Clara Sibanda

Clara has a diverse practice consisting of criminal defence, criminal prosecution, and regulatory work.
She has been instructed as trial counsel in the Crown Court on a range of cases involving serious violence and public disorder, sexual offences, drug trafficking, domestic abuse, fraud, and offences against public justice.
 
Before joining Chambers, Clara worked as a Crown Prosecutor, where she gained experience reviewing and conducting advocacy for the Crown Prosecution Service at both the Magistrates’ and Crown Courts. This background equipped her with a keen understanding of the duties and powers of the CPS, enabling her to adeptly navigate charges, applications, and disposals. She is highly conversant with the prescriptions of the Code for Crown Prosecutors and enjoys great success when making submissions that result in discontinuances or amendments to charges. Clara currently prosecutes at Grade 3 level.
 
Clara is well regarded by lay clients and solicitors alike. She has been described by defence solicitors as ‘consistently reliable’, ‘an excellent advocate’ “Clara’s legal advice is excellent. She has been instructed in a range of cases with clients with various vulnerabilities and/or legal issues and she has worked effectively with them to achieve the best outcome. She has taken cases at short notice for preliminary hearings/sentencing and still carefully prepared the cases; and she has properly and carefully prepared cases as trial advocate”

 
CASES

R v I & Others – instructed as junior prosecution counsel in a four-handed Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs trial to be heard at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

R v R & Others – instructed to defend on an indictment alleging Conspiracy to Commit Burglary between three defendants. The subjects of the burglary are said to be luxury handbags and jewellery valued at over £300,000. This trial is due to be heard at Portsmouth Crown Court.

R v C & T – successfully prosecuted the defendant sent for trial on the cultivation of cannabis with a 300-kilogram yield valued at £1, 235, 000.

R v L – represented L who had pleaded guilty to the supply of Class A and Class B drugs as well as the possession of a bladed article in a public place.  The starting point for the supply of Class A drugs was 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Following extensive mitigation, L was given a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

R v A – Secured an 18-month Suspended Sentence Order at the Central Criminal Court for A who had pleaded guilty to possessing an offensive weapon and cannabis amidst an affray. The offences charged had been committed during the operational period of a Suspended Sentence Order and these offences represented the fourth breach of this order.

R v D – Successfully prosecuted D for Control of Prostitution for Gain where the victim had also been the victim of human trafficking. This trial was complicated by the requirement for Mandarin interpreters, extensive undisclosed telephone records requiring translation, and a refused bad character application. Police bodyworn footage was excluded under s.78 PACE due to the attending officers failing to caution D before she gave her responses which differed drastically from what she later asserted at interview or in her three defence statements following.

R v S & Others – instructed to prosecute three defendants charged with Violent Disorder where following a disagreement at a bar, a fight broke out between a large group of males on busy Camden High Street, prompting disruption to the flow of traffic and a fracture to the jaw of one of the victims. Having lost the key witnesses, the case being 6 years old, and an adjournment not being within the contemplation of the court, Clara applied to amend the indictment to reflect a Grievous Bodily Harm offence by the single defendant who the remaining witness could identify. The defendant was convicted by the jury of the new offence.

R v C – successfully defended in a two-handed trial where two youths were charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm on two adults during a commute on the Central Line. Although it was agreed that there had been some physical confrontation, the prosecution case was that the youths had used profanity at the adults, physically assaulted them, and necessitated surgical intervention by way of a reparative breast augmentation following damage to one of the complainant’s breasts/breast implants.

R v P – defended P who had pleaded guilty to two counts of supply of Class A drugs in circumstances that mirrored those of a recent previous conviction for the same. The starting point at sentence is one of 4 years 6 months’ imprisonment. Although the Crown contended that his enterprise had been more sophisticated due to his previous experience and offering the police a false address to distance himself from his criminality, the court was amendable to the mitigation put forward by Clara and the sentence imposed was one of 2 years and 7 months.

R V G – prosecuted the sentence of G who had pleaded guilty to 5 counts of sexual offences relating to children including Causing a Child to Engage in Sexual Activity, Engaging in Sexual Communications with a Child and Distributing Indecent Photographs of Children. The defendant was sentenced to 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

R v C & S – defended C who faced a count of joint enterprise armed robbery. Following successful cross examination of the complainant in which he admitted that he could not say with certainty that either of the defendants were his assailants, C accepted the prosecution’s offer to plead to s.20 Unlawful Wounding. The resulting sentence was one of 22 months for that offence rather than a starting point of 5 years imprisonment for the originally charged robbery.

R v D – defended MD on a three-count indictment that included witness intimidation and assault. The prosecution relied heavily on the evidence of several family members, as well as a next-door neighbour who all testified to having witnessed those incidents which gave rise to the charges. An officer giving evidence also divulged to the jury aspects of the defendant’s antecedent history that Clara had had successfully excluded when the application to adduce them was made by the Prosecution. Following 3 hours of deliberation, the jury acquitted M on all counts.

R v G – instructed to prosecute a supply of drugs trial to be heard at the Central Criminal Court. Following her successful response to the defence argument alleging an abuse of process by the Crown in charging the offence of supply months after a plea to simple possession had been entered, G pleaded guilty and awaits sentence.

R v M – defended M on a two-count indictment containing Affray and Threatening with a Bladed Article in a Private Place. The allegation was caught on a ‘live image’, akin to a brief video clip, where M had a large knife described as a ‘machete’ in his hand while standing over the seated complainant. The jury acquitted M of the latter offence following the extensive cross examination of the two victims.