Skip to content
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Google+

Nadia Chbat

Year of call: 1996

VAT No: 773569288 | BSB Registration Click Here

Email: Send Email | Download full CV

Areas of Practice:

Nadia is a highly experienced defence criminal advocate with an extensive practice in London, and the South East. Her solicitors instruct her to handle a range of cases, most significantly is her expertise in sex offences, ranging from Rape, sexual assault, offences against children and offences which are said to have taken place many years ago. She regularly cross examines young and often vulnerable witnesses, with skill, and professionalism. Nadia handles multiple evidential issues regularly in such cases.

Nadia defends high level crime, such as Drug Trafficking, Murder and Attempted Murder, Grievous Bodily Harm, and Robbery, Child Cruelty, and Fraud. She has been Leading Junior counsel in a variety of cases, as well as Leading Junior to Queens Counsel.

Her ability to handle difficult clients as well as witnesses has attracted respect from her colleagues as well as the judiciary. Many judges have commented on her impressive handling of cross examination in difficult and challenging cases. Her closing speeches and the drawing up of the entire defence case impresses her professional and lay clients, time and time again. The demand for solicitors to secure her as an advocate is competitive and she is regularly instructed in the very early stages, after charge, before even a court hearing has been fixed. 

Nadia is the advocate who will use all her skill and experience and forensic analysis to secure an acquittal. Tackling often the most unusual cases, such as the sleepwalker, accused of sexual assault of a young girl in her own home, who travelled over three miles on foot asleep, or the defendant accused of Rape by a complainant who was “too drunk to remember”, or the defendant harassed by the police over years and years, accused of threatening to shoot a police officer. All successfully found not guilty, despite the challenges involved.

Nadia is one of the few advocates who has cross examined her own profession. Involved in a case where the incident took place in a court room, Nadia cross examined a Judge, a Silk (Q.C), a senior Barrister, police officers, a court clerk and security staff, as all were eye witnesses to the alleged offences.  Before she had even made her closing speech, the jury sent a note to the judge expressing their desire to return not guilty verdicts. 

Education & Qualifications:

Sheffield Hallam University 1991-1993 LLB 2:1

Inns of Court School of Law 1995 Very Competent

Called to the Bar 1996

Professional Courses:

Serious Sexual Offences

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Proceeds of Crime 2002

Subscription to Criminal Law Week (weekly update digest of cases)

In addition Nadia has prepared and delivered a number of lectures on a wide range of topics, to both chambers and her instructing solicitors.

Professional Memberships:

Criminal Bar Association

Thames Valley Bar Mess

  • Case Profile

    R-v-A Defendant whilst sleepwalking accused of sexual assault of 12 yr old. He had to get into a strange home, walk across the lounge floor full of children in sleeping bags, travel upstairs and into the bed all whilst “sleepwalking” in order for the defence to be successful.  The jury found the defendant Not Guilty within an hour.

    R-v-L Nadia successfully defended a young father of 18yrs of age accused of sexual assault on his own child who was 18months old. The trial, lasted over two weeks. The injury, age of the child and the circumstances of the injury meant it was a highly challenging case for all involved. In addition, the circumstances where such that the defence were not able to call their own expert concerning the cause of the injury. The defence involved careful and thorough cross examination of the Crown’s consultant paediatrician. The defendant was acquitted unanimously within two hours.

    R-v W Rape allegation made by family friend (54yrs), on the defendant, who was her best friend’s son (29yrs). She was “asleep” and had no memory. The defence was consent. This was a difficult and emotional case for both sides during this two week trial. The Defendant was found Not Guilty after 35 minutes.

    R-v S Rape allegation made by female on defendant, after “one night stand”. She awoke the next day and as she considered “too drunk” to consent, he was accused of Rape. Defendant had a wife and young children. CCTV showed her drunk in the pub, leaving with the defendant. Defence was one of consent. Jury returned unanimous Not Guilty verdict in under two hours.

    R-v- F Defendant accused of Affray in a civil court. After years of police harassment, the defendant, in a civil action against the police lost his case, so in front of the entire court, the judge, the barristers and court staff and police, he was accused of destroying the entire court room. He was also accused of threatening to shoot a police officer. The case involved careful and expert cross examination of Barristers, a Judge, court staff and the police. Before the closing speeches had been made, the jury sent a note to the judge indicating their desire to return not guilty verdicts.  Not Guilty verdicts.

    R-v-T Nadia was Leading Junior in a Multi handed Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs, where the defendant faced significant evidence against him. The case involved the use of extensive surveillance, both audio and mobile surveillance in the UK and abroad, spanning some ten months. There was supply to undercover police officers and there was a large amount of surveillance material, to assimilate and consider, as well as numerous PII hearings. The police investigation was conducted by the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

    The defendant was acquitted after a four month trial.

    R-v- C Nadia defended the mother accused of Child Cruelty against her own young children. Both girls, aged 6yrs and 8yrs accused their mother of numerous assaults. She had lost custody of all five children as a result of the allegations being made. The trial involved careful cross examination of both young witnesses and their father, with whom she was separated. The Jury found her Not Guilty of all charges.