Practice Overview
Sacha Waxman was called to the Bar in 2024, but her legal career began in 2006 when she joined one of the largest and leading national criminal defence firms as a trainee solicitor. She qualified as a solicitor in 2008 (admitted to the roll January 2009) and subsequently became a duty solicitor in 2011, covering courts and police station work on 24 hour rota basis. She later attained higher rights of audience in 2013 and then began her practice in the Crown Court.
Sacha has almost two decades of extensive experience in defence practice, including but not limited to cases involving serious and organised crime, murder, manslaughter, terrorism, fraud, computer crime, money laundering, drug importation and conspiracies to supply, offences against the person, serious sexual offences and burglary. She also gained experience of large VHCC and POCA cases. During her practice, Sacha has also prosecuted for the RSPCA, the Health and Safety Executive and the DWP.
She is a widely recognised and well respected lawyer who has earned a reputation as a formidable opponent. She is a persuasive advocate and is also known for her diligent case preparation, as well as excellent client care.
Historically, Sacha read law at University in Manchester and obtained an LLB (Hons) and then a Masters in 2005, she then completed the Legal Practice Course in 2006. In 2017, she also completed a Ph.D. at the University of Manchester, passing with no corrections. Her doctoral thesis centred on medical law and jurisprudence, which Sacha has published leading work in the field and presented across a variety of conferences.
Sacha has lectured in law at the University of Liverpool, University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University, teaching across a range of modules at undergraduate and postgraduate level. She has supervised three Ph.D. candidates. She has also taught at postgraduate level on the GDL and LPC, at BPP Law School in Manchester and Liverpool.
Sacha Waxman’s accomplished work in academia and excellent research skills significantly compliment her sharp attention to detail in her case load and very strong work ethic. She is capable in cases involving complex medical evidence and expert witnesses. She can master the most serious and complex technical information, process extensive disclosure quickly and formulate intricate legal arguments where required.
Significant Cases:
R v O: Defending an allegation of rape before the Youth Court. At trial, the case involved the cross examination of a very young complainant with learning difficulties. Intermediaries used at trial and ground rules hearing governing cross examination.
R v D: “OPERATION ACRE” Sacha was led by Mr Littler KC for the first defendant in a two handed murder and manslaughter trial before Manchester Crown Court.
R v V: Successfully defended allegations of non-fatal strangulation, non-fatal suffocation and ABH before Manchester Crown Court. At trial, Sacha made a successful half time submission of no case to answer on count 2 and the defendant was unanimously acquitted by the jury on count 1 and 3.
R v W: Sacha represented a defendant charged with historic familial sexual activity with a child and recent possession of indecent, prohibited and extreme pornographic images. The two sets of proceedings spanned over a ten year period and involved highly sensitive disclosed material. It involved a complex sentencing exercise, for which Sacha was commended on her work by the Judge. She successfully argued against dangerousness provisions on sentence.
R v Y: Sacha represented the second of three defendants before Liverpool Crown Court. The case involved allegations of drug supply, and possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition. Throughout the case, Sacha made persistent disclosure requests in connection to telephone evidence, and at trial she successfully opposed the inclusion of forensic evidence linking the defendant to the firearm and ammunition, this led to the prosecution offering no evidence on those two counts.
R v C: This was an allegation of aggravated burglary committed in a domestic context, involving the use of violence with a weapon. Sacha carefully drafted and negotiated a basis of plea with the prosecution and subsequently secured a suspended sentence order on behalf of the defendant.
R v S: “OPERATION BONUS”. Multi-handed case at Manchester Crown Court involving large scale drug supply and anti-social behaviour in Manchester Piccadilly Gardens. Sacha represented one defendant and successfully resisted an application for a Criminal Behaviour Order on sentence.
R v K: Sacha defended the first of two defendants facing allegations of robbery committed in a premises, possession of a blade, TWOC and associated driving offences. She negotiated a basis of plea on the defendant’s behalf and consequently the prosecution withdrew a number of offences against the defendant. Sacha successfully argued against the case being aggravated by hostility based on sexual orientation of the victim.
R v M: Sacha represented the second of two defendants facing cross county lines drug supply and possession of an offensive weapon (and possession of firearm and ammunition for the first defendant). The defendant transferred representation at a later stage in proceedings a previous unacceptable basis of plea was then successfully re-negotiated by Sacha with her client, this secured valuable credit on sentence and a favourable sentence on behalf of her client was imposed.
R v LL: Multi-handed conspiracy to rob allegation involving several victims being robbed at knife point after attending dates arranged via an online dating app. Sacha represented the second defendant.
R v T: Defending before Bolton Crown Court in connection with one allegation of Robbery with a weapon. The defendant avoided an extended sentence after Sacha successfully argued against dangerousness provisions on sentence.
R v H: The defendant faced two counts of section 18 GBH and a separate allegation of controlling and coercive behaviour over a protracted period of time, all committed in a domestic context. Sacha challenged the medical evidence, successfully opposed a hearsay application and negotiated a plea on a section 20 GBH in the alternative. A suspended sentence order was imposed.
R v B: The defendant faced two sets of proceedings, a knife point robbery and section 18 GBH (acid attack). The defendant received a favourable sentence.
R v B: The defendant faced allegations of drug supply (PWITS Class A and B) alongside four other defendants. Sacha challenged disclosure and specifically the attribution of telephone evidence to the defendant, the prosecution eventually offered simple possession in respect of her client.
R v A: Sacha represented a defendant charged drug supply and causing injury by dangerous driving. The passenger in the vehicle driven by the defendant sustained a traumatic brain injury following a collision. The case received widespread media attention, and the defendant received a favourable sentence.
R v K: Sacha represented the first of four defendants charged with section 18 GBH and section 20 GBH before Manchester Youth Court. Four teenagers were seriously assaulted, one sustained a fractured skull via a shod foot and sustained life changing injuries. Sacha persuaded the Court that a hate crime had not been established despite antisemitic statements made at the scene. She secured an 18 month sentence to youth detention for the first defendant.
R v S: The defendant faced allegations of outraging public decency and voyeurism; the latter being discontinued by the prosecution. Sacha represented the defendant for ‘upskirting’ offences. The defendant received a community order after careful submissions were made to the court on their behalf.
R v K: “OPERATION RECOMPLY”. Sacha represented one detainee being investigated by the TACT Team (Terrorism Act) for section 40 offences of commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism. She opposed the application for a warrant of further detention and made careful submissions before Westminster Magistrates’ Court regarding the lack of evidence linking her client to the activities or other detainees being investigated. The detainee was later released without charge.
