Charlotte is an established barrister in family law and public law. Renowned for her powerful advocacy, meticulous preparation and exceptional client care skills, Charlotte is the “go-to” barrister’ as she always secures outstanding results.
Combining legal practice with academic research Charlotte is an Affiliated Researcher at the Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge, from which she was awarded her PhD on the law and policy on female genital mutilation (FGM) in England. Charlotte was a former Visiting Researcher at Harvard Law School where she studied feminist legal theory.
Recognising the potential and challenges of the law promoting gender-equality, Charlotte is often invited to speak and write about gender-based legal reforms in areas such as FGM, forced marriage, prostitution, rape and quotas for women.
“Charlotte is insightful and tenacious, a strong advocate with skills that surpass her call. Her written work is excellent and her judgment is sound. She is a personable barrister that combines real ability with enthusiasm for her work.” Teresa Barnett, Solicitor, McMillan William Solicitors Limited.
“Charlotte picked up the reigns of a divorce case at very short notice and achieved a brilliant result, leaving the client ecstatically happy.” Nigel Fisher, Solicitor, Taylor Rose TTKW.
“Charlotte has excellent knowledge in the area of female genital mutilation law. She demonstrates commitment to and passion for this area of work. I have been most impressed by her professionalism and swift response especially with pro bono cases that are often at very short notice. On behalf of the families that Charlotte has supported and is continuing to support, I would like to send her our sincere gratitude.” National FGM Centre.
“Charlotte is great to work with, and both reliable and efficient. Clients report that she is calm and able to explain complex matters “in plain English”, which on a day at court with all its pressures is much appreciated. Her advocacy and negotiation skills are very effective. Clients give great feedback about Charlotte. What more could you ask for?” Karen Agnew-Griffith, Solicitor, Woolley & Co Solicitors.
“Charlotte is a strong and skilful advocate who works tirelessly for her clients. I have been impressed with the excellent quality of her work. I recently instructed Charlotte on a child abduction matter. She worked extremely hard and was instrumental in achieving an excellent outcome for our client including costs. I would highly recommend her.” Nathalie El-Korashy, Solicitor, Quality Solicitors Harris Waters.
“Charlotte is always a pleasure to instruct and is liked by clients. She is brilliant at analysing the case, advising on all of the issues, and managing cases. She has great attention to detail and is a tough but realistic negotiator. Definitely counsel that you would want in your corner.” Tish Reel, Solicitor, Owen White & Catlin LLP.
“Charlotte is a conscientious and hardworking barrister who always strives to get the best results for her clients.” Sally Goldman, Solicitor, Miramar Legal.
“Charlotte is a rising star at the Bar. She is sought after counsel in honour-based violence and female genital mutilation cases due to her strong grasp of the law and the issues women experience. Charlotte recently obtained indefinite leave to remain for a spouse with insecure immigration status who was subject to domestic violence despite the Home Office refusing the claim and judicial review proceedings having commenced.” Adeniyi Adewoye, Solicitor, Prime Solicitors.
“Charlotte is the ‘go to’ barrister for international child abduction. A fearless advocate with exceptional drafting and advocacy skills, she always achieves excellent results.” Aleksandra Kowalik, Solicitor, Kancelaria Kowalik.
“Charlotte is excellent in providing a considered and effective approach in progressing matters she is instructed in. She is approachable in discussions with those instructing her as well as communicating well with clients.” Mandeep Randhawa, Solicitor, Veja & Co Solicitors.
“Charlotte is an excellent advocate. She pays great attention to detail and has excellent representation skills. I would highly recommend her for all manner of cases, particularly those of a complex nature!” Peter Hakizimana, Solicitor, PN Legal Services.
“Charlotte is a tenacious advocate with an eye for detail and has outstanding client care skills, particularly when working with vulnerable clients.” Sellathurai Birunthaban, Solicitor, Biruntha Solicitors.
“I found Charlotte very experienced with acute awareness of my situation and focused with attention to detail. Charlotte is direct, tough but fair in negotiation.” Direct access client in a financial remedy case.
“Charlotte is meticulous in her preparation and case strategy, which vastly improves the chances of securing a desired outcome. She is also very good in establishing a strong rapport with her clients.” Direct access client in a financial remedy case and private law children case.
With a PhD in FGM law, Charlotte is often instructed to represent local authorities, parents and children in FGM cases where there is complex medical evidence, risk assessments and country guidance. In cases where there is an overlap with immigration law, Charlotte is the ideal barrister to instruct given her expertise in both areas. As a member of the Bar Human Rights Committee Working Group on FGM, Charlotte co-authored a report submitted to the Home Affairs Committee 2014 – 2015 recommending 11 legislative and policy changes of which the government introduced two, FGM Protection Orders and the National FGM Centre.
Charlotte specialises in child abduction involving Hague and non-Hague Convention countries. She has appeared in the following reported cases: S v S  EWHC 1298 (Fam) involving a fact-finding about allegations of grave harm to the mother and the child and evidence from experts in Iranian family law; and Re: Rodwell  EWHC 1731 (Fam), which centred on questions about whether the court had jurisdiction to make orders concerning the family. Charlotte has obtained costs orders in child abduction cases including a recent costs order of £7,000.
Family finance: Charlotte represents clients who are husbands, wives or intervenors in high value financial relief matters following divorce and separation; pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements; property and financial trusts; secret trusts; and Islamic divorce and dowry. Equipped with skills that include forensic examination of financial disclosure, tenacious negotiation and razor-sharp advocacy, Charlotte is sought after counsel.
Public law children: Acting for local authorities, parents, and children, Charlotte receives instructions in all areas of public law children proceedings, as well as cases involving non-accidental injury; international and national adoptions; and those under the inherent jurisdiction involving the right to life or medical treatment for children.
Private law children: Charlotte has a wealth of experience representing parents, children and intervenors in private law children disputes involving protracted fact-finding hearings and final hearings where there are allegations of physical and sexual abuse and medical evidence.
Court of protection: Charlotte accepts instructions in court of protection cases involving people lacking the capacity to make decisions on health and welfare issues. She welcomes instructions from local authorities, health care trusts, the official solicitor, other litigation friends acting for protected persons and family and friends. Cases often involve vulnerable adults, including elderly persons suffering from degenerative diseases, young people with mental health difficulties, urgent and non-urgent medical treatment and withheld consent.
Editor of the peer-reviewed academic journal, Dignity: A Journal on Sexual Exploitation and Violence.
Proudman, C., & Okine, J. (2016), “Failure to Act on Female Genital Mutilation,” Lexis Nexis.
Proudman, C. (2016), “Comparative Study of Female Genital Mutilation Legislation in the Commonwealth,” Report to Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
Proudman, C. (2016), “Combatting Sexism and Hate Speech,” Report to the Council of Europe Gender Equality Unit.
Dias QC, D., and Proudman, C. (2015), “International Human Rights Law and FGM,” Report to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Towards a better investment in the rights of the child.
Ekaney QC, N., & Proudman, C. (2015), “FGM and the Serious Crime Act 2015,” Family Law Week.
Ekaney QC, N., & Proudman, C. (May 2015), “Female Genital Mutilation: Prosecution and Prevention,” Counsel.
Proudman, C. (2015), “Case summary: B and G (Children) (No 2)  EWFC 3,” Family Law Week.
Proudman, C. (2015), “Critical Analysis of Female Genital Mutilation and the Serious Crime Act 2015,” Counsel.
Proudman, C. (2015), “Prostitution, Sex-Buyer Laws and the “End Demand” campaign,” Counsel.
Proudman, C. (2015), “The End Demand Campaign,” Family Law Journal, 45(2), 105-238.
Proudman, C. (2012), “The Criminalisation of Forced Marriage,” Family Law, 42(4), 460-465.
Proudman, C. (2012), “A Specific Criminal Offence of Forced Marriage,” Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 176.
Proudman, C. (2012), “The Criminalisation of Forced Marriage across Europe,” International Family Law Journal.
Selected Training and Conferences
Launch of FGM European Knowledge Platform for Professionals, FORWARD (anti-FGM NGO), London, 24.04.17.
Celebrating International Women’s Day, panel of renowned speakers, City University, London, 08.03.2017.
European Conference to Tackle FGM, FORWARD, London, 23.02.2017.
Re-Defining FGM as Torture, UN Women Somalia, London, 23.01.2017.
Combatting the Challenges Women Lawyers Encounter, Trinity College, Oxford University, 18.01.2017.
In Conversation with Charlotte Proudman on Law and Gender Politics, Women’s Equality Party, Oxford, 22.10.2016.
Female Genital Mutilation: Family Law Training Day in Collaboration with Goldsmith Chambers, the National FGM Centre and FORWARD, London, 20.09.2016.
Combatting Sexism and Hate Speech, The Council of Europe Gender Equality Strategy, Estonia, 30.06.2016.
FGM: A Crime Performed With Impunity, Amnesty International Cambridge City Group, 09.03.2016.
Reflecting on Feminist Jurisprudence, Wolfson College, Cambridge, 09.03.2016.
Gender, Emotion and Feminism in the Courtroom, Department of Sociology, Cambridge, 09.03.2016.
In Conversation with Charlotte Proudman and survivors and activists Leyla Hussein and Nimco Ali about the Campaign to End Female Genital Mutilation at Women of the World (WOW), Cambridge, 07.03.2016.
The Revival of the Feminist Movement, King’s College Women’s Dinner, 05.03.2016.
Celebrating the Achievements of Women, Women of the World (WOW), Cambridge, 05.03.2016.
The Role of Professional Women in Male Dominated Fields, St Anne’s College, Oxford, 29.02.2016.
Panellist in “Diversity in Law” event chaired by Baroness Hale and organised by The Times, London, 22.02.2016.
Introducing the Nordic Model in England and Wales for Prostitution, Zonta International, Radisson, 10.02.2016.
Guest speaker: Celebrating the Work of Women Lawyers at the 40th Anniversary of Rights of Women, London, 08.02.2016.
Introducing a Criminal Offence of ‘Coercive Control,’ Coercive Control Conference, Bury St Edmonds, 04.02.2016.
FGM and Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery: A Double Legal Standard? Amnesty International, Cambridge, 06.02.2016.
BA & Anor v JA & Ors (female genital mutilation protection orders and immigration appeals)  EWHC 1754 (Fam) Charlotte represented the parents of two girls at risk of being cut in Nigeria by family members at an ex-parte FGM Protection Order (FGMPO) hearing. Holman J gave guidance as to when FGMPOs should be applied for in circumstances where there are ongoing immigration proceedings. Where there is a risk of FGM in another jurisdiction only and there are competing immigration proceedings, family courts shall decline to make FGMPOs until immigration proceedings have concluded. It is not for the family courts to intervene in decisions that shall be taken by the immigration tribunals. Moreover, there is no “immediate” risk of FGM in cases where the risk is present overseas and there is no foreseeable risk of the children residing overseas.
London Borough of Barnet v KM, TW, JS, JB  EWHC 1473 (Fam) Charlotte was led by Frank Feehan QC of 1KBW in a public law children fact-finding hearing in which they represented private foster carers before Newton J. The child had been privately fostered for over four years. During this time, the carers allege the mother abandoned the child, which was proven during the fact-finding. However, the mother alleged the carers refused to return the child to her care.
The carers’ alleged the local authority breached its duties under the private fostering regulations, which the judge upheld as fact. The Judge also criticised the local authority and the social worker for failing to comply with the regulations. Newton J gave guidance to local authorities on the necessity of complying with private fostering regulations.
AAM v KG  EWHC 283 (Fam) Charlotte represented the appellant who appealed the trial judge’s order of nullity on the basis of the polygamy. The trial judge found that the appellant was already married to a woman in Bangladesh at the time that he entered into a marriage with the respondent. The case involved the following issues: validity of marriages overseas, the necessity of documentary evidence proving the existence of a marriage and the relevance of expert evidence. In this case, no evidence has been produced to confirm that there was a marriage in Bangladesh and no expert evidence was before the court confirming the validity of an (un)registered marriage in Bangladesh. Mr Justice Baker granted leave to appeal on all ten grounds. At a substantive appeal hearing, the learned judge found that while there was some merit in the appeal, on balance the appeal could not succeed. Permission to appeal has been sought from the Court of Appeal.
S v S  EWHC 1298 (Fam). Charlotte represented the applicant father who sought an order for the immediate return of the child to Iran following the child’s abduction by the respondent mother to England. The issue was whether the father’s undertakings (promises to the court) to ensure the safe return of the mother and the child to Iran would be enforceable in an Iranian court of law. Two Iranian legal experts were instructed to give evidence. An extensive fact-finding hearing took place dealing with allegations of physical and sexual abuse.
Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (Appellant) v Ryan and another (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)  UKPC 30 Junior counsel representing the company on appeal to the Privy Council to set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the trial judge’s dismissal of a claim concerning the escape of hydrocarbon fumes from an oil well causing medical complaints. The appeal raised issues as to the appropriate test of caution, whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to reverse findings of fact made by the trial judge and whether there was sufficient evidence to support their conclusions. The appeal was allowed.
Re: Rodwell  EWHC 1731 (Fam). Charlotte represented the applicant father who sought the return of the children to Spain. The mother and children’s whereabouts were unknown, which raised questions about whether the court had jurisdiction to make orders concerning the family.
A Local Authority v a Mother, a Father and an Aunt  EWHC 1637 (Fam). Junior counsel representing the aunt in public law children proceedings; the aunt obtained a placement order and was awarded costs against the local authority.
Charlotte is a rising star in human rights, public law and immigration law. Charlotte is instructed in complex judicial review cases in asylum cases, Article 8 and ILR as a victim of spousal violence. There are often overlaps with family law, which Charlotte is equipped to deal with given her experience in family law and immigration law. With extensive experience in violence against women and girls internationally, Charlotte’s specialist areas are FGM, honour-based violence and trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Charlotte’s exceptional drafting, client care and advocacy skills ensures she obtains successful results.
Yathurshini Logenthiran and Savithirithevi logenthiran v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [HU/06141/2015 and HU/06145/2015]. Charlotte represented the Appellants in the Upper-tier Tribunal where it was found that the First-tier Tribunal failed to consider Article 8 outside of the Immigration Rules and thus the case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
Follow Goldsmith Chambers