Anjelica Smerin

Anjelica is developing a busy defence practice across Chambers’ core practice areas. Anjelica has been successful in cases involving complex legal arguments including matters involving modern slavery and hearsay evidence. Anjelica has experience representing children and young people charged with serious criminal offences and has carried out specific training with the YJLC and ICCA.

Anjelica’s experience prior to joining the bar, as a caseworker at the charity Bail for Immigration Detainees, has made her particularly adept at advising and representing vulnerable clients with a complex history, including those with experiences with trafficking and exploitation, mental health concerns, and serious criminal backgrounds.

Anjelica has been recognised on the Pro-Bono Recognition List 2026. As a student Anjelica was the senior director of the School Exclusion Project, taught public speaking skills to inmates at HMP Brixton with the project Vocalise, and was an advisor with Citizens Advice for 2 years.

During her pupillage Anjelica was awarded an Ann Goddard Scholarship from Gray’s Inn and was the runner up in the Kalisher Essay Prize competition.

Expertise

Notable Crime cases

R v B [2026] Isleworth Crown Court

Anjelica’s client was acquitted by the jury of Assaulting an Emergency Worker (Police Officer) following a 3-day trial. Following careful cross examination of four police officers and evidence in chief from her client, Anjelica successfully advanced a case of lawful self-defence.

R v E [2026] Plymouth Crown Court

Anjelica is instructed as trial counsel to represent a client charged with possession with intent to supply Class A drugs.

R v J [2026] Woolwich Crown Court

Anjelica is instructed as trial counsel representing a client charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and intentional strangulation.

R v G [2026] Reading Crown Court

Led by Alexandra Scott, representing a defendant at sentence convicted of attempted murder in ‘tit for tat’ gang violence which culminated in a drive by shooting on the A41.

R v S [2026] St Albans Crown Court

Following an appeal on conviction from the Magistrates Court, Anjelica’s client was acquitted of assault by beating and had her conviction quashed.

R v R [2026] St Albans Crown Court

Anjelica secured a suspended sentence order for a client with previous convictions facing a serious ABH charge. Anjelica made written and oral submissions that her client’s mental health conditions reduced his culpability and persuaded the sentencing judge that immediate custody was not necessary.

R v J [2025] St Albans Crown Court

Secured a 24-month community order for a client charged with 2 supply Class A offences involving the supply of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. The sentencing judge was persuaded by Anjelica’s sentencing note to categorise the offending as lesser role and the lowest harm level.

R v D [2025] Chelmsford Crown Court

Represented a client from first appearance to sentence, Anjelica represented a prolific offender charged with dangerous driving, aggravated vehicle taking, common assault and criminal damage against two complainants. He received a 16-month custodial sentence.

R v B [2025] Snaresbrook Crown Court

Represented a client for a breach of a SSO involving persistent non-compliance. Following submissions outlining the client’s mental health issues and family background the Judge was persuaded not to activate the custodial sentence.

R v K [2025] City of London Magistrates Court

Anjelica’s client was acquitted of handling stolen goods following a trial after the court were persuaded that the client did not have the requisite knowledge.

R v J [2025] Croydon Magistrates’ Court

Successfully opposed an application by the Crown to adduce a deceased complainant’s evidence under s.116. The client faced an assault occasioning actual bodily harm involving the use of a firearm and two charges of assault by beating. Following the legal argument, the matter was discontinued.

R v P [2025] Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court

Represented a client with a severe brain injury resulting in ongoing cognitive difficulties and vulnerabilities. The client was acquitted of stalking and sending false communications to his ex-partner following the disintegration of the relationship. The court was persuaded that a reasonable person in the client’s position would not have known their conduct had amounted to harassment. The magistrates also accepted that the client believed the information communicated to be true and had no intention to cause harm. The client was assisted at trial with an intermediary.

R v C [2025] Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court

Anjelica’s client was acquitted of charges including making threats with a bladed article, assault by beating and criminal damage against his mother and ex-partner. The trial involved several legal arguments: an initial adjournment made by the Crown was successfully opposed. Anjelica successfully opposed an application to adduce one complainant’s evidence as res gestae. A successful submission of ‘no case to answer’ was made in respect of three of the five charges. The client was found guilty of a single charge of assault which the court was persuaded to sentence by way of a fine deemed served.

R v W [2025] Bromley Magistrates’ Court

Secured an acquittal in an assault by beating trial involving an incident captured on CCTV for a private client.

R v R [2025] Folkestone Magistrates’ Court

Secured an acquittal in a trial concerning two charges of assault by beating against two complainants over a two-day trial.

Notable Youth Matters cases

R v W [2026] Nottingham Crown Court

Anjelica is currently instructed as trial counsel to represent a youth jointly charged with an adult of a high-value theft conspiracy across over alleged 80 incidents.

R v D [2026] Bromley Youth Court

Secured an acquittal for a client charged with a knife-point robbery on a joint enterprise basis. Anjelica’s careful cross examination of the complainant and eye-witness successfully challenged the Crown’s account and her client was acquitted.

R v P [2026] Bexley Youth Court

Anjelica successfully advanced an argument of “reasonable excuse” on behalf of her young client charged with a bladed article offence. Her client was of good character and was acquitted after trial.

R v E [2026] Willesden Youth Court

Secured an acquittal of an attempted robbery charge which Anjelica’s client faced alongside two co-defendants. Anjelica’s client was the first defendant and was purportedly identified on the basis of CCTV footage and a police officer’s identification made some months later. At trial Anjelica successfully challenged the Crown’s identification evidence and her client was acquitted.

R v A [2026] Uxbridge Youth Court

Anjelica secured a conditional discharge for a client charged with causing an ABH injury to a prison officer as a youth. Anjelica’s client had since turned 18 and faced adult sentencing disposals. Following lengthy submissions Anjelica was able to persuade the court to exceptionally impose a lengthy conditional discharge.

R v O [2026] Bromley Youth Court

Anjelica secured a non-custodial sentence for a client charged with aggravated burglary with intent to commit GBH and a bladed article offence. Anjelica’s client had previously spent lengthy periods of time in a Youth Offenders Institutes on remand but following oral and written submissions the court were persuaded to impose a YRO.

R v D [2025] Bromley Youth Court

Successfully advanced a modern slavery defence under s.45 MSA 2015 in respect of two charges of possession of a bladed article. The trial involved extensive careful evidence in chief of a vulnerable youth client with a background of county lines, domestic abuse and gang grooming. The client was acquitted of both charges and Anjelica persuaded the court to dispose of the remaining charge of possession class B drugs by way of a conditional discharge.

R v N [2025] Stratford Youth Court

Represented a youth at sentence for five offences across two incidents including aggravated burglary, possession of bladed articles, possession of cannabis and criminal damage. The court were persuaded to impose a Referral Order following submissions outlining the youth’s background including a diagnosis of ADHD, the impact of bereavement, and prospects in work.