Marie accepts instructions in criminal cases in London, the South East, Birmingham and the Midlands. She both prosecutes and defends and has appeared in the Criminal division of the Court of Appeal on several occasions. Marie also accepts instructions in Prison Law and Mental Health Tribunals. Marie is proud to work within the publicly funded Bar and to accept instructions in legal aid cases.
Marie is popular with lay clients and solicitors alike. Marie prides herself on her ability to provide clients with sensible, well-reasoned advice in a manner that puts clients at ease and engenders trust. Marie is experienced in representing clients with severe mental health problems and other vulnerabilities. Equally, she is experienced in dealing with sensitive and vulnerable witnesses including young children and complainants in cases of a sexual nature. Recently, Marie has represented Defendants in serious criminal matters including Rape, Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs, Sexual assaults on Children, Wounding, Revenge porn, Fraud, Armed Robbery and in Confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Recent prosecutions include Sexual Assault, Conspiracy to commit Fraud by False Representation, Robbery and Burglary matters.
In court, Marie uses her knowledge as a former crown court clerk to her advantage; she has a detailed knowledge of criminal procedure and a keen eye for detail which is particularly helpful in Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings. As a jury advocate, Marie establishes a rapport with juries through her measured and calm approach – she argues robustly on behalf of clients without losing the sympathy of her tribunal. She does not shy away from legal argument and presents both written and oral advocacy with confidence. The Court of Appeal has praised her for her “helpful and succinct argument” and persuasiveness.
Marie was the first member of her family to attend university; she feels strongly about social mobility and improving access to the Bar and plays an integral role within our Pupillage and New Tenants Committee and speaking at events organised by the Inns and law schools to encourage young people of all backgrounds to consider a career at the Bar. Marie is a member of the Criminal Bar Association’s Social Mobility Committee.
Interested in instructing Miss de Redman?
Please call 020 7353 6802 or complete the form below:
Marie predominantly defends, although she is regularly instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service and is a Grade 2 Prosecutor.
Proceeds of Crime:
- R v Pritchard  All ER (D) 95;  EWCA Crim 1267: Successful appeal against an indefinite travel restriction order made as part of a compliance order pursuant to s.13(A) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court of Appeal gave guidance for the first time on the correct approach to travel restriction orders and held that the indefinite order was not justified and was not appropriate. Term of the order reduced to 3 years.
- R v Hall (Alan Wayne)  EWCA Crim 116: Marie appeared for the Appellant who had not attended his final hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act although he was represeted. He was treated as an absconder and an order was made in his absence. The Court of Appeal agreed that (1) The Appellant was not an absconder; and (2) The Judge had erred in proceeding under the incorrect belief that the order could be amended under the slip rule if the Appellant objected. The order for £19,907 was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the Crown Court for the proceedings to begin again.
Drugs and Organised Crime:
- Operation Mohawk (2018) – Worcester Crown Court. Junior Counsel led by Jerry Hayes in this Multi-handed conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Represented D1, alleged head of the Organised Crime Network.
- R v S (2016) – Nottingham Crown Court. Cannabis factory case. Defending D1 accused of conspiring with his brother to produce and supply cannabis.
- R v H (2018) – Birmingham Crown Court. Defending. Client acquitted of Assault by Penetration, alleged to have been committed against a vulnerable adult complainant with learning difficulties and mental health issues.
- R v D (2018) – Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court. Defending. Client acquitted of revenge porn offence.
- R v B (2018)– Wolverhampton Crown Court. Defending. Client acquitted of attempted voyeurism of 10 year old girl in shower at a public swimming baths.
- R v H (2017)– Wolverhampton Crown Court. Defending. Client acquitted of both anal and vaginal Rape. Issue was consent.
- R v W (2017)– Birmingham Crown Court: Defending. Client acquitted of sexual assault of 11 year old girl.
- R v D (2017) – Central Criminal Court. Defending. Client charged with Administering a noxious substance with intent to commit a sexual offence. Crown persuaded to accept a plea to a common assault.
- R v X (2015)– Southwark Crown Court: Defending. Vulnerable client with significant learning difficulties acquitted of sexual assault on a female.
- R v G (2018) – Leicester Crown Court: Defending. Client charged with stabbing partner in the chest with a kitchen knife. Crown offered no evidence after successful application to exclude evidence under section 78 PACE 1984.
- R v P (2017) – Birmingham Crown Court: Defending. Client charged with stabbing male in the leg. Acquitted.
- R v K & K (2017)– Snaresbrook Crown Court: Prosecuting. Victim attacked by two males, struck on head with a wheel wrench and punched repeatedly causing bleeding, loss of consciousness and loss of hearing in the right ear as well as post traumatic stress. Both Defendants convicted.