Charles Row KC

Charles regularly defends and prosecutes fraud cases including Conspiracy to Defraud, Money Laundering, Theft from Employer, Mortgage, VAT, PAYE/NI Fraud and other General Business-related crime.

R v B & others – Acted as leading junior for the prosecution in a multi-handed, multi-million-pound fraud involving the alleged defrauding of multiple investors in carbon credits. The Crown’s case was that the defendants were cold calling vulnerable investors and using high pressure sales tactics to sell high risk and worthless carbon credits in a ‘boiler room’ scam.

Operation Paste – Charles defended a man in an 8-week trial, accused of conspiracy to defraud by utilizing his management training company to defraud the NHS of a sum in excess of £3 million. The conviction was later successfully appealed on grounds of judicial bias.

R v KS and others – Charles was privately instructed to defend in Operation Baghrash. His client was an employee of a building firm engaged to undertake substantial works to a hospice. The allegation centered around the draw-down of capital funds from government grants. The trial was heard in Bristol Crown Court for over 7 weeks where Charles’ client was acquitted.

R v GF & others – Charles defended one of five in a substantial fraud on the NHS. The defendants ran a commercial building and roofing company and were involved in the conspiracy alongside an NHS manager. Substantial sums were charged for works that were never done and or for works on private residential property owned by them and by the NHS employee.

Charles also frequently acts within serious sexual offence cases. These often involve Charles handling multi complainant historic abuse matters, rape and abuse within families. His experience with vulnerable witnesses and defendants of varying age, maturity and intellectual ability allows him to command these cases with the upmost care and detail. He is used to dealing with intermediaries, psychiatrists, psychologists and experts of all types.

R v NM & others (Operation Button) – He successfully defended a young Somali male accused as part of Operation Button, a multi handed, multiple victim case involving the serious sexual abuse and rape of young, vulnerable teens by a group of men from Bristol.

R v NM & others (Operation Blisland) – Charles defended the same young Somali male, along with others, charged with allegations of a similar nature in trial. The jury were hung after the first trial which lasted 7 weeks but the defendant was acquitted at the subsequent retrial.

R v DC – Charles defended a man charged with historic abuse of his step daughter. the allegations dated back over 40 years. DC was charged with 9 counts including offences of Rape, Child cruelty and indecent assault. The case required meticulous examination of historic medical records and microfiche records obtained from social services.

Charles’ ability to deal with complex, paper heavy cases had led to instructions in substantial, long running murder trials. His careful preparation and resolute advocacy style has led to positive results for his clients.

R v PW – Charles defended a mechanic accused of gross negligence manslaughter resulting in the death of 4 people including a four-year-old girl. The incident occurred in Bath when the brakes on the tipper truck PW had been responsible for servicing and inspecting failed. The young driver lost control and collided with pedestrians and vehicles.

R v H-F – Charles successfully defended a man with psychiatric difficulties who was accused of attempting to murder his mother. She was a vulnerable woman in her 70s with a long history of alcohol abuse, suspected Korsakoff syndrome and delusions of parasitosis.

R v RH and NH – Charles has defended the one of two defendants in the machete attack in the Tesco Eastville store in Bristol. The 2 men were charged with GBH section 18 after people were severely injured following the attack.

Charles has developed a substantial private and insurance backed serious road traffic practice. He repeatedly undertakes cases including death by dangerous and careless driving and causing serious injury through dangerous driving. They often involve multiple victims and or young defendants. He has extensive experience of working with accident reconstruction and experts alike within his preparation for cases.

R v TT – Charles acted on behalf of a defendant who was charged with causing death by careless driving after she hit a cyclist who fell off their bicycle in front of her. The case was initially heard in March 2016 where the jury was hung. The case was retired in August where the defendant was acquitted after 5 days of argument.

R v LB – Charles defended a defendant charged with causing death by careless driving. The defendant’s car crashed into a speeding motorcyclist who died as a consequence of injuries sustained. Through careful analysis of council CCTV and cross examination of forensic collision investigators, Charles managed to construct a successful half time submission.

R v DL – Defended a man charged with Causing Death by Dangerous driving. The defendant turned to enter a filling station forecourt, crossing a carriageway into the oncoming lane directly into the path of an oncoming motorcyclist who died from his injuries. After 3 days the jury acquitted of the more serious offence, the defendant having admitted causing death by careless driving.

R v THW – Charles defended in a case where a taxi driver who accidentally caused the death of one of his customers was acquitted of all charges. Charles submitted at half-time that there was no case to answer.

R v MC – Charles represented a man charged with causing the death of a 90-year-old man by careless driving. The deceased was knocked over whilst on a pedestrian crossing in a residential area. The defendant was acquitted, again due to detailed cross examination of a police forensic accident reconstruction officer.

As a natural progression from Charles’ extensive private serious road traffic collision practice, he is regularly briefed by panel solicitors on behalf of insurance companies to attend inquests.  Charles’ empathetic approach coupled with sound practical advice ensures that clients are left feeling confident and supported at a time when they are particularly vulnerable.

Through that experience, Charles has also engaged with Article 2 inquest work.  He is equipped with sound legal knowledge and regularly attends specialist training days to ensure that he is fully up to date with latest case law and importantly, is well informed as to best practice and how to achieve the most favourable outcome for a lay client.

For example, Charles represented Bristol City Council in an Article 2 inquest.  The Council operated sheltered housing with an emergency cord pull system.  A resident activated her cord and although an on-duty warden attended and knocked at her door, he failed to act or call emergency services upon receiving no response.  He could not gain entry as at some point the lock to the apartment had been changed and the Council did not have a spare key.  The matter was left until the following morning when a family member discovered the resident who had died at some point following the activation of the cord.  Careful analysis of medical evidence enabled the Coroner to conclude that there was no causal link between the failure and the death, but the issue of ‘Preventing Future Deaths’ was of obvious importance to the Council who were keen to modify their procedures.

Charles’ business like and professional approach is well suited to Regulatory Crime.  He is a favourite with solicitors acting for lay clients under Directors and Officers Liability Insurance and in addition has dealt with matters as diverse as Food Safety Regulations, Working at Height Regulations, Trading Standards and Destruction of Ancient Monuments.  He also has in depth knowledge of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.  Also, Charles’ love of sailing and all things to do with the sea has led him to prosecute for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency involving breach of Collision Regulations

Roland Wilson (Re: Atalanta of Chester) – Charles prosecuted a retired naval officer on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.  The defendant’s racing yacht collided with an oil tanker which was making its way into Southampton during Cowes Week.  The trial involved careful analysis of GPS data from several vessels and an exploration of navigational requirements both for racing vessels and merchant ships operating in busy waters.  The clip of the collision was caught here.

Clipper Ventures Vessel – Charles advised on behalf of the Maritime and Coastal Agency on a case of a sailor falling over-board during the Clipper “round-the-world” yacht race. The victim was helping to change sails on the foredeck of the yacht when she was washed overboard in storm-force winds.   Although she was recovered from the water, she never regained consciousness.    The same yacht lost another crew member during the same race.

Roger Penny (English Heritage) – Charles defended a man charged with destroying a 5,000-year-old stone monument in Somerset. The prosecution was brought by English Heritage after the “Priddy Circles” monument had been damaged by an employee sent to ‘tidy’ the site.  The case involved detailed negotiation with English Heritage in order to mitigate the damage and to offset the fine by paying for consequential archaeological exploration and restoration.

R v SN – a marketing director set up a family business running an upmarket deli style café and restaurant in Eastbourne.  The defendant was ‘front of house’ but his daughter ran the kitchen and hired staff.  Although menus had been carefully annotated with allergy notices and staff had been allergy trained a break down in systems and processes led to a 4 year old child with a nut allergy being served a praline filled wafer with an ice cream.   The child survived but Charles was instructed to represent the Director of the company in a case brought under the Food Safety Regulations.

R v JS & Others – Charles represented one of several women prosecuted under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  JS had promoted  a ‘ pyramid’ scheme whereby participants were encouraged to pledge £3000 in the hope and expectation of receiving £24,000.  The scheme was promoted through house parties and gatherings culminating in periodic pay-outs centred around the Battleborough Hotel, where participants had to answer quiz questions before receiving their prize money.   The questions were trivial and easy to the point that they were not in any way challenging.  This was one of numerous issues raised in the case which involved a detailed exploration of the regulations and issues of ‘due diligence.’

“A formidable advocate with a powerful court presence, he is liked by judges and jurors alike while retaining the common touch with clients.” – Legal 500 2021

“He is able to connect with the jury even in the most difficult of cases.” – Legal 500 2020

“A class act who is on his way to silk“ – Chambers and Partners 2019

“Highly methodical, with a very keen eye for detail.” – Legal 500 2019

“He’s an outstanding advocate who exudes confidence and professionalism.” “He delivers exceptional preparation and research of complicated matters.” – Chambers and Partners 2018

“A talented advocate.” – Legal 500 2018

“A really good practitioner. I have a huge amount of time for him, he’s excellent.” – Chambers and Partners 2017

“He has a very pleasant manner; he is accessible, amiable and really professional when on the other side.” – Chambers and Partners 2016

“Experienced in complex fraud, serious sexual offences and murder trials.” – Legal 500 2016

“He is an incredibly capable barrister, and has a keen eye for the tactics in a case.” – Legal 500 2015

“He is very authoritative and conscientious, never flustered, and respected by judges.” – Chambers and Partners 2015

“He is not showy, but is very effective, and he has a beautiful style of advocacy.” – Chambers and Partners 2014