CONTACT US
Drystone Chambers
35 Bedford Row
London
WC1R 4JH
DX: 332 London/Chancery Lane
CONTACT US
Drystone Chambers
35 Bedford Row
London
WC1R 4JH
DX: 332 London/Chancery Lane
Call 2015
Kenniesha Stephens
Call 2015
Kenniesha Stephens is an incredibly hardworking advocate, specialising in serious and complex crime. She has a particular interest in financial crime, serious violence and sexual offences.
Kenniesha also specialises in regulatory crime. She has experience across the full range of regulatory crime, including trading standards, food safety, environmental, fraud and restraint and confiscation proceedings.
Kenniesha has been described as a “safe pair of hands” with her meticulous approach to case preparation and fierce representations in both her oral and written advocacy. She has the ability to understand facts of cases quickly. She possesses excellent case strategy and is entrusted to undertake serious and complex cases above her year of call. Kenniesha is a personable and approachable advocate, allowing her to effectively engage with vulnerable defendants and witnesses.
Prior to coming to the Bar, Kenniesha worked at HMRC as a Paralegal working in the strategic litigation team on high profile, complex tax avoidance cases. She also worked at the London Borough of Camden on housing litigation (antisocial behaviour cases and possession proceedings). Furthermore, Kenniesha worked at Surrey Police as an Intelligence Analyst.
R v Dougall & Dougall [2023] Aylesbury Crown Court
Instructed as Prosecution junior and led by Claire Howell in a fraud case valued at over £100,000. Significant responsibility as junior counsel including reviewing all material which had been generated during the investigation (emails, bank statements, care home records), determining what was relevant and needed to be disclosed, adopting the “thinking approach”. This also involved an analysis of which communications/documents were covered by LPP.
R v B, F & N [2024] Norwich Crown Court
Instructed as Prosecution junior and led by William Carter in a three defendant Class A conspiracy of 25KG of cocaine and over £100,000 money laundering. The defendants were involved in a drugs operation involving the supply of large quantities of drugs from the north-west of England (Blackpool) into Norfolk and Suffolk. Responsibility included reviewing the evidence and assisting in the drafting of the opening note, and in the drafting of the sentencing note, particularly concentrating on the sentencing guidelines and where each defendant fell.
R v A, W & J [2023] Peterborough Crown Court
Prosecuted a three-handed money laundering trial. Two of the defendants had severe learning difficulties and were supported by intermediaries. Drafted lengthy agreed facts, which included expert evidence concerning the co-defendants’ diagnoses.
R v Brendish [2024] Aylesbury Crown Court
Instructed as defence counsel in a historic rape offence. The complainant was the stepdaughter of the defendant and the allegations dated back to when she was aged between 8 and 11 years old (in the 1970s). I cross – examined the Crown’s witnesses to highlight in consistencies in the account given. As a result, the jury hung and was unable to return a unanimous or majority verdicts.
R v C [2023] Winchester Crown Court
Instructed as defence junior and led by Nic Lobbenberg KC in a historic two complainant rape case. The complainants were aged 13 and 14 respectively at the time of the allegations. Charges included multiple incident counts for both complainants. Assisted Leading Counsel with cross-examination of the complainants. Drafted agreed facts based on the defendant’s instructions. This was a paper heavy trial.
R v P [2023] Gloucester Crown Court
Represented the defendant accused of sexual offences against his 5-year-old daughter. Involved Section 28 hearing.
Metropolitan Police v JD [2022] – Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court
My client, the defendant, pleaded guilty to the offence of sexual communications with a child, an offence which dated back to August 2020. Almost six months following sentence, the Metropolitan Police sought a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, despite there being no evidence that the defendant posed a future risk to females under the age of 16.
I successfully opposed the application for a Sexual Harm Prevention Order made pursuant to section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
My experience in regulatory work, which encompasses both advocacy and advisory roles across a range of legal contexts, has equipped me with a foundational understanding of the regulatory landscape and the skills necessary to effectively represent and advise clients in these complex areas.
The Nurse & Midwifery Council (NMC) v TM [2023]
Represented a registered nurse in a fitness to practice hearing before the NMC. My client was accused of working as a nurse without NMC registration for two weeks. I cross examined NMC witnesses, made closing submissions and addressed issues of misconduct and impairment. Despite a finding of dishonesty, I effectively utilised NMC guidance to argue that the appropriate sanction was a caution rather than suspension, as recommended by the NMC. The panel accepted my submissions.
AM v Enfield Council [2023]
Represented Enfield Council in an appeal against an abatement notice issued for a statutory nuisance due to the playing of loud music. I drafted a comprehensive skeleton argument, supported by case law, to establish the justification and necessity of the notice. During the hearing I conducted examination-in-chief of the Council’s environmental officers, successfully demonstrating that a statutory nuisance existed at the time the notice was issued. The court quashed the abatement notice on the grounds that the requirement was unreasonable.
London Borough of Southwark (“LBS”) v Thames Water Ltd [2023]
Represented LBS against Thames Water for failing to provide adequate notice of road works, in violation of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The case hinged on whether Thames Water’s application for an emergency permit was justified, given their prior knowledge of the need for repairs. I focused on cross-examining witnesses to establish the timeline and demonstrate Thames Water’s negligence. The court found Thames Water guilty on both charges, resulting in a £10,000 fine plus prosecution costs.
Sambi v Revenue & Customs (Income Tax) [2020] UKFTT 231 (TC)
Represented HMRC in an appeal brought by Mr. Sambi before the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) concerning the taxability of travel and subsistence payments as employment income. The central issue was whether the various construction sites at which Mr. Sambi worked constituted temporary workplaces, which would have impacted the tax treatment of his travel and subsistence payments. I advanced HMRC’s case by meticulously utilising relevant case law to argue that the travel and subsistence payments were taxable. The FTT dismissed the appeal, agreeing that neither the travelling time nor the cost was substantial, and the change of workplace should be disregarded.
