Althea Brooks

Practice areas

General crime

What others say

‘Althea has good judgement and a calm and balanced approach. She is a rising star.’

Legal 500 2024 Rising Stars

Profile

Through her hardworking and astute nature, Althea has developed a thriving practice, attracting a loyal following of criminal law clients. She is respected for her thorough preparation of cases, grasp of the law and facts, and client-focused approach. This enables Althea to perfectly balance being a poised and persuasive advocate in the court room while being empathetic with clients.

Not only does Althea prosecute, but she is also a formidable defence advocate. She appears in jury trials in the Crown Court for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), breach matters for the Probation Service, and trials and sentences for the defence. Althea has experience conducting matters involving young and/or vulnerable witnesses and defendants with mental health difficulties. Her manner is particularly sensitive when speaking to and examining complainants of domestic abuse at court. She engages confidently with clients, demonstrating compassion and understanding. Her confident yet gentle and approachable manner helps put clients at ease.

Her previous experience as a family practitioner means she is accustomed to adapting her communication style where necessary and working with intermediaries, and is also familiar with issues relating to disclosure between the criminal and family courts. Althea prides herself on providing detailed hearing record sheets and is always mindful of the importance of communicating outcomes to her instructing solicitors without delay.

Althea is registered to undertake Youth Court work, and has completed both vulnerable witness training and Youth Justice Legal Centre training.

Althea is regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

Recent Cases

R v N (2024). Defended a transgender woman who had not yet physically transitioned, charged with exposing the penis to two 11-year-old girls from the window of her own home. Cross-examination of the child witnesses had to take place during the trial itself. The prosecution applied to join indictments with an existing case against the defendant for possession indecent images of children. The application was resisted and the cases were not joined. A successful submission of no case to answer on two counts was made, and the defendant was acquitted on the remaining counts
R v H (2023). Represented the appellant in an appeal to the Crown Court against the making of a SHPO, which had been sought and made on the basis of a non-sexual assault against a woman. The defendant is autistic with communication difficulties. Oral and written submissions were made about the unlawfulness of such an order and it was lifted.
R v G (2023). Prosecuted a s18 wounding where the defendant had bitten off part of his partner’s ear. He raised defences including non-insane automatism (parasomnia), and attempted to raise an insanity defence in relation to an unsubstantiated epileptic seizure. The jury heard from a toxicologist in relation to the combination of medication, illegal drugs and alcohol. The defendant chose to represent himself at trial in order to run these defences. He was convicted of wounding with intent
R v J (2023). Junior prosecution counsel in a murder trial where a young man killed a homeless street-drinker with a single stab following a drunken argument. The defendant was also sleeping rough and the issue was self-defence – the victim had also smashed a bottle and injured the defendant. The case contained a great deal of multi-media evidence, and raised issues of bad character in relation to both defendant and victim. The defendant was convicted of murder rather than manslaughter.
R v C (2022). Defended a trial on making indecent images of children which relied upon detailed and technical expert evidence to assert that another had maliciously caused the images to be on his devices.
R v H (2021). Prosecuted a three-day trial of issue about the extent of dishonesty regarding ~£17,000 theft by an employed career from a dying man in a hospice. Included detailed financial data and employer’s investigation.
R v D (2021). Prosecuted a seven-day trial with lengthy ABE evidence on assault ABH and coercive or controlling behavior. Both the victim and defendant were elderly and vulnerable. The defence made applications for third-party disclosure and non-defendant bad character. Trial included extensive jury bundles for both prosecution and defence with handwritten notes, letters and diaries, medical records, and counselling records.