Natalia Cornwall

Call 2007

cornwall@exchangechambers.co.uk

Photo of Natalia Cornwall

Criminal

Natalia is a highly experienced criminal practitioner who prosecutes and defends in a wide range of cases. She has particular expertise handling disclosure in serious and complex cases involving large amounts of material and digital material. She acted as Disclosure Counsel in Operation Resolve (Hillsborough) from June 2016 through to the Hillsborough trial and re-trial in 2019.

She specialises in serious crime, in particular fraud and money laundering offences, drugs conspiracies and firearms offences. Through meticulous preparation she is able to quickly get to grips with the issues in the case and provide sound, practical advice. She also prosecutes and defends sexual offences, violent offences, health and safety offences and POCA proceedings.

Natalia is a Category 3 prosecutor and is on the Counter Terrorism panel, the Serious Crime Panel and the Fraud Panel. She has also been appointed to the Specialist Regulatory Panel (List B). She is regularly instructed to prosecute cases on behalf of Local Authorities, the DWP, the Environment Agency and the Department of Innovation and Skills. She is on the National Procurement Service Panel for public sector work in Wales.

She has been instructed to defend in high value POCA applications, enforcement hearings, private driving matters and local authority concerning food health and safety.

Cases

Operation Resolve: Disclosure team – Hillsborough (2016) – ongoing

Operation Gremlin (2016) Led junior prosecuting a multi-handed case concerning sham marriages between Pakistani males and Lithuanian and Latvian women. Cross-examination of one of the defendants. Guilty verdicts.

Operation Citadel: 2014 & 2015 Environment Agency: Disclosure junior

R v S (2016) Inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity. Prosecuting. The allegations arose as a result of a vigilante group reporting the matters to the police.

R v S (2015) Defending a male with significant mental health difficulties accused of sexually assaulting young females on public transport. The case required the use of an intermediary. The defendant received a suspended sentence.

R v I (2015)– successfully defended an 84 year old man in relation to historic sexual allegations made by two step-children.

R v G (2015) – successfully defended an 84 year old man in relation to historic sexual allegations made by three female relatives.

R v G & B (2015) Prosecuting a firearms offence which required presentation of complex DNA evidence

R v N (2015) Section 18. Prosecuting. Ear biting. Guilty verdict.

R v G (2014) Led junior defending in a historic sex case featuring 10 complainants. Bad character application and submission of no case to answer.

R v K & Ors: (2014) Aggravated burglary and Section 18. Prosecuting a case involving the use of a machete. Guilty verdict

R v Sanders: (2014) Defence of a young male charged with two rapes. Following legal argument one rape was no longer proceeded with. The other allegation was reduced to a sexual assault. The case involved the use of an intermediary. The defendant was found not guilty

R v W (2014) Arson revenge attack. Defending. Not guilty verdict

R v P & H (2014) Arson. Prosecuting. Co-defendant turned Queens evidence

R v W (2014) section 18. Defending. Case involved the repeated use of a hammer

R v C (2014) Robbery. Defending. Section 28 case

R v A & S (2014) Indecent Assault. Prosecuting. Section 28 case. Guilty verdict

R v N & Ors: (2013) Represented one of four defendants charged with conspiracy to rob at trial. The case concerned the targeting of cash in transit vans where a unique method of cutting the cash boxes had been devised.

R v B & Ors: (2013) Represented two of four defendants charged with conspiracy to supply Class B and Class C drugs in to prison.

Operation Colon (2011) Led junior prosecuting a seven handed complex fraud.

R v H & H: Successfully defended a man of good character charged with s.47 at re-trial, the jury having previously been discharged. After detailed cross-examination of the complainant using the CCTV the prosecution offered no evidence in relation to the defendant and his brother.