email: info@sgkllp.com call: 020 7734 9700
Email: c.bostock@sgkllp.com Secure email: c.bostock@sgkllp.com.cjsm.net Office: 020 7734 9700 Direct dial: 020 3167 6474
Her practice at Shaw Graham Kersh spans advising on and acting in criminal appeals against conviction and sentence, from both the Magistrates’ and Crown Courts, as well as supporting clients in relation to matters involving the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Claire is known for her work on sensitive and complex appeal cases and has brought numerous cases before the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, including cases involving fresh evidence or where serious flaws have been identified in original trial processes or sentencing decisions.
Having initially qualified as a barrister (Called to the Bar in 1999), Claire re-qualified as a solicitor (Admitted to the Roll 2002).
As a criminal defence practitioner, Claire has been instructed by clients seeking advice and representation across a full range of serious and complex criminal cases, as well as summary offences. Her wider experience includes financial crime matters and proceeds of crime proceedings and other quasi civil/criminal matters.
Claire has acted in cases where people have wrongly pleaded guilty and gone on to appeal and had their conviction quashed.
Her work includes advice to professionals where criminal convictions have also risked regulatory sanctions or wider consequences for individuals, including acting for company directors, accountants, medical professionals, teachers and those working in the criminal justice system.
She works alongside leading counsel and highly respected forensic, medical and other experts and investigators and builds a team based on her client’s needs.
Claire has advised in multiple high-profile or other significant cases before the Court of Appeal, including those involving Criminal Cases Review Commission referrals.
Claire has lectured on criminal appeals to undergraduate students at several London universities, contributed to responses on public consultations concerning appeals including the current Law Commission Consultation on Criminal Appeals and has published a range of articles on criminal appeals practice.
Explore our rankings and lawyer testimonials in the UK's leading legal directories: Chambers & Partners, Legal 500, and The Times
R v D [2026] Advising on an application to the CCRC in a murder conviction based exclusively on circumstantial evidence where poor legal representation was alleged.
R v J [2026] Advising a young person acquitted of a joint enterprise murder but convicted of manslaughter on a sentence appeal - leading counsel now instructed to act.
R v N [2025 - 2026] Advising on a sensitive domestic homicide appeal involving fresh psychological evidence resulting in a pending application to the CCRC.
R v Anonymous [2025] Murder conviction (guilty plea) quashed by the Court of Appeal as unsafe on basis of fresh expert psychiatric evidence and other witnesses’ evidence (re-trial pending.
R v Muneza [2022] EWCA Crim 1249 Sentence imposed on a young adult for drug offences considered manifestly excessive by the Court of Appeal.
R v Butterworth and Grant [2022] EWCA Crim 1821 Conjoined sentence referrals by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal.
R v Omotoso [2021] EWCA Crim 691 Conviction appeal on the basis that an alternative verdict was erroneously left to the jury.
R v Adams [2021] EWCA Crim 1739 Appeal against conviction on basis that the prosecution was an abuse of process and fresh evidence - psychological.
R v Berry [2014] EWCA Crim 1389 CCRC referral to the Court of Appeal - convictions quashed as unsafe on grounds relating to the summing up.
R v Baker [2012] EWCA 2843 Conviction appeal relating to diminished responsibility direction.
R v Leighton [2011] Conviction appeal based on fresh evidence and non-disclosure.
R v Ubolcharoen [2009] EWCA Crim 3263 Conviction quashed as unsafe on basis of fresh evidence disclosed by the CPS pursuant to their post-trial disclosure duties.
R v Brooks [2009] EWCA Crim 367 Sentence appeal - imprisonment for public protection challenged and considered “wrong in principle” by the CACD and substituted with a determinate sentence.
R v Dass [2009] EWCA Crim 1208 Triple murder convictions quashed as unsafe and substituted with manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
R v Jones [2007] EWCA Crim 799 Conviction appeal for assault considered unsafe due to erroneous summary of defence case – no retrial ordered.
R v Foster [2007] EWCA Crim 2869 Conviction appeal in relation to when to leave alternative count to jury.