Sophie is an outstanding counsel. Her attention to detail is second-to-none, she has the most approachable manner when dealing with clients, and her advocacy style is fluid and sincere and she is able to put her case in a clear and concise manner, filling not only her clients with confidence, but also her instructing solicitor.”
Legal 500 2025 Rising star in Crime (Fraud and General)
Sophie is an established and well-regarded junior specialising in criminal and regulatory matters.
Sophie is registered with the Bar’s national charity Advocate and undertakes work on a pro bono basis through their services.
Sophie enjoys a busy criminal practice and is regularly instructed to both prosecute and defend across the full spectrum of proceedings, including the most serious sexual and violent offences. She is building a solid reputation as an effective and assiduous junior and has been praised for her thorough preparation and ability to deal with sensitive issues with compassion and tact. Her pragmatic and perceptive approach enables her to quickly build a rapport with clients, even when delivering difficult advice.
Sophie has developed a wide and varied practice in actions on behalf of the police, local authorities and other organisations, including firearms licensing, serious crime prevention orders, sexual risk orders, and anti-social behaviour injunctions, amongst others. She is also regularly instructed in matters concerning dangerous dogs and associated applications. She is adept at dealing with litigants in person and her sensible and down-to-earth approach is particularly effective when dealing with sensitive matters.
Sophie is a member of the Attorney General’s Junior Junior scheme and welcomes instructions on that basis; she is currently assisting with both the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry and the Covid-19 Inquiry in that capacity.
Sophie is also developing her regulatory and inquest practice. Of note, she represented an Interested Person in a series of inquests invoking Article 2, heard concurrently over a 9-week period concerning the deaths of six elderly care home residents, with live issues including neglect, the Protection of Vulnerable Adults and inter-agency working. She was commended by the Coroner for her diligent preparation and effective advocacy, both oral and in writing. Her closing submissions were described as “integral” to the Coroner’s determination that findings of unlawful killing were not appropriate in the circumstances.
R v PH (2022) – instructed to defend indictment including serious sexual offences against the Defendant’s granddaughter over a 4-year period. Issues involved the cross-examination of a vulnerable child witness, who was assisted by an intermediary, and ultimately the consideration of dangerousness and the extended licence provisions.
R v TR (youth) (2022) – instructed to defend youth charged with multiple counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child, under s.13 Sexual Offences Act 2003. The defendant was ultimately convicted though the case was dealt with by way of non-custodial disposal.
R v AA and FM (2022) – instructed to prosecute an affray and associated serious violent offences, after the Defendants had entered a property during a domestic dispute with a female present at the address (not the homeowner), and one of the Defendants armed himself with a garden shovel, causing serious injuries to the female involved in the dispute and a 4-year-old child present at the scene.
Lancashire Constabulary v KD (2022) – represented Lancashire Police in an appeal against the Magistrates Court decision to impose destruction orders in respect of two Pit-Bull Terriers, S and L, following an attack on another dog and his owner by L. Destruction Order upheld for L, the attacking dog and appeal allowed (unchallenged as the initial application was out of time) in respect of S, the other dog. Following the appeal, a fresh application was issued in relation to S (a Contingent Destruction Order agreed as appropriate), but the Respondent then raised issues around jurisdiction and abuse of process. Those arguments were rejected by the Court and a Contingent Destruction Order was imposed in respect of S.
Lancashire Constabulary v LD and Others (youths) (2021) – represented Lancashire Police in an application for a Gang Injunction Order concerning four youths involved in the supply of controlled drugs and anti-social behaviour in Blackpool and the surrounding area.
R v BM (youth) (2021) – represented a youth Defendant facing multiple counts of possession with intent to supply controlled drugs of Class A and B. Following a successful application under s.78 PACE for the exclusion of the mobile phone evidence, Defendant entered a plea on a limited basis to the production of cannabis for personal use.
R v AS (2021) – represented Defendant charged with production of cannabis having been arrested following warrants executed at several properties across the Manchester area; value of cannabis seized was in excess of £1 million. Issues involved modern slavery and human trafficking.
R v AM and Others (2021) – represented Defendant in multi-handed ‘County Lines’ drug supply between Manchester and Swansea. Following careful cross-examination, the Crown’s forensic scientist agreed secondary transfer was more than a mere possibility and was in fact the most likely explanation for AM’s fingerprints on the drug exhibits seized from the subject address.
Operation J (2021) – instructed to represent an employee of the Health Board who was an IP in their own right, in a series of inquests concerning the deaths of elderly care home residents, which were the subject of a series of television documentaries. Live issues included neglect, the Protection of Vulnerable Adults and inter-agency working. Involved cross-examination of lay and professional witnesses, and written and oral submissions on the engagement of Article 2, Neglect riders, the concept of aggregation and ‘unlawful killing’.
R v LD (2021) – represented Defendant charged with robbery; included application for specific disclosure and sensitive Public Interest Immunity issues given the defence raised was effectively “drug deal gone sour”. Defendant acquitted.
R v AJ (2020) – prosecuted Defendant charged with ABH against his ex-partner. Defendant convicted. Case involved assertion of self-defence and medical evidence as to mechanism of perichondrial hematoma, or “cauliflower-ear” injury.
R v PP (2020) – represented Defendant charged with public order offences during Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. Incident was captured on body-worn footage but following detailed cross-examination of police officers conducting the arrest, established that relevant limbs of the offence were not made out. Defendant acquitted after successful submission of no case to answer.
Inner Temple, Major Scholarship
Inner Temple, Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Award
BPP Manchester, Regional Programme Leader’s Award
BPP Manchester, Advocacy Award
University of Law Manchester, GDL
Loughborough University, BSc
BPP Manchester, BPTC
Level 3 –CPS Advocate Panel (General Crime)
RaSSO Panel
Criminal Bar Association
Women in Law UK
Advocate
Northern Circuit
This site uses cookies that enable us to make improvements, provide relevant content, and for analytics purposes. For more details, see our Cookie Policy. By clicking Accept, you consent to our use of cookies.
