Claire Stevenson

Claire practises in extradition and regulatory law including inquests, inquiries and professional discipline. Her practice was forged in the crucible of criminal law where she gained extensive experience in prosecuting and defending. She is on the CPS General Crime Panel Level 2.
 
Claire has significant experience in regulatory matters (both criminal and civil): for and against the regulators. She has acted in matters relating to the: General Medical Council; General Pharmaceutical Council; Nursing and Midwifery Council; General Dental Council; Care Quality Commission; Office for Standards in Education (‘OFSTED’); Health and Safety Executive; and Environment Agency. Claire completed secondments with OFSTED, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Care Quality Commission. 
 
Claire is a specialist prosecutor for extradition. She has been appointed to the CPS Extradition Panel Level 2. She conducts first instance extradition hearings and High Court appeals both for requested persons and for requesting judicial authorities. 

Follow Claire on Linkedin and X (formally Twitter).

Notable Cases:

• CQC v X Ltd [2024] – Successfully represented the CQC when making an urgent application securing an order cancelling the registration of a service provider because the CQC considered there would be a serious risk to a person’s life, health or wellbeing.
• Mrs Sibongile Nemariyam Kiflom and Tender-Hearted Ltd v Care Quality Commission [2024] UKFTT 0447 (HESC) - Successfully represented the CQC in an appeal against cancellation of the Appellants’ registrations before the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber). The decision to cancel registration was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed. Reported at: Bournemouth Echo.
• NSD v Czech Republic [2024] – Represented the Respondent in the High Court at a renewal hearing where the Appellant applied to renew an application for permission to appeal. The application was refused
• Nita v Romania [2024] EWHC 408 (Admin) – Instructed by the CPS Extradition Unit to provide written submissions in response to an application by the requested person to renew permission to appeal. Permission to appeal was refused. 
• SC v Poland [2024] – Represented the Respondent in the High Court. The Appellant sought bail. Bail was refused.
• OD v Czech Republic [2024] – Represented the Respondent in the High Court. The Appellant sought bail. Bail was refused.
• BM v Ireland [2023] - Represented the Respondent in the High Court. The Appellant sought bail. Bail was refused.
• SW v Poland [2023] - Represented the Respondent in the High Court. The Appellant sought bail. Bail was refused.
• János Orsós v Dr Antal Gábor, Penitentiary Judge at the Pécs Regional Court, Hungary [2023] EWHC 3089 (Admin)  - Represented the Judicial Authority at the lower court, where extradition was ordered. Also instructed by the Judicial Authority to respond to the application seeking permission to appeal (which was refused) and the application to renew grounds of appeal. At a hearing where the Respondent was not required to attend, the renewed application was dismissed.
• KS v Italy [2023] - Represented the Respondent in the High Court. The Appellant sought bail. Bail was refused.
• NMC v G (2023) - Presented a case against a Registrant who breached professional boundaries and pursed a sexual relationship with a service user through sexually motivated conduct. The sanction imposed was a striking-off order. 
• NMC v KB (2023) – Represented the NMC in a lack of competence case. The sanction imposed was a suspension order.
• Hill v Court of First Instance Antwerp, Belgium [2022] EWHC 3072 (Admin) – Represented the Respondent. The Appellant sought bail. Bail was refused.
• District Prosecutors Office (Bulgaria) v Cristoglo [2022] EWHC 2171 (Admin) – Represented the Appellant in an appeal against the granting of bail. Appeal dismissed.
• Republic of Albania v AG (2022) - Represented the requested person in this Part 2 extradition case. Discharge was ordered under section 74(8) of the Extradition Act 2003 after the Court could not be satisfied that the conductcontained in the Part 2 warrant would amount to an extradition offence.
• GPHC v A (2022) – Presented a case against a Registrant who inappropriately supplied an addictive and habit-forming medicine, liable to misuse and/or abuse, to a vulnerable patient who suffered harm as a result. The sanction imposed was a suspension order.
• Gurskis v Latvian Judicial Authority [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin)  - Represented the Judicial Authority at a High Court appeal by the requested person where ‘Brexit uncertainty’ was a key issue. The appeal was dismissed.
• EA v CM & PM (2022) – Prosecuted two defendants on behalf of the Environment Agency who were sentenced by way of a financial penalty.
  HSE v EAB Ltd & BH & PH (2022) – On behalf of the HSE, prosecuted three defendants in a case concerning dishonesty and risks of exposure to members of the public and employees of asbestos containing materials. Sentences included immediate imprisonment and disqualification from being company directors.
• CQC v BNRH Ltd (2022) - Represented the Care Quality Commission in an urgent cancellation application due to serious risks to service users lives, health and/or wellbeing. Cancellation was ordered.
• Government of Turkey v Ozgur Tanis [2021] EWHC 1675 (Admin) – Led by Joel Bennathan KC (as he then was; now the Honourable Mr Justice Bennathan). Defending the requested person, firstly at the lower court and obtaining his discharge. Secondly, at the High Court when the CPS appealed against the District Judge’s decision to conclude that extradition, to face trial in Turkey for offences related to his apparent links to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), was barred by virtue of the Extradition Act 2003 Pt 2 s.81(b) as he might suffer prejudice at his trial. The appeal was dismissed.
• HSE v GMN & QCB Ltd (2021) – Represented both defendants who made admissions to failures in health and safety which had been investigated because of an incident where an employee was struck by a fork-lift truck being driven by one of the defendants.
• GMC v Dr GU (2021) – Appeared before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on behalf of Dr GU who had previously been convicted of death by negligence and reckless behaviour in another country and found to have been dishonest when he did not declare his conviction. Dr GU was found to be no longer impaired and therefore the suspension order previously imposed was revoked with immediate effect.
• Elohims Little Angel Limited v Ofsted [2019] UKFTT 1 (HESC) - Successfully represented OFSTED in a six-day appeal against cancellation before the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber). The Appellant’s registration to provide childcare at two nursery settings had been cancelled due to a risk of exposing children to the real risk of receiving care that would fall significantly below the standards required in terms of the General Childcare and EYFS frameworks. The decision to cancel registration was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed.
• OFSTED v SN [2018] - Successfully prosecuted a disqualified childminder, charged with two offences: 1) childminding whilst suspended (section 69 of the Childcare Act 2006); and 2) childminding whilst unregistered (section 76(4) of the same Act). Reported at: Birmingham Mail.
• LB v Ofsted [2019] UKFTT 209 (HESC) - Successfully represented OFSTED before the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) in an appeal against suspension of registration of a childminder who was suspended due to allegations of emotional and physical harm against a child.
• GDC v SB (2018) - Appeared on behalf of SB, a dental nurse, who made partial admissions in relation to dishonesty and false representations. Successfully argued that there was no dishonesty when SB failed to disclose her convictions to the GDC.

 
Outside of the law:

Claire enjoys travelling, riding horses and walking her German Shepherd dog. Claire unwinds by practising yoga and playing the piano. She is also a member of the V&A museum.