Claire Langevad

Home > People > Barristers > Claire Langevad

Overview

Claire is an experienced criminal practitioner with extensive experience both prosecuting and defending. Her meticulous approach to case preparation and persuasive advocacy results in her being regularly instructed by both the CPS and defence solicitors on complex and sensitive cases.

She conducts a wide range of work including sexual offences, serious violence, large scale supply of drugs and possession of firearms. She has particular experience in cases involving vulnerable defendants or witnesses.

Claire is frequently instructed on appellate work including the drafting of advices in relation to the imposition of unduly lenient sentence, respondent’s’ notices and has frequently appeared in the Court of Appeal in respect of conviction and sentence.

Claire is a Grade 3 on the CPS Advocates Panel.

Crime

Recent Prosecution cases

R v SB [2023]

Currently prosecuting a defendant charged with multiple counts of non-fatal strangulation and ABH against his vulnerable ex-partner. Due to her significant mental health and learning difficulties her evidence was pre-recorded.

R v DC [2023]

Prosecution of an individual found in possession of over 1000 indecent images of children. Described by officer as “by far the most horrific images he had to grade” Defendant pleaded guilty. Further details can be found here- https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23344802.pensioner-indecent-images-children-young-one/

R v RA and others [2023]

Successful prosecution of two individuals who, along with others operated a “county line” from London selling Class A drugs in Northamptonshire. It also involved the trafficking and exploitation of a vulnerable 15-year-old.

R v KO [2023]

Successful prosecution of individual charged with multiple counts of sexual assault committed against women travelling on public transport.

R v MS and others [2023]

Successful prosecution of multi handed robbery in which the victim was targeted and robbed of his Rolex watch. The trial involved consideration of extensive CCTV tracking the movements of the defendants prior, during and after the offence.

R v MB and others [2023]

Successful prosecution of three individuals charged with six counts of robbery, fraud and possession of criminal property The case involved multiple victims, evidence from Under Cover officers and extensive CCTV.

R v RM Central Criminal Court [2022]

Led junior in the prosecution of an individual charged with attempted murder. The case involved an attack with a machete on the Jubilee line. The victim sustained life threatening injuries during the attack. The defendant received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years.

Case reported: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61526936

R v SM [2022]

Successful prosecution of individual charged with multiple counts of controlling and coercive behaviour and S.18 spanning an 18-month period. The victim, having been unwilling to attend court, had to be treated as a hostile witness.

R v S [2021]

Successful prosecution of individual charged with wounding, false imprisonment, and dangerous driving. The trial involved a sustained attack in a domestic context culminating in the defendant fleeing the scene with the victim’s young child and an extensive police pursuit.

Recent Defence cases

R v JH and others [2023]

Defended an individual charged with violent disorder and s.18. Acquitted after an 8-day trial.

R v R [2022]

Defended an individual charged with the historical rape of his 16-year-old niece (8 at the time of the alleged offences) and possession of indecent images. The case involved extensive disclosure in relation to school, family court and social services records.

R v P [2022]

Defended an individual charged with threats to kill and witness intimidation. Both the complainant and defendant were of extremely low IQ and suffered from autism. The trial involved intermediaries for both parties. Acquitted.

R v ML [2021]
Defended an individual charged with multiple counts of historical child cruelty and ABH against his 11-year-old son. Some of the allegations dated back to when the complainant was 6 years old. The trial involved careful cross examination of the witness considering their age and nature of the allegations. Found guilty of ABH only.