Katherine Goddard KC
Barrister (Door Tenant) |
Called 1987 | Silk 2019 |
Katherine Goddard KC is an outstanding advocate who sensitively handles the most serious criminal cases, often those attracting significant national attendtion, including child cruelty, sexual offences, drugs and murder.
Katherine is a full member of Bank House Chambers, in Sheffield.
- Grade 4 prosecutor
- RASSO panel
- Circuit liaison for wellbeing for the Criminal Bar Association
Katherine Goddard KC is a CPS Grade 4 and RASSO-approved prosecutor, and has extensive experience in representing vulnerable defendants with or without intermediaries. She connects effectively with judges and juries, bringing an empathy and sensitivity to her work with defendants and witnesses which is underpinned by a keen eye for detail and a tenacity which is most often observed in her thorough cross-examinations. Read the 2019 Yorkshire Post feature article about her.
Katherine is expert at marshalling high volumes of complex paperwork, and finding the most attractive and efficient way of presenting it to a jury. She is highly regarded for her mastery of detailed medical, forensic and other specialist areas of evidence and for her sensitive, robust and thorough conduct of the most challenging of cases.
Katherine has taken the lead on equality, diversity and wellbeing. She has been appointed by the CBA as one of their circuit liaison officers with particular reference to wellbeing.
R v G (2019) – whilst in Silk
Cut-throat defence murder with complex issues of admissibility of a purported confession to the offence during a prison conference. Murder weapon found only after the jury was sworn, and the defendant’s DNA then found on the trigger of the weapon.
R v W, Lincoln Crown Court (2019) – whilst in Silk
Prosecution for murder, in which the defendant claimed to have been the driver of a vehicle used to transport the murderer to the scene of a brutal machete attack but – during cross-examination – confessed to being the person who had carried out the attack, resulting in a quick conviction for murder.
R v T (2016)
A missing-body murder case where the Crown alleged that the deceased had been dismembered and cremated in a particular spot, where the defendant had been seen acting suspiciously. By researching and mastering the expert evidence, forced the Crown expert to agree, on cross-examination, that it would have been impossible for a lay person to dispose of a body so completely, thereby neutralising a key part of the Crown’s case.
R v P (2017)
A case of fatal child cruelty where the cause of death could not be determined but where post-mortem analysis showed substantial amounts of controlled drugs ingested by the deceased child over a period of months prior to their death. The Crown witness was the leading international expert on the contamination of hair. The Crown alleged that the drugs had been deliberately administered to the child but during cross-examination the expert agreed that the findings could be consistent with secondary contamination and may have been distorted by incomplete information about the ethnicity of the deceased. The case received widespread national and international publicity.
R v E (2017)
Lead defence counsel in an 8-handed conspiracy to supply controlled drugs over a lengthy period of time.
R v B (2018)
Prosecuting counsel in a case where an uninsured driver had caused catastrophic life-changing injuries to three cyclists.
R v L (2015)
Defence counsel in a case of historical sexual abuse, allegedly committed when the defendant was only 13 years old. The trial judge was able to be persuaded that the abolished principle of doli incapax applied retrospectively and the indictment was therefore stayed.
The Edlington Case
Defence counsel for a 10-year-old child accused, together with his 11-year-old brother, with the robbery, torture and attempted murder of two boys of a similar age. The case had echoes of the Bulger case. Client was the youngest-ever defendant in England to be convicted of a crime.
R v B & Others
Prosecution counsel in a trial with three defendants accused of persistent, substantial and sustained child cruelty and sexual offences against one victim. There were complicated issues of admissibility and sensitivity issues of disclosure and witness care. The criminal hearing post-dated the hearings in the family courts and social services were uncooperative in the disclosure process. Ultimately, through negotiation, the disclosure issues were resolved and all defendants were convicted of serious offences.
R v Scuka
A foreign national who had a previous conviction for murder, and who was facing allegations of rape and serious sexual offences against multiple victims. The case involved complex issues of admissibility, bad character and hearsay applications with substantial cross-referencing of material from a variety of sources for cross-examination and closing submissions. The whole trial was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.
“One of the finest advocates of her generation.” (Retired senior circuit judge)
“A very solid performer. She’s very good and very thorough.” (Chambers and Partners 2020)
“She is just a brilliant jury advocate and an outstanding lawyer… a very thoughtful and persuasive advocate.” (Chambers & Partners 2019)