Francesca secured tenancy with the Public Defender Service following the successful completion of pupillage in March 2026 under the supervision of David Aubrey KC.

Francesca practices exclusively in criminal defence and appears regularly in both Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court. She represents defendants across a broad range of matters including violence, dishonesty, drugs, sexual offences, driving matters, public order and regulatory offending.

During pupillage and early tenancy, Francesca developed experience in contested hearings involving procedural fairness, disclosure issues, appellate advocacy, applications to vacate guilty pleas, special measures, and sentencing disputes. Much of Francesca’s Crown Court experience was obtained during her second six pupillage prior to securing tenancy in March 2026.

Francesca has particular experience representing vulnerable defendants, including individuals with significant mental health difficulties, young defendants, and defendants requiring intermediary or fitness to plead considerations.

Prior to joining the criminal Bar, Francesca volunteered with the Innocence Project, assisting with investigations into alleged wrongful convictions and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. She also has previous professional experience in human resources administration, developing strong client care, case management, and organisational skills.

Francesca completed the Kalisher Trust Advocacy Training Programme and the ICCA Advocacy for Children in Conflict with the Law training programme.

Notable Cases

Set out below is a selection of cases in which Francesca has acted. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

Court of Appeal

R v L – Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (2026)

Successfully appeared before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in an appeal concerning the imposition of a discretionary driving qualification pursuant to section 163 of the Sentencing Act 2020 following offences involving theft of postal packets. The appeal succeeded on the grounds including procedural unfairness and proportionality after the sentencing judge imposed disqualification without inviting submissions from the defence. The Court quashed the disqualification order.

Violence and Serious Offences

R v S – Gloucester Crown Court (2026)

Represented a defendant charged with aggravated burglary and a separate allegation of possession of a bladed article. Following negotiations with the prosecution, guilty pleas to simple burglary were accepted in place of aggravated burglary, significantly reducing the seriousness of the principal allegation and the defendant’s sentencing exposure.

R v F – Bournemouth Crown Court (2026)

Represented a defendant in a four-day Crown Court jury trial involving allegations of non-fatal strangulation. Following late instruction shortly before trial, conducted a contested section 8 disclosure hearing concerning extensive unused material and applied to adjourn the trial to allow adequate time for preparation. Despite the refusal of the disclosure and adjournment applications, the defendant was acquitted following trial.

R v J – Wood Green Crown Court (2026)

Appointed as court-appointed advocate under section 38 YJCEA 1999 in a Crown Court jury trial involving allegations of affray and violent disorder arising from a multi-handed incident. Conducted cross-examination of prosecution witnesses on behalf of an unrepresented defendant, who was acquitted following trial.

R v L – Snaresbrook Crown Court (2026)

Represented a vulnerable defendant in a Crown Court jury trial concerning a second offence of possession of a bladed article, engaging the statutory minimum sentence provisions. Following conviction, successfully secured a suspended sentence order notwithstanding the applicable mandatory minimum custodial framework. The case involved intermediary issues, contested bad character evidence, and extensive mitigation concerning the defendant’s vulnerability and ability to participate effectively in proceedings.

R v M – Harrow Crown Court sitting at Hendon Magistrates’ Court (2025)

Appointed under section 38 in a Crown Court jury trial involving allegations of two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, harassment putting a person in fear of violence, and assault by beating. Following majority direction, the jury returned not guilty verdicts in multiple counts and was unable to reach a verdict on the harassment allegation. The prosecutor later declined to seek a retrial and a further not guilty verdict was entered.

R v D – Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court (2025)

Represented a defendant at trial charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault by beating. Successfully opposed a late prosecution application for live-link evidence and subsequent res gestae application seeking to admit body-worn video footage after complainant refused to give evidence and left court. The prosecution then offered no evidence and not guilty verdicts were entered.

R v S – Stratford Magistrates’ Court (2025)

Successfully made a submission of no case to answer in a contested trial concerning possession of an offensive weapon. The prosecution opposed the application, arguing the defendant’s possession exceeded any lawful necessity. Following submissions and consideration of relevant authorities concerning momentary possession and self-defence, the District Judge upheld the submission and acquitted the defendant of the offensive weapon charge.

R v W – Bromley Magistrates’ Court (2025)

Represented a defendant charged with threats to kill, threatening a person with an offensive weapon in a public place, and public order offences. Following discussions with the prosecution, the Crown agreed to withdraw the threats to kill allegation and accept guilty pleas to the offensive weapon offence and a lesser section 4A Public Order Act offence. The defendant ultimately received a suspended sentence order.

Sexual Offences

R v M – Stratford Magistrates’ Court (2025)

Successfully opposed a Crown application for a Sexual Harm Prevention Order following convictions relating to indecent images offences committed whilst the defendant was a child. Francesca relied upon extensive rehabilitation evidence including social services material, engagement with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, counselling and educational evidence, and evidence of continued compliance and insight. The District Judge concluded that the statutory test for necessity under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was not met and declined to impose the order.

Public Interest and Procedural Applications

R v J – Central Criminal Court sitting at Aldersgate House (2025)

Represented a vulnerable defendant charged with possession of a bladed article. Prior to trial, Francesca advanced detailed public interest representations relying upon complex medical evidence, significant delay, the defendant’s age at the time of the offence, and the continuing relevance of interim Covid-19 guidance. Following discussions with the prosecution and review of the defence material, the Crown offered no evidence and the proceedings were discontinued.