We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies.

Claire Stevenson

Year of Call: 2014


Bar Professional Training Course (BPP, London Holborn)
LL.B (Hons.) Law (University of Kent)

Areas of work:

Claire prosecutes and defends against allegations of serious violence, intent to supply proscribed drugs, fraud, and sexual offences. She is a Level 2 prosecutor on the CPS Advocate Panel, and prosecutes for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, National Probation Service and DVLA. Claire is a prosecutor on the CPS Specialist Panel for Extradition. She also represents requested persons in extradition hearings, first instance, and on appeal.

Claire is instructed in regulatory and professional disciplinary hearings, including presenting disciplinary offences before the Fitness to Practise Committee at the Nursing and Midwifery Council. She is appointed to the List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates. Claire is on the Government Legal Departments Attorney General’s Junior Junior List.

Claire works in the Legal Department at the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) on a regular basis, after being appointed to work in-house on a “specialist contract” basis. Instructions include advice and representation in enforcement and prosecution. She is Junior Counsel for OFSTED in its capacity as a Core Participant in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA).

Follow Claire on LinkedIn, and Twitter. 


Recent Cases:


R v DV – successfully argued the first defence of insanity in the last twenty-three years at Snaresbrook Crown Court

The defendant was facing a three-count indictment: one of affray; and two of racially aggravated public order offences. The defendant had used weapons; threatened his parents; and used his mother as a human shield from police Tasers. Additionally, it was alleged that he was racially abusive, to a police officer. The defence of insanity was argued. The jury acquitted on the counts of public order offences, and further acquitted of affray on grounds of insanity. 

R v DS – led by Paul Simon (9 KBW), defending against allegations of historic sexual assaults upon a girl under the age of fourteen

Between 1979 and 1983, allegations of indecent assaults and threats to kill were committed against a girl between the age of eight and twelve years old.

R v EB & MZ – led by Joint Head of Chambers at 9 KBW, Shabeena Azhar, prosecuting a sham marriage

The husband was from the Indian subcontinent, his wife from Lithuania. They were said to have entered into a “marriage of convenience” to circumvent the law. Upon seeing the case against her, the wife pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment which was suspended for a year. The husband absconded. His case is ongoing.

RSPCA v AE & LW - on behalf of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, successfully prosecuted two defendants charged with unnecessarily causing an animal to suffer

For a prolonged period, the defendants unnecessarily caused a dog to suffer by failing to provide veterinary care in respect of conditions affecting the dog’s skin, ears and eyes. Following expert evidence the court found that the

“suffering was significant, not only sore and uncomfortable, but this is reflected by the very significant loss of weight… was without treatment and increasingly unhappy for a long time”.

The defendants were sentenced to a financial penalty. Indefinite orders were made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006: 1) depriving the defendants of the animals (section 33); 2) disqualifying the defendants from prescribed activities (sections 34); and 3) seizing the animals (section 35).

R v MN & Ors – represented an intervener in a confiscation hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

The defendant had been convicted of conspiracy to supply a high purity class ‘A’ drug (cocaine), with a street value of £263,000. The prosecution alleged that one of the properties registered to the intervener was an asset that was subject to confiscation. The third-party intervener alleged that he had full interest over the property, both legal and equitable.

R v KL – prosecuting a youth for five charges of robbery and attempted robbery

Youth sentencing guidelines and legislation – including section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000 (specified offences) – were considered at sentence. The youth was found to be a “dangerous offender” under section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He was sentenced to three and a half years’ detention.

R v JT – represented a vulnerable defendant with mental health difficulties, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully wounding and possession of a bladed article

Upon consideration of the expert reports, due to mental health difficulties, the defendant was sentenced to a Hospital Order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. 



Ireland v DM – sought permission from the High Court to appeal

The judge at the first instance made an order to extradite the requested person to Ireland. At first instance the requested person raised two issues: firstly, that there would be a real risk to his human rights if he were to be extradited; secondly, that it would be disproportionate to extradite him. 



ELA Ltd v OFSTED - successfully represented OFSTED in a six-day appeal against cancellation before the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber).


Reported at: 

Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website and Bailii.

The provider appealed after their registration to provide childcare at two nursery settings was cancelled. The appellant had a poor inspection history. Over eight years there had been a number of inspections resulting in numerous breaches of the Early Years Foundation Stage. Furthermore, notice had been issued which were not complied with. The appellant was no longer meeting the prescribed requirements for registration.

It was decided that if the appellant’s provision were to reopen it would expose 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 - 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

Concerns were raised following an inspection which obtained an “Inadequate” judgment. The defendant had disengaged from OFSTED who were therefore unable to establish contact and conduct monitoring visits. OFSTED then received concerns that raised issues about the care of children and the suitability of adults linked to the premises. The defendant’s registration was suspended and cancellation of registration took place once her appeal against the decision was struck out, due to failure to comply with the court directions.

OFSTED later received concerns from parents who had been asked to pay back Family Tax Credits (approximately £3000) over a prolonged period.  One of the parents also contacted OFSTED regarding her concerns about her son’s care whilst with the defendant. 

The court determined that this was a serious matter, involving a breach of trust. The defendant was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for twelve months, with a requirement of unpaid work hours.

LB v OFSTED - successfully represented OFSTED in an appeal against suspension (considered on the papers) before the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber).


Reported at:

Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website and Bailii

Successfully defended an appeal on behalf of OFSTED against suspension of registration of a childminder who was suspended due to allegations of emotional and physical harm against a child. 

Nursing & Midwifery Council v P

After a five-day hearing – in which a nurse was alleged to have dishonestly failed to disclose to her employer that she had been previously dismissed, failed to provide an appropriate standard of care to a resident, and failed to provide an appropriate level of wound management to another resident – the Panel found that the allegations were proved, thereby amounting to “misconduct”, and that the nurse was “impaired”. A suspension order was imposed.

Nursing & Midwifery Council v B

Over a three-day hearing, a nurse was alleged to have failed to remain in attendance with a resident whilst that resident was on escorted community leave; and, upon returning to the ward, failed to search the resident. The Panel found that the charges were proved. The nurse received a “conditions of practice order”.

General Dental Council v SB

The dental nurse admitted to misleading, through failure to immediately inform the Council that she had been convicted and then sentenced for a criminal offence. Claire successfully argued that there was no dishonesty.


Voluntary work:

Claire volunteers with Chambers’ ‘OIC Roadshow’, delivering bespoke training to police officers, addressing practical problems of procedure, evidence and disclosure.

Claire is part of a team within Chambers that delivers seminars to defence solicitors on police disclosure. These issues are frequently reported on in national media, due to the collapse of a number of high-profile rape trials, the resulting inquiry into the disclosure of evidence, and the Crown Prosecution Service that has been commissioned by the Justice Committee. 

Additionally, Claire alternates between mentoring and judging the Bar Mock Trial Competition, in which students at local schools compete for a chance to appear in the final held at the Old Bailey. 

Claire invests time in post-graduates aspiring to be Called to the Bar, and her Inn of Court, by coaching advocacy at weekends and assisting students to make contacts with young barristers during evenings.


Outside of the law: 

When time allows, Claire enjoys spending time with her friends and family, riding horses and travelling. Claire unwinds by practising yoga. She is training to become a Strala Yoga Guide.


Terms of business

If you are not satisfied with the response you receive from Chambers you may complain to the Legal Ombudsman (This must be done within the time limits set out) The contact details can be found on the Legal Ombudsman’s website  http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/     

Miss Claire Stevenson is regulated by the Bar Standards Board, holds a current practising certificate and her details can be found on the BSB’s Barrister Register https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-barristers'-register/

Miss Claire Stevenson holds insurance cover for all legal services supplied through professional indemnity insurance with the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) The coverage is worldwide subject to their terms which are available on their website https://www.barmutual.co.uk/

Miss Claire Stevenson is registered with the Information Commissioners office under the Data Protection Act https://ico.org.uk/

If you are not satisfied with the service that Miss Claire Stevenson provides you can make a complaint to Chambers. Information on Chambers Complaints Procedure is available on Chambers website www.9kbw.com/about-us/complaints-procedure

If you are not satisfied with the response you receive from Chambers you may complain to the Legal Ombudsman (This must be done within the time limits set out) The contact details can be found on the Legal Ombudsman’s website  http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/  


A copy of Miss Claire Stevensons' Privacy Notice with details of her Privacy Policy can be found by Clicking Here  


Atticus Blick, has peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Criminal Law on the whole life order sentencing regime
In the wake of cases such as the Sarah Everard murder, our pupil barrister, Atticus Blick, has a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Criminal Law setting out a practitioner friendly overview of the whole life order sentencing regime and its implications for human rights domestic and international law.

Read more

Chambers welcomes three new Tenants to 9 KBW
Chambers are delighted to announce that, following successful completion of pupillage, offers of Tenancy have been made to and accepted by Harry Stallard, Piers Walter and Sam Lubner. Our new members will practice in Criminal, (prosecution and defence) Regulatory and Animal Welfare Law. We are so pleased to welcome each of them to the 9 KBW team.

Read more

Matt Ward Joins 9 KBW
Chambers are delighted to announce that Matt Ward has accepted an offer of Tenancy, following a very successful probationary tenancy at 9 KBW. Matt practices in Criminal (prosecution and defence) and Regulatory Law. A big welcome Matt to the 9 KBW team!

Read more

New Pupils join the 9KW team
Chambers are delighted to welcome 3 new pupils to the 9 KBW team; Neil Sturman, Atticus Blick and Harriet Snookes. We very much look forward to working with them in the coming year.

Read more

Louisa Wheeler joins 9 KBW as Chambers Practice Manager
Chambers are delighted to welcome on board Louisa Wheeler as our Practice Manager. Louisa has a wide range of experience in both fee billing and administration in Chambers and will provide invaluable assistance and support to our Senior Clerk in the day to day clerking of 9 KBW’s diary and fees management.

Read more