Fred Batstone
- CPS Panel Level 3
- List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Health and Safety and Environmental Law (List B)
- Criminal Bar Association
- The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple
- Bar Professional Training Course with Masters of Law (Very Competent & Distinction), University of Law
- Graduate Diploma in Law, University of Law
- BA Hons History, University of Warwick
Scholarships / Awards
- The 5 Paper Buildings Prize for Cross Examination, The University of Law
- The Jules Thorn Scholarship, The Honourable Society of Middle Temple
- Vulnerable Witness Trained, Middle Temple
Instructing Fred Batstone
To instruct Fred or for any further information please contact our clerks on +44 (0)20 7440 8888 or clerks@2br.co.uk.
Fred Batstone has a busy practice specialising in criminal and regulatory law. He appears to prosecute and defend the most serious offences in the Crown Court, as well as magistrates’ courts and Youth Court. Fred is often instructed in cases involving multiple defendants and has particular experience dealing with vulnerable and youth defendants. Fred has been instructed both as junior alone and led junior in cases involving serious violence, large-scale county lines drug offending, serious sex offences and road traffic offences involving serious injury. Fred is also building a practice in Health and Safety matters and has been instructed by the Health and Safety Executive on a wide range of cases.
Fred is also regularly instructed to represent both regulators and individuals in professional misconduct proceedings. Fred has experience before the following regulators: Social Work England, HCPC, GPhC, GDC and NMC. Fred has case presented as well as defended in a vast array of regulatory proceedings, from interim orders to contested fitness to practice hearings. These cases have involved allegations of dishonesty, sexual misconduct and deficient professional performance.
Alongside his advocacy work, Fred is regularly involved with public inquiries. Fred was involved in the Covid Inquiry both on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care and for HMRC. He has previously represented Post Office Ltd in the Horizon IT Public Inquiry and worked on document review for the Brook House Inquiry.
Fred is a Grade 3 prosecutor on the CPS General Crime Panel and is on the List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates at Category B.
Practice Areas
Fred is regularly instructed to defend in a broad range of criminal matters in the Crown, Magistrates’ and Youth Courts. He also has experience conducting appeals to the Crown Court and committals for sentence. Fred has experience in cases involving serious violence (including domestic violence), drugs, weapons, public order, robbery and fraud. Fred also has particular experience representing clients charged with motoring offences. Fred has particular experience representing youths and vulnerable individuals with serious mental illness, and has undertaken specialist training in dealing with vulnerable witnesses. He is able to assist in drafting letters of representation to the Crown Prosecution Service where appropriate.
Notable criminal defence cases
R v DD
Defendant acquitted by a jury at Isleworth Crown Court of assault by penetration. The Prosecution alleged that the Defendant had assaulted a 14-year-old by digitally penetrating her at a party. The complainant and her 10-year-old brother were cross-examined. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty following the five day trial.
R v PM
Defendant acquitted by a jury at Cambridge Crown Court of being concerned in the supply of heroin and crack cocaine, and on one count of possession of criminal property. The Prosecution sought to rely on cell site data and DNA evidence to demonstrate that PM assisted in the running of a drug line between Croydon and Cambridge.
R v DE
Defendant acquitted by a jury at Bristol Crown Court, on an indictment containing one count of theft. DE was accused of stealing £17,000 from his grandmother’s safe.
R v AH
Defendant acquitted following a successful submission of no case to answer during a trial at Wood Green Crown Court following cross-examination of the complainant. The Defendant was charged with section 18 GBH and had already pleaded guilty to section 20 GBH.
R v AJ
Defendant acquitted following a successful submission of no case to answer during a trial at Basildon Crown Court. The Defendant was charged with assaulting an emergency worker. The submission was made after cross-examination of two police officers.
R v MI
Defendant received a suspended sentence order at Isleworth Crown Court. The Defendant was charged alongside numerous others with transferring criminal property between the UK and Dubai. The Defendant was responsible for the transfer of £2,520,000.
R v VP
Defendant acquitted by a jury at Harrow Crown Court of affray.
Fred regularly prosecutes in the Crown, magistrates’ and youth courts. He has particular experience in prosecuting motoring offences and domestic violence. Fred is also regularly instructed by the National Probation Service for breach proceedings in the Crown Court.
Notable prosecution cases
R v LM
Defendant convicted by a jury at Inner London Crown court on one count of ABH (domestic violence) following retrial.
R v LM
Defendant convicted by a jury at Wood Green Crown Court for the supply of cannabis. The Defendant sought to argue personal use and experts gave evidence for both parties.
R v CS
Defendant pleaded guilty to section 20 GBH during a trial at Canterbury Crown Court and the jury were directed to enter a unanimous guilty verdict.
Fred has particular experience representing clients charged with a range of driving offences, from drink and drug driving to failing to provide a specimen.
Notable road traffic cases
R v AW
Successful submission of no case to answer for drink driving, the issue being whether a caravan site was a ‘public place’.
R v NW
Successfully argued exceptional hardship for a Defendant who was suffering with serious illness and relied on their vehicle to attend hospital.
R v RP
Crown dropped charges of failure to provide a specimen after written representations to review the case on the basis that language barriers can amount to a reasonable excuse.
R v CO
Successfully argued exceptional hardship in a case where the Defendant relied on his vehicle to take his children to school and social activities.
