Siân Beaven

Siân Beaven is a specialist criminal practitioner. She has developed a practice prosecuting and defending in all areas of general crime following completion of pupillage at a specialist Criminal and Regulatory chambers in October 2018.

Siân also accepts instructions in professional disciplinary matters, appearing regularly before the NMC on behalf of registrants. She has also developed a practice in prison law, appearing regularly for prisoners in parole hearings and having represented the Claimant in a successful Judicial Review against the Parole Board of England and Wales.

Having accepted an offer of tenancy, Siân looks forward to developing into areas of practice chambers specialises in, specifically military law and further developing her prison law practice.

Prior to coming to the Bar, Siân studied History and Politics at the University of Nottingham before converting to law. Siân received scholarships for both the GDL and BPTC from the Inner Temple and an Advocacy scholarship from BPP.

Notable cases

• R (on the application of Samuel) v Parole Board for England and Wales  [2020] EWHC 42 Admin. – Acting for the Claimant, successful Judicial Review of the Parole Board’s Decision not to release to open conditions after failing to consider the correct legal test.
• R v K (Chelmsford Crown Court) – Represented an 18-year-old who pleaded guilty to Violent Disorder and persuaded the court to impose a suspended sentence.
• CPS v C (Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court) – Secured an acquittal in an assault PC case for a client who was a serving prisoner in which five prison officers gave evidence against him at trial.
• CPS v D (Willesden Magistrates’ Court) – Achieved a sentence of a fine for a client who was convicted after trial for ABH, persuading the judge to depart from the recommendation of probation by presenting extensive mitigation.
• Parole Board v W – Secured release for recalled IPP prisoner serving for sexual activity with a child. The client had previously been recalled and served an additional 5 years over tariff.
• NMC v W – Successfully argued against registrant’s current impairment due to a past health condition and ensured substantive conditions of practice order lapsed upon expiry.