Sabrina is a Supervising Solicitor in both the specialist Youth Justice Team and our Croydon Crime Team.

Sabrina joined GT Stewart Solicitors as a criminal defence paralegal in 2016 before completing her training contract and qualifying into the Crime Team as a Solicitor. She specialises in representing young people and vulnerable adults and has a  particular interest in representing victims of modern slavery. Sabrina represents clients at all stages of the criminal justice system and has developed a reputation for excellent client care and meticulous case preparation. Sabrina understands the importance of building a relationship of trust with clients, and the need for continuity, so she frequently represents clients from the police station through to trial.

Sabrina regularly writes legal updates for the Youth Justice Legal Centre, commenting on a range of topics. In 2022, she provided written evidence to support the ATLEU’s claim for Judicial Review, which was bought on behalf of victims and potential victims of modern slavery in prisons.

Education:

•       LLB (Hons) Law  – BPP University
•       Legal Practice Course – BPP University
•       LLM, Professional Legal Practice – BPP University

Professional Qualifications:

•       Police Station Accreditation
•       Duty Solicitor Qualification
•       Higher Rights of Audience (Criminal)
•       Advocacy and Vulnerable Witness Training

Notable Cases:

• R v C – Represented a young adult charged with murder.
• R v G – Represented a young adult who had been charged with S.18 GBH and possession of an offensive weapon following a stabbing.
• R v F – Represented a vulnerable adult who had been charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of ammunition with intent to engager life following a shooting.
• R v R – Represented a child charged with 10 offences relating to the supply of class A drugs. R was a victim of child criminal exploitation. Following written representations, the Crown discontinued all 10 offences. 
• R v N, N & H – Represented three vulnerable Vietnamese nationals of good character who had been charged with offences relating to supplying class B drugs after they were found in a cannabis factory containing cannabis valued at in excess of £1million. All three were victims of modern slavery. Following two days of legal argument, the Court stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process after the Crown Prosecution Service failed to apply its guidance on prosecuting victims of modern slavery.
• R v A – Represented a young adult of good character charged with offences of making and distributing indecent images of children and possession of extreme pornography. The offences dated back to when our client was a child. Despite lengthy representations to the Crown Prosecution Service, they refused to withdraw the charges, so the matter was set down for an abuse of process argument. The day before the abuse of process argument was due to take place, the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that they would be offering no evidence. Not guilty verdicts were recorded by the Court, and our client remained a young adult of good character.
• R v R – Represented a child who pleaded guilty to an offence of possession of an offensive weapon whilst represented by another firm of solicitors. Sabrina successfully applied to re-open the conviction, and R was found not guilty at trial after Sabrina made submissions that R had no case to answer.
• R v R – Represented a child who was one of eight young people charged with violent disorder. The incident attracted news coverage. Following representations, the CPS discontinued the case against R. 
• R v L – Represented a child with complex needs who had been charged with seven offences of assaulting an emergency worker. All charges were withdrawn by the CPS following representations.
• R v J –  Represented J, who had been charged with offences of possession with intent to supply class A drugs. The police alleged that J had discarded a package, which was later recovered and found to contain class A drugs. Following a four-day trial, J was unanimously acquitted by the jury. 
• R v J – Represented a vulnerable young adult of good character who had been charged with possession with intent to supply class A drugs after being forced to sell drugs for 4 years. The CPS offered no evidence following written representations and the Court recorded not guilty verdicts.
• R v V – Represented a client who had been charged with obstructing a police officer. The charges were withdrawn on the day of trial after it was argued that the officers were acting unlawfully.
• R v A – Represented a client of good character charged with assaulting an emergency worker. The client was found not guilty following a full trial after submissions were made that the police were acting unlawfully and that there was, in fact, no assault.
• R v C – Represented a vulnerable young adult who had been forced to sell drugs in order to clear a debt. The CPS offered no evidence following written representations, and the Court recorded not guilty verdicts.
• R v L – Represented a young adult who was charged with offences relating to drugs supply, which dated back to when they were a child. The CPS offered no evidence following written representations, and not guilty verdicts were recorded.