Charles Snelling
Called to the Bar in 2005

Charles is an experienced Public Law barrister dealing with an array of Local Authorities including Judicial Review of their decisions.

He acts for Trading Standards, in extensive and complex multi-handed prosecutions with accompanying significant Proceeds of Crime confiscation applications, often after contested trial. He acts for Local Authorities and individuals in environmental offences (EA prosecutions), general licensing matters, including relating to public houses (inc. closure orders and other matters), and taxi licensing (operators and drivers).

He often appears in the Magistrates courts civil jurisdiction in matters such as the appeal of civil penalties or against the seeking of Gang Injunctions etc.

He acts for individuals in securing the return of property held by the police.

He represents families and companies at Coroners Inquests and has a reputation for having a caring and understanding nature in often highly emotional and charged environments. He is known for his pastoral care of families.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

Anglian Water Services LTD v Bedford Borough Council – acted for Anglian Water in defence of the service of an abatement notice against their largest water recycling centre. There was a four-day trial with contested expert evidence after which AWS were determined as having applied ‘best practical means’ to abate the nuisance, the appeal was successful and the notice quashed. It was a highly charged and technically challenging trial.

Fossitt v Breckland DC – acted for the owner of a public house served with an abatement notice to prevent the pub being used as the venue for an annual music festival which was objected to by the Pub’s neighbours. Magistrates found the music event did not amount to a public nuisance. The notice was quashed with full costs awarded to the public house.

HDC v Platinum Retail Ltd – acted for Huntingdon DC in an action again a car wash that was creating a statutory noise nuisance to neighbouring properties. Successfully defeated extensive and repeated legal arguments (abuse of process) by the appellant after which HDC were upheld in the service of the notice and the noise abated.

Re: McMahon – action against the police for the removal of a harassment notice having been served on limited hearsay evidence.

R v XXX (youth) in the Peterborough Magistrates Court successfully opposing a Police application for a Gang Injunction.

Inquest Touching on the Death of Maxine C. – representing the family regarding allegations (upheld) of the failing of the ambulance service to provide CPR in line with their national guidance.

Inquest Touching on the Death of Nigel W. – representing family for a death at work of the driver of a tipper truck who was electrocuted when it made contact worth power cables. Heard before a jury with numerous legal Issues.

Inquest Touching on the Death of Mrs S. – acted for care home where death was alleged to be caused due to their neglect. No fault found against care home.

Charles is an experienced barrister dealing with an array of housing related matters.

He regularly acts for the Local Authorities and individuals in licensing and other regulatory matters. He has extensive experiences in local authority law and procedure. He advises Local Authorities on their applications to Central Government for the granting of appropriate permission to implement schemes such as selective licensing, including the lawfulness of proposed fee structures.

He acts in matters in the civil courts relating to unlawful eviction, ASBO injunctions, possession hearings, and other housing related matters.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

Peterborough City Council v Kaur – prosecuted the wife of a local solicitor for regulatory housing law matters which result in the judge referring her husband to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.

Peterborough City Council v Lal and others – prosecuted the husband of a Peterborough City Council Councillor for regulatory breaches of housing regulations. Successfully resisted several separate allegations of abuse of process made against the leaders of the council and secured convictions. Case was of media interest in Peterborough.

CCC v Coppola – a case defending where he successfully argued on appeal that the POCA confiscation order to recover rent paid to a landlord following the failure to comply with an Improvement notice was without the scope of the legislation.

PCC v Serstena – acted for Council against a Council Tenant who owned her own property as well. Recovered over £30k in Proceeds of Crime following her convictions for fraud.

PCC v Lets Move Estate Agents – 4 days RPT trial dealing with the refusal of granting 80 selective licences in which he successfully argued that the agency was not a fit and proper person and licences were refused. Appeal to Upper Tribunal refused following his written submissions. The company was sold just before trial and he successfully established in cross examination that the sale was a sham.

CCC v Croft – successfully argued that the requirement to put in smoke detectors did not require compliance with the LACORS guidance (the fact that they were not interlinked did not create a criminal offence under the HMO Management Regulations). Case dropped after extensive legal arguments and before trial.

IBC v Miza – successfully argued that the requirement to put in smoke detectors did not require compliance with the LACORS guidance under the Council’s Guidance and the HMO Management Regulations. Case dropped at the end of the prosecution case.

LBC v Akhtar – successfully argued that the requirement to put in smoke detectors did not require compliance with the LACORS guidance. Company accepted minor offences and case dropped against owner of letting agency.

SCDC v Chaplin Farms Ltd – prosecuted a company running an Illegal campsite for over a decade on green belt land. Owners ordered to pay over £200k in POCA confiscation.

PCC v Malik – prosecuting for trading standards – lifestyle offence – contested POCA trial and order over £100k made. Defendant tried to argue it was his father’s money. Utilised section s10A to prove it wasn’t.

Charles is a well-respected and established criminal barrister with a proven track record and extensive experience both prosecuting and defending. He taught law at City University prior to coming to the bar and has a thorough understanding of law.

He undertakes the full range of criminal law ranging from violence, sex, drugs, dishonesty, driving and regulatory offences. He prosecutes on behalf of the CPS, BIS, and Local Council’s and is a Grade 3 CPS prosecutor.

He is a leading junior of some note and well respected for his excellent client care and outstanding advocacy ability. He has an impressive jury style and is able to persuade juries in the most difficult of cases resulting in an impressive track record of acquittals when defending.

As can be seen from the case list below Charles has acted in high profile terrorism cases and complex criminal cases which often last several months.

He regularly prosecutes complex and high profile regulatory criminal work on behalf of Local Authorities (you are referred to his public law page).

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

R v Locaitis – acting for a ringleader in a large multi-handed VAT fraud (cigarette smuggling) where over £1m of vat was avoided. The trial resulted in a hung jury for only his defendant only. During the retiral the jury was discharged and after a Goodyear indication his client received a suspended sentence (the co-d’s were sentenced to several years in custody each).

R v Higginson – Norwich Crown Court Leading Junior Counsel for the first of nine defendants charged with a large-scale international drug and money laundering conspiracy. The case involved the admissibility of 41 hours of covert material (which was excluded following his skeleton argument) and reference to the Surveillance Commissioner followed. Six-week trial.

R v Nursharif – Southwark Crown Court acted for defendant initially accused of terrorism offences. Terrorism allegations eventually dropped and he was tried for large scale international money laundering and Khat export conspiracy. Case involved over 25,000 pages of evidence including multi-jurisdictional evidential arguments relating to the use of covert intercept material. Two-month trial (but following argument case was dropped against his client).

R v Robertson – Peterborough Crown Court acted for the mother in a multi-handed (alleged) child abuse offences both historic and current. The case involved associated care proceedings. Four-week trial (but finished after successful submission of no case to answer after two weeks due to successfully arguing the police had cross-contaminated the children’s evidence).

R v Kenehan – Winchester Crown Court acted for a university lecturer accused of assisting an offender following a murder by her boyfriend’s gang of a rival drug dealer and further accusations of her involvement in a large scale drugs conspiracy. It was a case that was reported in the national press and tried by Mr Justice Sweeney. Six-week trial involving numerous legal issues and extensive evaluation of computer material served during the trial.

R v Morris – Norwich Crown Court acted for a man accused of a £750,000 fraud against an insurance company for taking out a policy while being aware of a pre-existing condition (benefit figure reduced to £64 following legal argument).

R v Mohammed – Kingston Crown Court acted for defendant accused of kidnap and false imprisonment. Case dropped following legal argument.

R v Akulevicious – Winchester Crown Court – large multi-handed Eastern European fuel stealing gang. Tried in absence.

R v Ilgavyzis – prosecuting a firearm, money laundering and POCA trial. Defendant found guilty and a POCA order of over £100k made.

EA v Williams – defendant ran an illegal waste site. POCA order of over £200k

R v Rainys – a test case for a determination about the status of agricultural vehicles (tractors) and whether they require tachographs or are exempt under Art13(1)(c) of EC No. 561/2006. Case discontinued by CPS following service of skeleton argument.