Alejandra is a third six pupil specialising in general criminal law who joined chambers after successfully completing a 12-month pupillage at a well-established criminal set in London.
She is regularly instructed in all areas of crime and frequently appears in the Youth Court, the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court. Her practice encompasses a wide range of offences including serious violence, drugs, sexual offences, dishonesty offences, and road traffic matters.
Alejandra is dedicated to building a busy criminal practice throughout the western and south-eastern circuits. Throughout all of her cases, Alejandra maintains a strong work ethic which, coupled with her meticulous case preparation, allows her to represent her clients with mastery of the law and the facts.
Prior to commencing pupillage, Alejandra worked as a paralegal for a highly regarded criminal defence firm during which she gained invaluable experience in the most serious criminal cases. Alejandra worked as part of a team who secured an acquittal in Operation Nautical which was compromised of a 22-handed trial for grooming and rape in Oxfordshire.
Alejandra is a native Spanish speaker.
- London Borough Council of Barking & Dagenham v AM & Others (2018) (Snaresbrook Crown Court) - A three-week trial where the Defendant was second on the indictment facing charges under the perjury act. Following successful arguments for the exclusion of bad character and vigorous cross-examination of council officers and civilian witnesses, the Defendant was acquitted.
- R v W (2018) (Harrow Crown Court) – Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply class B. The Crown’s case heavily relied upon evidence of the high quantities of cannabis found in the defendant’s home address and high volumes of mobile phone data to show the supply. Following submissions, I persuaded the judge to suspended a custodial sentence and the defendant was sentenced to 8 months in custody suspended for 2 years.
- R v BE (2018) (Inner London Crown Court) – Defendant pleaded guilty to being in possession of a false identity document with improper intention. In addressing the Court on the sentencing guidance given by R v Ovieriakhi, I persuaded the Court that this matter fell outside the 12-18 month recommended sentence of R v Kolawole and a sentence of 6 months was most appropriate. The Defendant was sentenced to 6 months in custody.
- R v C (2018) (Southampton Magistrates' Court) - The Defendant was charged with assault by beating of her 5 year old child. Following extensive legal arguments in relation to the admissibility of evidence alongside the opposing of various hearsay applications, the entirety of the Crown's case was excluded under various provisions in law (section 78, hearsay and Section 76). As the Crown had no admissible evidence left, the Crown offered no evidence.
- R v O (2018) (Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court) – Successfully defended a client charged with multiple offences of assault by beating against his ex-partner. The Crown’s case relied upon CCTV evidence showing some of the assaults taking place. I secured the acquittal through vigorous cross-examination of the complainant which resulted in numerous inconsistencies in her account of the alleged incidents.
- R v A (2018) (Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court) – Successfully defended a client charged with being in charge whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. The Crown’s case relied upon body worn footage from the officers present at the scene which showed the defendant highly intoxicated while sat in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. I secured the acquittal by identifying failures by the police to take into consideration the defendant’s proximity to his home address and producing defence evidence to corroborate the defendant’s story.
- R v G (2018) (Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court) - Successfully defended a client charged with drink driving. The Crown’s case was relied upon the arresting officer and the MGDDA which, in Alejandra’s view, was riddled with police failures as to the conduct of the breath samples. At the close of the Crown’s a successful submission of no case to answer was made, addressing the law and procedural failures.