Rochelle Collins

Year of Call: 2022

Education:

LLB Honours Law London Guildhall University
LPC University of Hertfordshire.
Duty Solicitor
Accredited Police Station Rep

Areas Of Work:

Profile:

Before being called to the Bar Rochelle was a Duty solicitor for 14 years and a Higher Court Advocate for the last 10 years, Rochelle has spent most of her career defending cases in the crown court. 

Having qualified as Duty Solicitor and an accredited Police Station representative, Rochelle is very familiar with the process at the police stations, with a considerable degree of expertise in protecting the rights of a detainee and with all of the general procedures at the police station.  Rochelle can therefore deal with a criminal matter form the Police Station all the way through to the Court of Appeal.

Rochelle is experienced in representing clients in a wide range of criminal offences, from the most serious of offences, such as Murder, Rape and GBH to offences that are not as serious but nonetheless require the expertise that Rochelle has gained throughout her career.

This can be seen from the examples given below that Rochelle has acted as Leading Junior and been instructed as the Junior to both Kings Counsel and Leading Juniors in cases of the utmost weight and gravity.

Notable cases

R v J & Other- (Inner London Crown Court) J and 3 others were indicted for an ABH. One of the defendants made a successful half time submission, at the close of the crown’s case. Of the remaining defendants only 2 gave evidence one being J. J was cross examined on a short piece of body worn footage in which she is seen complaining to the police that they had arrested R. R, who had nothing to do with the incident, the point being taken that she was not protesting her own lack of involvement. J explained that the edited piece of footage was misleading and was part of a much longer recorded conversation which had never been served. The Crown were directed to serve the unedited version of the BWV. The footage shows a member of security staff approaching one of the police officers, to have a private conversation. 

The officer is seen returning, with a concerned look on his face, and says to his colleague’s words to the effect of, “he is saying the victim was being aggressive”. No statement, name or any identifying details were taken from him. There was no entry on the CRIS report disclosing his existence. He remains anonymous to this day. 

As a result, an application was made to have the proceedings stayed as an abuse of process. The application was successful on both limbs. 

R v M & others, (Wood Green Crown Court) Leading Junior. M was 1 of 8 defendants in this trial, For Trafficking young women to the UK from Romania, and Criminal Property/Proceeds of Crime. The case had 17 complainants. Two other alleged co-conspirators (one being the alleged ringleader) were being tried in parallel proceedings in Romania. There were novel issues in this case, both of fact and of law, created by the existence of the proceedings in Romania. This raised complexed questions of cross-jurisdictional admissibility and of disclosure obligations. The Prosecution sought to rely on intercept evidence obtained by the Romanian authorities. There were additional evidential issues that arose as the Romanian proceedings progressed, which had to be dealt with expeditiously as they arose, during the trial itself. An application was made under s78 to exclude the intercept evidence, which was refused. However, M was acquitted of the trafficking offence. 

In R v R & others – (Manchester Crown Court) Junior Alone. The defendant was charged with 2 counts of rape. The Defendant had learning difficulties and required an intermediary. This was not identified until 2 days before the trial was due to start. The matter was listed following day, and an application was made to vacate the trial date.  The Judge on this occasion said it was a matter for the trial Judge. On the morning of the trial, I made an application for the trial to be adjourned. It was refused. 

During the trial an expert was found, the Defendant accessed and a full report place before the court. Unfortunately, the application to discharge the jury, so the defendant could have an intermediary throughout the proceeding was rejected. However, the Court followed the recommendations set out in the report with an effective grounds rule hearing. The defendant’s needs were managed throughout the Trial ensuring he was properly represented and, at the same time ensuring he had the necessary breaks and understood what was happening throughout his trial 

R v D-C & others – (Central Criminal Court) Lead by KC. D-C was charged with 21 counts of Conspiracy to Rob Supermarkets over a 2-year period. All the robberies took place in the early morning as the stores were preparing to open. D-C was arrested and charged with the offences based on a pair of Timberland boots that when compared to a footprint taken from one of the stores there appeared to be a match. There was also telephone evidence that connected the defendant to some of the robberies. The case centred around several experts, telephone, cell site and a Forensic expert.  

A forensic expert was instructed on behalf of the defence to look at whether, as per the Crown expert, that a shoe print comparison some 21 months after the event is reliable.  Detailed cross-examination was undertaken with the Crowns expert.  They were challenged as to whether a comparison made 21 months later; the shoe having been worn in that time is reliable.  

It became clear, through robust cross examination, that apart from the fact the print and the shoe were both timberland in origin that was the extent of the match. 

R v P & others –(Central Criminal Court) Junior Alone: P was one of six defendants charged with Murder, Conspiracy to commit GBH and Violent Disorder.  The defendant had attended a party in an opposing gang area.  There was some trouble during the party, from the opposing gang.  However the adults at the party sent them away.

P Left the party a few minutes before the rest of the party goers. A fight then breaks out outside the address where the party was held.  A chase ensured and passed P. P realises some of his friends are being chased and tries to assist.  One of the opposing gang members was stabbed and died.  P was charged with the above offences. 

At the end of the Crowns case a half time submission was made on the count of Murder and the Conspiracy to commit GBH.  It was refused. The trial continued and at the end of the defence cases, the application was renewed and granted. 

R v K and B – Represented a defendant who had set up a man to be attacked/robbed by her friends in a honey trap robbery.  An application was made to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive.  The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced.

R v C-V Represented 14 year old youth charged with the robbery of a mobile phone. An application was made during the trial to have the identification evidence excluded.  After conviction an appeal was made to the Court of Appeal against the conviction which was successful. 

Miss Rochelle Collins is regulated by the Bar Standards Board, holds a current practising certificate and her details can be found on the BSB’s Barrister Register https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-barristers'-register/

Miss Rochelle Collins 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/

Miss Rochelle Collins 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 Miss Rochelle Collins 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/