Upon joining Three Raymond Buildings following the successful completion of his pupillage, Charles undertook a Judicial Assistantship at the UK Supreme Court, working for Lord Hamblen of Kersey during the 2020-2021 legal year.
Since returning to Chambers from the Supreme Court, Charles has developed a diverse practice which spans criminal, public and human rights law and professional discipline and the proceeds of crime. In addition to his general criminal practice, he has growing specialisms in protest law, communications offences more broadly, criminal cases involving issues related to the European Convention on Human Rights. He is therefore very well placed to act in cases which sit at the intersection between criminal law, public law and human rights law.
Charles is instructed regularly to represent clients in both the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court.
Previous and/or current instructions in the Crown Court include allegations of perverting the course of justice, threats to kill, grievous bodily harm(s18 and s20); unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition (including offences carrying the mandatory minimum of 5 years), voyeurism and sexual communications with a child.
Charles has developed a particular specialism in defending individuals charged with criminal offences arising from protest-related activity. Charles has experience of representing individuals charged with a wide range of protest-related offences, including obstructing the highway, aggravated trespass, criminal damage, public nuisance, tampering with a motor vehicle and breaching a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. For more details of Charles’s protest law practice, please see the separate tab below.
As a result of his experience in protest law and public law, Charles is well placed to act in criminal cases involving human rights related issues. For example, Charles is currently instructed in an appeal by way of case stated against convictions for communications offences (led by Nicholas Yeo), which concerns (amongst other things) statutory construction the application of articles 8 and 10 ECHR.
Due to his experience as Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court and his strong academic background, Charles is particularly well suited to cases involving complex and/or novel points of law. He is also well placed to advise on matters related to criminal proceedings. Previous advisory work includes advice as Junior Counsel on a potential private prosecution and the risk of incurring criminal liability under the 2019 Russian Sanctions Regulations.
Representing two former police officers appeal proceedings by way of case stated against convictions under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Led by Nicholas Yeo. Applications to the High Court for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are pending.
Representing a defendant charged with offences concerning grievous bodily harm (section 18 and 20 OAPA 1861).
Representing a defendant charged with affray, inflicting grievous bodily harm (section 20 OAPA 1861) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Representing a defendant due to be sentenced for firearms and ammunition offences, the majority of which engage the mandatory minimum term of 5 years' imprisonment.
Represented a police officer charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Defendant was acquitted at trial.
Represented a defendant charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Following an abuse of process application relating to the police’s investigative failings and the application of the CPS’s key documents on racist and religious hate crimes and obligations arising under article 8 ECHR, and a trial in which live evidence was given by three prosecution witnesses, the defendant and his wife, the jury, after just over 90 minutes, returned a not guilty verdict.
Represented two of five defendants charged with tampering with a motor vehicle during an Extinction Rebellion protest. The court accepted a half-time submission that the defendants had not tampered with a motor vehicle, within the meaning of the provision, as the conduct relied upon by the prosecution concerned the detachable trailer of the tanker, as opposed to the cab itself.
Represented a defendant charged with breaching a condition imposed by a senior officer contrary to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to an Extinction Rebellion protest at Oxford Circus. At the close of the prosecution case, which involved cross-examination of a Chief Superintendent, the court accepted a half-time submission that the condition which she imposed was unlawful as the prohibited area which protestors were instructed to leave had no specific end point and was thus insufficiently certain.
Represented a police officer charged with common assault relating to an altercation in a bar. The defendant was acquitted at trial by a District Judge.
Represented a defendant at trial who was charged with perverting the course of justice and theft, relating to his conduct as a police officer.
Represented a defendant charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Following a guilty plea, the case moved to a Newton hearing which involved complex legal argument on the res gestae doctrine. The Newton hearing was resolved in the defendant’s favour and the court passed a suspended sentence.
Represented a youth charged with two offences, one of which was a summary-only public order offence. After legal argument on the approach to counting the 6-month time limit under s.127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the Court accepted that the public order matter was time-barred.
Charles has developed a particular specialism in protest cases, having worked on the case of DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23 in his capacity as a Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court. Given his practice which spans both criminal and public law, Charles is particularly well-placed to advise and represent defendants on application of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights to cases relating to protests.
His protest practice involves proceedings in both Magistrates’ and Crown Courts. Charles has experience of representing defendants charged with a wide range of protest-related offences, including obstructing the highway, aggravated trespass, criminal damage, public nuisance, tampering with a motor vehicle and breaching a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
In January 2023, Charles made a successful submission of no case to answer on behalf of protestors charged with tampering with a motor vehicle (see the BBC’s report on the case here). More recently, a District Judge concluded that a section 14 condition imposed on an Extinction Rebellion protest at Oxford Circus was unlawful, following Charles’s submission of no case to answer. For more details, please see below.
Recent and/or current instructions include cases relating to ‘Just Stop Oil’, ‘Extinction Rebellion’ and ‘Animal Rebellion’. He is currently instructed in an upcoming trial before a District Judge listed for 9 days relating to a pro-Palestinian protest. He is also currently instructed to defend individuals in the Crown Court in relation to allegations of criminal damage and public nuisance.
In 2024 and 2025, Charles is instructed to appear in a number of protest-related jury trials which are due to last several weeks.
Represented two of five defendants charged with tampering with a motor vehicle during an Extinction Rebellion protest. The court accepted a half-time submission that the defendants had not tampered with a motor vehicle, within the meaning of the provision, as the conduct relied upon by the prosecution concerned the detachable trailer of the tanker, as opposed to the cab itself.
Represented a defendant charged with breaching a condition imposed by a senior officer contrary to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to an Extinction Rebellion protest at Oxford Circus. At the close of the prosecution case, which involved cross-examination of a Chief Superintendent, the court accepted a half-time submission that the condition which was imposed was unlawful as the prohibited area which protestors were instructed to leave had no specific end point and was thus insufficiently certain.
Charles has developed a specialist sanctions practice, with a particular focus on the Russian sanctions regime. Charles has experience of and is currently instructed in a number of confidential, high-profile matters.
Charles’ work spans the range of sanctions work. This includes the regulatory sphere (i.e. advising on licence applications), the criminal sphere (i.e. advising on the risks of criminal liability under the Russian sanctions’ regulations) and the public law sphere (i.e. advising on potential grounds for challenging designation).
Charles acted for Nikita Mazepin in applying for interim relief in proceedings brought under section 38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, led by Hugo Keith KC and Rachel Scott. He is currently acting for a number of individuals in current and/or pending challenges to their designations.
Charles’s recent experience includes:
Acted for Nikita Mazepin, former Formula 1 racing driver in applying for interim relief in proceedings brought under section 38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (led by Hugo Keith KC and Rachel Scott).
Acted for an individual in a challenge to their designation (Led by Hugo Keith KC, Rachel Barnes KC and Rachel Scott).
Instructed in a challenge to a designation (Led by Hugo Keith KC, Rachel Barnes KC and Rachel Scott).
Charles accepts instructions across the main areas of Chambers’ public law work. He has a particular interest in cases across the range of Chambers’ practice areas which raise public law and/or human rights related issues.
Given Charles’s practices in both protest law and sanctions, he is very well placed to advise and act in cases involving issues relating to the European Convention on Human Rights and other ‘traditional’ public law principles and concepts.
Charles is currently instructed as Junior Counsel in judicial proceedings challenging a search warrant within the context of mutual legal assistance, where permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is being sought.
He has experience of advising on public law-related issues in a number of different contexts, including the application of article 3 ECHR to the context of prison conditions (as Junior Counsel) the application of judicial review principles within the contexts of sanctions and SIAC proceedings (both as Junior Counsel and on his own) the data-protection implications arising out of a search and seizure following an MLA request. He also has experience of public inquiry work, having been instructed as Junior Counsel by a Core Participant in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to assist with the preparation of Rule 9 statements.
Whilst working as a Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court, Charles worked on appeals involving complex points of law across a wide range of different legal contexts. In particular, he worked on a number of high profile cases which concerned human rights and/or public law issues, including: R (KBR Inc) v Director of the SFO [2021] UKSC 2 (territorial scope of SFO’s investigatory powers); DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23 (appeal by way of case stated arising from protest activity); and Maduro Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela v Guaidó Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela [2021] UKSC 57 (recognition of a foreign head of state and act of state doctrine).
Charles accepts instructions in professional discipline matters. He has experience of representing an appropriate authority in police misconduct proceedings brought against senior officers, as Junior Counsel to Matthew Butt KC. He also regularly represents officers facing misconduct proceedings. He is also on the Teaching Regulatory Authority’s panel of Presenting Officers.
Presented a case on behalf of a police force against a firearms officer facing a domestic-related allegation.
Represented an officer facing an allegation of gross misconduct relating to a message sent on WhatsApp to a group of officers. The officer was not dismissed (but his rank was reduced).
Presented a case on behalf of the Teacher’s Regulatory Authority against a teacher who faced allegations of dishonesty and displaying a lack of integrity relating to a job application. The allegations were proven (but the panel decided not to make a prohibition order).
Junior Counsel to Matthew Butt KC representing Gwent Police in misconduct proceedings against senior officers. Two of the officers were dismissed without notice. A third officer gave notification of his intention to retire before the end of the hearing and the panel determined that he would have been dismissed had he not ceased to be a police officer.
Charles has a growing interest in financial crime and the proceeds of crime. In light of his criminal and sanctions practices, Charles is well-placed to act in these areas.
Charles has a particular interest in Account Freezing and Account Forfeiture Orders. His recent experience includes successfully securing Freezing Orders for a police force in respect of two accounts which together contained over £1,000,000, where the respondent was represented by Senior Counsel, contested account and cash forfeiture proceedings which included live evidence from seven witnesses, and a successful application to intervene in and adjourn financial remedy proceedings in a family court pending an ongoing civil recovery investigation.
Whilst working as a Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court, Charles worked on the landmark case of R (KBR Inc) v Director of the SFO [2021] UKSC 2, which concerned territorial scope of SFO’s investigatory powers.
Successfully applied on behalf of the CPS to intervene in and adjourn financial remedy proceedings in a family court pending an ongoing civil recovery investigation
Representing a police force in Account Forfeiture and Cash Forfeiture proceedings. The contested hearing heard live evidence from 7 individuals.
Represented a police force in Account Forfeiture proceedings relating to two accounts totalling over £100,000, having successfully applied to extend the Freezing Orders already in place.
Successfully secured Freezing Orders for a police force in respect of two accounts totalling over £1,000,000. Senior Counsel appeared for the respondent.
Charles accepts instructions to appear on behalf of requested persons in extradition cases.
Charles has experience of advising on the data protection implications of a search and seizure following a request for mutual legal assistance.
As a Judicial Assistant at the Supreme Court, Charles worked on the case of Zabolotnyi v Hungary [2021] UKSC 14, which concerned the approach to assessing and relying on assurances as to prison conditions given by requesting authorities.
Charles accepts instructions to appear in and advise on matters which concern civil preventative orders. Recent instructions include applications for Sexual Harm Prevention, Sexual Risk, Stalking Protection and Closure Orders.
Successfully secured a Sexual Risk Order for the applicant in a case involving very serious allegations of sexual activity with children.
Successfully secured a Sexual Risk Order for the applicant in a case involving a police officer, where one of the underlying allegations was rape.
C&B v Director of Public Prosecutions (High Court) – [2024] EWHC 1908 (Admin)
Representing two former police officers appeal proceedings by way of case stated against convictions under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Led by Nicholas Yeo. Applications to the High Court for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are pending.
R v O (Wood Green Crown Court) (ongoing)
Representing a defendant charged with offences concerning grievous bodily harm (section 18 and 20 OAPA 1861).
R v E (Bournemouth Crown Court (ongoing)
Representing a defendant charged with affray, inflicting grievous bodily harm (section 20 OAPA 1861) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
R v H (Bournemouth Crown Court (ongoing)
Representing a defendant due to be sentenced for firearms and ammunition offences, the majority of which engage the mandatory minimum term of 5 years’ imprisonment.
R v C (2024) (Snaresbrook Crown Court)
Represented a police officer charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Defendant was acquitted at trial.
R v O (2023) (Bournemouth Crown Court)
Represented a defendant charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Following an abuse of process application relating to the police’s investigative failings and the application of the CPS’s key documents on racist and religious hate crimes and obligations arising under article 8 ECHR, and a trial in which live evidence was given by three prosecution witnesses, the defendant and his wife, the jury, after just over 90 minutes, returned a not guilty verdict.
R v C, D and others (2023) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court)
Represented two of five defendants charged with tampering with a motor vehicle during an Extinction Rebellion protest. The court accepted a half-time submission that the defendants had not tampered with a motor vehicle, within the meaning of the provision, as the conduct relied upon by the prosecution concerned the detachable trailer of the tanker, as opposed to the cab itself.
(R v H) (2023) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court / City of London Magistrates’ Court)
Represented a defendant charged with breaching a condition imposed by a senior officer contrary to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to an Extinction Rebellion protest at Oxford Circus. At the close of the prosecution case, which involved cross-examination of a Chief Superintendent, the court accepted a half-time submission that the condition which she imposed was unlawful as the prohibited area which protestors were instructed to leave had no specific end point and was thus insufficiently certain.
R v S (2023) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court/City of London Magistrates’ Court
Represented a police officer charged with common assault relating to an altercation in a bar. The defendant was acquitted at trial by a District Judge.
R v G (2022) (Southwark Crown Court, sitting at Prospero House)
Represented a defendant at trial who was charged with perverting the course of justice and theft, relating to his conduct as a police officer.
R v G (2022) (Croydon Crown Court)
Represented a defendant charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Following a guilty plea, the case moved to a Newton hearing which involved complex legal argument on the res gestae doctrine. The Newton hearing was resolved in the defendant’s favour and the court passed a suspended sentence.
R v A (2022) (Croydon Youth Court)
Represented a youth charged with two offences, one of which was a summary-only public order offence. After legal argument on the approach to counting the 6-month time limit under s.127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the Court accepted that the public order matter was time-barred.
R v C, D and others (2023) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court)
Represented two of five defendants charged with tampering with a motor vehicle during an Extinction Rebellion protest. The court accepted a half-time submission that the defendants had not tampered with a motor vehicle, within the meaning of the provision, as the conduct relied upon by the prosecution concerned the detachable trailer of the tanker, as opposed to the cab itself. See the BBC’s report on the case here.
R v H (2023) (Westminster Magistrates’ Court / City of London Magistrates’ Court)
Represented a defendant charged with breaching a condition imposed by a senior officer contrary to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to an Extinction Rebellion protest at Oxford Circus. At the close of the prosecution case, which involved cross-examination of a Chief Superintendent, the court accepted a half-time submission that the condition which was imposed was unlawful as the prohibited area which protestors were instructed to leave had no specific end point and was thus insufficiently certain.
Mazepin v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs) [2023] EWHC 1777 (Admin)
Acted for Nikita Mazepin, former Formula 1 racing driver in applying for interim relief in proceedings brought under section 38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (led by Hugo Keith KC and Rachel Scott).
Sanctions Matter
Acted for an individual in a challenge to their designation (Led by Hugo Keith KC, Rachel Barnes KC and Rachel Scott).
Sanctions Matter
Instructed in a challenge to a designation (Led by Hugo Keith KC, Rachel Barnes KC and Rachel Scott).
H v a police force (2024)
Presented a case on behalf of a police force against a firearms officer facing a domestic-related allegation.
H v MPS (2024)
Represented an officer facing an allegation of gross misconduct relating to a message sent on WhatsApp to a group of officers. The officer was not dismissed (but his rank was reduced).
H v TRA (2023)
Presented a case on behalf of the Teacher’s Regulatory Authority against a teacher who faced allegations of dishonesty and displaying a lack of integrity relating to a job application. The allegations were proven (but the panel decided not to make a prohibition order).
B, W, S v Gwent Police (2022)
Junior Counsel to Matthew Butt KC representing Gwent Police in misconduct proceedings against senior officers. Two of the officers were dismissed without notice. A third officer gave notification of his intention to retire before the end of the hearing and the panel determined that he would have been dismissed had he not ceased to be a police officer.
O (2024)
Successfully applied on behalf of the CPS to intervene in and adjourn financial remedy proceedings in a family court pending an ongoing civil recovery investigation
ES (2023)
Representing a police force in Account Forfeiture and Cash Forfeiture proceedings. The contested hearing heard live evidence from 7 individuals.
GU (2022)
Represented a police force in Account Forfeiture proceedings relating to two accounts totalling over £100,000, having successfully applied to extend the Freezing Orders already in place.
D (2022)
Successfully secured Freezing Orders for a police force in respect of two accounts totalling over £1,000,000. Senior Counsel appeared for the respondent.
(MPS v L) (2022)
Successfully secured a Sexual Risk Order for the applicant in a case involving very serious allegations of sexual activity with children.
(MPS v M) (2022)
Successfully secured a Sexual Risk Order for the applicant in a case involving a police officer, where one of the underlying allegations was rape.
Education
Scholarships and prizes
Throughout his legal studies, Charles has been involved in a number of pro bono projects in different areas including prison law, criminal appeals, social security and education law. He intends to maintain his involvement in pro bono and other access-to-justice-related work whilst in practice.
Charles has developed a significant academic interest in criminal justice and public law. At Cambridge, Charles’ MPhil dissertation considered the relationship between harm, dangerousness, sentencing and probation. At Penn, his studies spanned constitutional law, criminal law, international human rights law and the ever-growing field of US law referred to as “crimmigration”, which seeks to understand the relationship between immigration law and criminal justice. Charles hopes to maintain this interest in academic law alongside his practice.
Outside of law, Charles has worked in politics in his native Northern Ireland, on a voluntary basis, with a particular interest in human rights, cross-community and constitutional issues.
I, Charles McCombe, am a data controller and can be contacted at 3 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5BH or by telephone on 020 7400 6400 or by email at clerks@3rblaw.com. My Data Protection Policy can be found here.
All personal data that I process is for the purposes of providing legal services, conducting conflict-checks, marketing, defending potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes, keeping anti-money laundering records, training other barristers and pupils and when providing work-shadowing opportunities, and/or exercising a right to a lien. The types of data I process vary upon the nature of the legal matter in relation to which I am engaged to advise, but can include names, contact details, biographic details and ‘special category personal data’ (such as details of racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, health, sex life and criminal convictions and proceedings).
Depending upon the circumstances of the case, the legal bases upon which I process personal data are (i) the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract, (ii) the processing is necessary to comply with legal obligations to which I am subject, or (iii) the processing is necessary for the legitimate interests set out above, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subjects which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. When I rely on (iii) legitimate interests, my ‘Legitimate Interests Assessment’ can be found here. When I process data which has not been obtained directly from the data subject (eg personal data contained in evidential materials), it will have been supplied to me as part of my instructions in circumstances covered by legal professional privilege.
Depending upon the circumstances of the case, I may share the personal data with:
I retain personal data for no longer than 7 years after the case has come to an end or as otherwise required by law.
I do not intend to transfer data to any country which is not either within the European Union, or otherwise permitted by UK data protection legislation.
Under the UK GDPR, data subjects whose personal data I process have the right to request from me access to, and rectification or erasure of, their personal data, the right to the restriction of processing concerning them, the right to object to processing as well as the right to data portability. Data subjects also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ico.org.uk).
In cases where there is a contract between me and the data subject, the provision of personal data is a contractual requirement and the data subject is obliged to provide the personal data in order that I can supply legal services. A failure to provide such data may mean that I will not be able to provide those legal services.
Rev 2.1 – 18.11.2022
| Address | 3 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5BH |
|---|---|
| DX | 237 LDE |
| Opening hours | 08:30 – 18:30 |
| Telephone | +44 (0)20 7400 6400 |
|---|---|
| clerks@3rblaw.com | |
| Senior clerk | Charles McCombe |
