), after it emerged- mid-trial- that there had been serious failings by the state in relation to their disclosure duties; both assault by beating charges were therefore dismissed by the Court.

R v K: Defended in a 2-day section 18 GBH youth trial with significant aggravating features.

R v A: Successfully convinced the Crown and the Court with accompanying caselaw that this trial for a charge of criminal damage was inappropriate, given that the matter was in essence a civil wrong.

A & B v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Successful application for parents under investigation for conspiracy to commit GBH; the police bail condition which required them to be with their infant only whilst under supervision was removed, thereby enabling the mother to return to the family home.

R v S: Defended in a 2-day trial where the defendant faced a charge of resisting a police officer and a charge assaulting a police officer; the Court found that the assaulted officer’s account was inconsistent and that the officer’s injuries were in fact more consistent with his role in restraining the defendant.

Public Law

R (Gureckis, Cielecki & Perlinski) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 3298 (Admin): Successful judicial review of the Home Office’s policy of detaining and removing European rough sleepers. The policy was found to be unlawful and discriminatory by the High Court and was subsequently quashed.

R (Ben-Dor & Ors) v The University of Southampton [2016] EWHC 953 (Admin): Judicial review examining the interplay between academic freedom and security concerns.


King’s College London, LLM in Labour Law
City University Law School, BPTC
BPP Law School, GDL and LLB Upgrade
University of California, Santa Barbara (with one year of this degree studied abroad at Queen Mary, University of London), BA in Political Science


KCL Pro Bono Award
Sibel Dedezade Pro Bono Award
Inner Temple Scholarship Exhibition Prize
Jeanie Anderson Memorial EAP Scholarship


Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, Vice Chair
Haldane Feminist Lawyers, Founder
Criminal Bar Association
Inner Temple


This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it