Year of Call: 2016
Bar Professional Training Course (The University of Law)
LLB (Hons) (The University of Newcastle upon Tyne)
Areas Of Work:
Charles Defends and Prosecutes in the Crown Court, Magistrates’ Court and Youth Court.
Charles has a very keen interest in Regulatory matters and has experience in acting both for local authorities and solicitors’ firms. Charles welcomes instructions concerning any aspect of regulatory law. Charles would be happy to discuss secondment opportunities concerning regulatory law.
Charles regularly Prosecutes for the National Probation Service.
In the Magistrates’ Court Charles has a strong practice involving Road Traffic matters.
Charles is a Grade 1 CPS Panel Advocate and is on the Attorney General’s Junior Junior Panel.
Charles welcomes disclosure and review work and enquiry work.
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v H & P – Charles represented two Defendants charged with numerous offences under the Licencing Act 2003 and the various tobacco and related products regulations. The charges were significantly reduced after negotiations with the Prosecutor;
Milton Keynes Council v J – Charles represented J on appeal at Aylesbury Crown Court. The Judge commented that J’s decisions based upon Charles’s advice was ‘the most intelligent decision in his entire life’;
London Borough of Redbridge v A – Charles represented a Defendant charged with tobacco and related products regulations. After submissions the financial penalties were substantially lower than expected;
Westminster City Council v L – Charles secured a conditional discharge in relation to wrongful use of a disabled person’s badge in an emotionally charged matter involving a very anxious client and sad factual circumstances;
Met Police v B (Ealing Magistrates’ Court) - Charles successfully represented a club in an emergency closure order application. The club remained open which meant that 20 people kept their jobs;
Isle of Wight Council v K – Charles successfully resisted an appeal against an enforcement notice served by the Council over numerous dangerous fire safety issues in four properties on the Isle – an important issue in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire. The Appeal was heard at Blackfriars Crown Court over two days. Charles succeeded on all three issues, and secured the Council almost £15,000 in costs. During this case, Charles successfully resisted an application for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Charles has represented both the Home Office and Defendants in cash forfeiture hearings;
HMIC – Charles was recently instructed by the Government Legal Department to assist with a matter relating to Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Court of Appeal
Charles welcomes instructions relating to advice on appeal.
Appeal of A against sentence – Charles renewed an application to the full Court for leave to appeal sentence after it was refused by the Single Judge. HHJ Dean QC, giving Judgement, granted leave and agreed with Charles’s submissions that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The sentence was reduced by half to 15 months’ custody.
R v W (Luton Crown Court) - Secured acquittal in an ABH. The Defendant had allegedly bitten a piece out of the Complainant’s face;
R v E (Inner London Crown Court) - Represented a Defendant in a three-day burglary trial;
R v H (Aylesbury Crown Court) – Represented a Defendant in a 4-day armed robbery;
R v S (Snaresbrook Crown Court) – Successful resistance of Res Gestae leading to the Crown offering no evidence;
R v M (Inner London Crown Court) – Crown offered no evidence at appeal despite Defendant failing to attend after medical evidence was obtained on Charles’ advice;
R v A (Isleworth Crown Court) – Represented a Defendant in a 4-day burglary trial. Sentence reduced by 50% on appeal to the Court of Appeal http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/contractor-nicked-diamond-ring-at-premier-inn/
R v C (Luton Crown Court) – Successful result after a Goodyear indication;
R v C (Aylesbury Crown Court) – Successful appeal, persuading the Court to find exceptional hardship in a driving matter;
R v M (Central Criminal Court) – Prosecution of a sentence which received press coverage http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/tragedy-see-crooked-finance-manager-boss-says-judge/
R v M (Inner London Crown Court) – Successful prosecution of an appeal against conviction and sentence for possession of a bladed article;
R v G (Blackfriars Crown Court) – Successful prosecution of an appeal against conviction regarding rail fare evasion;
R v D (Isleworth Crown Court) – Successful appeal for post-conviction refusal of bail;
R v N (Croydon Crown Court) – Defended in a sentence resulting in 20-weeks custody for domestic burglary, possession of 15 wraps of cocaine, theft and driving matters.
Charles has represented the Isle of Wight Council in Education Law matters;
R v A (City of London Magistrates’ Court) – Successful half-time submission relating to a homophobic hate crime on a police officer;
R v S (Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court) – Successful half-time submission in a domestic assault case with a Defendant of good character;
R v S (Bromley Magistrates’ Court) - Acquittal despite irrefutable DNA evidence;
R v M (Stratford Magistrates’ Court) – Charles secured acquittal after submissions made under the M’Naughten insanity criteria in an assault case;
R v N (Ealing Magistrates’ Court) – Acquittal in a failing to provide information under S172 Road Traffic Act 1988;
R v F (Bromley Magistrates’ Court) – Charles persuaded the bench to impose a 56-day ban for an offence of speeding. The client was 54 mph over the speed limit;
R v D (Bromley Magistrates’ Court) – Successful newton in a speeding matter. Persuaded the Court the client was going 93mph in a 70-zone as opposed to a 50-zone;
R v S (Medway Magistrates’ Court) - Client was charged with S4 Public Order and linked offences of criminal damage and possessing an offensive weapon. The Crown’s case was ID by recognition and CCTV. Charles made submissions using the Turnbull guidelines. Client acquitted;
R v B, (Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court) - Client was charged with taking a vehicle without consent. Similarly, the Crown’s case was one of ID by recognition by a police officer. Charles made submissions under Turnbull without calling the Defendant. Client acquitted;
R v E (Bromley Magistrates’ Court) – Client was charged with possession of a bladed article. Charles made submissions on inconsistent DNA evidence. Client acquitted;
R v J (City of London Magistrates’ Court) – Charles made submissions regarding an incorrect charge being laid in a handling stolen goods matter. Client acquitted;
R v B (Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court) Client acquitted after a successful half-time submission in a possession of a bladed article matter.
R v L (Croydon Youth Court) – Charles secured acquittal in a vehicle interference matter;
R v H (Uxbridge Youth Court) – Charles persuaded the bench to impose a referral order in lieu of custody in a GBH matter;
R v M (Uxbridge Youth Court) – Client was charged with an assault on a police officer. Client acquitted.
Prior to joining chambers Charles obtained extensive experience in the County Court. Charles dealt with a broad spectrum of civil matters including case management hearings, residential landlord and tenant disputes, trespassers, charging orders, determinations, return of goods and consumer credit, mortgage possession and personal injury hearings.
Charles accepts PI instructions in the County Court.
Charles enjoys rugby, skiing and going to the gym. He enjoys music and heading back to Yorkshire when time permits.
Mr Charles Drinnan is regulated by the Bar Standards Board, holds a current practising certificate and his details can be found on the BSB’s Barrister Register https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-barristers'-register/
Mr Charles Drinnan holds insurance cover for all legal services supplied through professional indemnity insurance with the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) The coverage is worldwide subject to their terms which are available on their website https://www.barmutual.co.uk/
Mr Charles Drinnan is registered with the Information Commissioners office under the Data Protection Act https://ico.org.uk/
If you are not satisfied with the service that Mr Charles Drinnan provides you can make a complaint to Chambers. Information on Chambers Complaints Procedure is available on Chambers website www.9kbw.com/about-us/complaints-procedure
If you are not satisfied with the response you receive from Chambers you may complain to the Legal Ombudsman (This must be done within the time limits set out) The contact details can be found on the Legal Ombudsman’s website http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/