Sania has experience as a led junior and is regularly instructed to represent vulnerable clients, she is familiar with the additional challenges that vulnerable clients, particularly those unfamiliar with the criminal justice system, face. She is well adapted to taking extra time and care to ensure her clients are comfortable and confident with their representation.
Criminal Defence
Overview
Sania accepts a wide variety of instructions, including, but not limited to:
- Sexual offences
- Dishonesty offences such as robberies, thefts and burglaries
- False imprisonment
- Violent offences such as ABH, GBH and Intentional Strangulation
- Offences involving weapons
- Driving offences
Contact Sania
Notable Cases
Overview
R v MH [2026] – Sania represented an Afghan male accused of sexual touching of a child under the age of 13. After seeking further disclosure, an effective Ground Rules Hearing where her s28 questions were approved the Crown ultimately offered no evidence.
Vulnerable client sectioned immediately after offence sentenced for robbery
R v GC [2026] – represented an individual facing sentence for Robbery. Successfully persuaded the Judge that a community order, with no punitive element, was appropriate.
Young client sentenced for robbery offence
R v HS [2026] – Sania secured a community order for a client sentenced for robbery.
Fact-finding hearing in the youth court results in guardianship order
R v LS [2026] – Represented a 16-year-old child over a two day fact-finding hearing relating to false imprisonment, sexual offences and strangulation, at the conclusion of the trial, a guardianship order was secured. This case was particularly difficult due to the local authority’s fundamental misunderstanding of guardianship orders which delayed the eventual disposal.
Client charged with criminal damage of British Flags
R v CU [2026] – Sania represented a client charged with a bladed article offence and criminal damage of English flags. After service of an application to dismiss, the Crown conceded they had no case to answer and formally offered no evidence on the criminal damage offence. After written representations the Crown indicated a conditional caution to the bladed article offence would resolve all matters.
Led Junior on historic sexual offence retrial
R v EB [2025] – Led junior (Peter Clark, leading junior) in a historic sexual assault trial lasting 15 days. Peter Clark led Sania Nissar in the defence of a female teaching assistant alleged to have been complicit in grave child sex offences committed by her ex-husband, a headmaster. Their client was also charged with sexual assault of an adult male. While the co-defendant was convicted of all charges against him, including child rapes, Peter and Sania’s client was unanimously acquitted after a 15-day trial. The trial attracted media coverage: BBC News (12/08/25), BBC News (19/9/25)
Client maintains good character after allegations of domestic violence
R v SM [2025] – Sania represented a 21-year-old university graduate facing allegations of strangulation and ABH. Despite video evidence, which the complainant purported to show that she was being chased and subjected to other ‘acts of violence’, Sania’s client was unanimously acquitted of all counts.
Client acquitted of four strangulation offences after pleading guilty to ABH and threats to kill
R v AR [2025] – Sania represented a client charged with violent offending that occurred in the context of a domestic relationship in a single evening. On the day of trial, AR pleaded to causing actual bodily harm and threats to kill but denied strangulation. After successfully resisting a bad character application, in which the Crown sought to demonstrate propensity to strangle, her client was acquitted of all remaining strangulation offences.
Client acquitted of domestic violence offences after credibility of complainant and investigation uncovered
R v DN [2025] – Sania represented a man charged with violent domestic offences. After identifying and obtaining additional disclosure not revealed on the MG6c schedule, she built her client’s case on the lack of credibility of the evidence before the jury and the inadequacy of the investigation. Her client was acquitted of all counts.
Client sentenced for illegal entry via small boat
R v SSK [2024] – defended a vulnerable refugee and secured a 12-month sentence for a client convicted of illegal entry via small boats, SSK had a significant immigration history of illegal entry which added an additional element of severity beyond what is recommended by current case law. However, through careful mitigation Sania secured the recommended starting point sentence.
Acquittal for client facing charge of failing to provide specimen of breath
R v SK [2024] – secured an acquittal in the Magistrates Court for a client charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath. Sania successfully persuaded the bench that the police had failed to provide SK with an interpreter, and he therefore could not understand the complex language of the statutory warning. SK was acquitted and maintained his good character.
Youth charged with marketing weapons
R v AM [2024]– Sania represented a 17-year-old charged with marketing weapons, including firearms. After submissions to the Crown Advocate regarding lack of evidence on a POCA charge and the overcharging of one offence AM entered guilty pleas to 5 out of 8 charges before trial. Sania successfully secured a 12-month referral order after extensive mitigation through written and oral representations.
Vulnerable client given further opportunity to comply with suspended sentence order after Court acknowledged his vulnerabilities inhibited effective participation with probation
R v BR [2024]– Successfully persuaded a Crown Court Judge not to activate a suspended sentence that had been poorly complied with, on the basis that BR’s vulnerabilities, alongside his autism and ADHD, inhibited any effective and meaningful engagement with probation services, resulting in further offending. It was raised that probation, possibly due to lack of resources, did not fully appreciate BR’s vulnerabilities and therefore did not provide enough adjustments to assist his compliance. It was successfully submitted that a second opportunity to fully participate in any rehabilitative activities ought to be granted.
Crown offer no evidence after lengthy proceedings against youth
R v WB [2024] – Represented a vulnerable youth who had turned 18 at the time of trial. Despite the reopening of pleas, due to the findings of reasonable and conclusive grounds of modern slavery, the Crown proceeded to trial. Sania raised concerns to the Crown advocate who had provided an outdated disclosure schedule. The Crown acknowledged their disclosure obligations were poorly complied with which resulted in the Crown offering no evidence.
