Jordan Santos-Sindes

Jordan, led by Jessica Clarke of chambers, appeared for the Crown in this matter of conspiracy to commit burglary. The Defendants were alleged to have committed 11 burglaries in the West London area, in which over £200,000 worth of items were stolen over a sustained period of time. The nature of the Crown’s case was circumstantial and relied upon Flying Squad surveillance, the pattern of behaviour of the defendants prior to and after the burglaries, and cell site. Following a three-week trial the leader of the conspiracy was convicted. See full article here 

Jordan was instructed by CPS London

R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232

The Appellant had received a 6-month immediate custodial sentence for an offence of assault on an emergency worker, which had occurred over 3 years previously. Jordan appealed on the grounds that the sentence ought to have been suspended. Having heard oral submissions the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, but also held that due to the current high prison population, and the Government’s announcement of Operation Safeguard, there was a real strain on the prison service. This gives rise to a “further exceptional factor” for sentencers to consider whether to suspend a term of imprisonment, until the situation with the prison population is resolved.

Jordan was instructed by Leila Abdul-Rasool of Lewis Nedas Law

Jordan was instructed to represent 3 out of 4 defendants jointly charged with burglary, ABH and criminal damage. Following detailed written and oral submissions at PTPH, all of the charges were dismissed against all 3 of Jordan’s clients.

Jordan was instructed by Andy Hobdell of Lawtons Solicitors.  

The Defendant was charged with a domestic violence assault. During the course of the complainant’s evidence it was discovered that two of her witness statements had never been disclosed to the defence that went to the heart of the Crown’s case, as well as other disclosure failings. The trial was halted. Following this, Jordan successfully argued that for the Crown to continue would offend the Courts sense of propriety and integrity as an abuse of process.

Jordan was instructed by Leah Connolly of Sonn Macmillan Walker

Represented the third defendant in a large scale national Encrochat drug conspiracy at a 4 day sentence hearing. K was deemed to be part of the leadership group of an organised crime network, which supplied industrial quantities of drugs which were in excess of 1 tonne and had links to the biggest importer of cocaine in the country. The gang also laundered over £24million.

Jordan was instructed by Miles Herman of Lewis Nedas Law.

The defendant was charged with Section 18 GBH. The complainant alleged he had been viciously attacked by the defendant unprovoked. The complainant was vulnerable due to mental health issues and therefore required section 28 cross-examination. Jordan was instructed trial counsel from the Ground Rules Hearing. The defendant’s relevant previous convictions were excluded following legal argument. The defendant was acquitted following trial. Wood Green CC.

Jordan, led by Tessa Shroff of chambers, represented one of four defendants charged with a large-scale drugs conspiracy in South London during a 4-week trial. The defendant was suspected to be a key player in the operation. The case involved analysis of several mobile telephones, cell site and co-location between various individuals. Inner London CC.

Prosecution counsel for an ABH against an emergency worker, police officer. This involved legal argument about the legitimacy of police powers when executing a stop of a suspect. The defendant was convicted following trial. Basildon CC.

The defendant was charged with possession with intent to supply class A drugs. The defendant had admitted that he was intending to supply the drugs. Having taken further instruction from the defendant, the defence sought to rely upon section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Following extensive investigation, the defence were provided with a positive conclusive grounds decision. Jordan drafted a letter of representation to the prosecution. The prosecution offered no evidence, even though this was a case which post-dated the Court of Appeal decision in Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731. Bromley YC.

Prosecution trial counsel in which two on duty police officers were accused of assaulting a teenage girl. The officers had used PAVA spray (in the confined quarters of the back of a police car) and a knee strike to the head of the handcuffed complainant, but maintained their actions were reasonable and proportionate. The case involved cross-examination of two “use of force” experts, who were ex-police officers. Following trial both officers were convicted and have been subsequently dismissed. Folkestone MC.

Read News Article here

Instructed for the requested person who was wanted on an accusation warrant for rape. The link to Q related to forensic evidence held by the IJA. The issue for the extradition hearing centred around the statutory bar of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. Jordan instructed an expert on the Spanish Penal Code and Criminal Justice System, who was able to consult the domestic file. This demonstrated the case was in its infancy and following the serving of the report and submissions the IJA withdrew the Arrest Warrant and Q was discharged. Westminster MC.

R had been arrested by the police having been in possession of 41 wraps of crack cocaine. R was initially charged with simple possession of class A. R pleaded guilty to this, amongst other offences, and was committed for sentence. Following this, the Crown sought to recharge R with possession with intent to supply class A, for the same drugs.  Jordan represented the client at Isleworth Crown Court and argued that the bringing of supply charge was an abuse of process, under the wider principle of autresfois convict. Having heard legal submissions, the Court stayed the indictment as an abuse of process.

Instructed defence counsel. The defendant was accused of a street robbery in which an expensive watch was stolen. The defence involved identification evidence, alibi, as well as disputing cell site evidence produced by the Crown. Following trial the defendant was acquitted. Southwark CC.

The defendant was charged on indictment with affray and possession of a bladed article. The case centred around footage of a group of males chasing one another, and at least one of them wielding two machetes. The Crown’s evidence was based on a police officer’s identification from CCTV footage. The defendant was acquitted after trial. Isleworth CC.

Prosecution counsel in a trial of issues. This was a domestic armed robbery in which the complainant was threatened with a knife by her son. The defendant had been declared unfit to plead as he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. This trial required careful witness handling of a vulnerable complainant. Lewes CC.

Defence counsel for an able seaman who was accused of a one-punch ABH against another sailor in a public house. The defendant sought to run a defence of pre-emptive self-defence. Bulford Court Martial.