The secure CJSM email is:
Jemma is a busy criminal defence practitioner and also has a varied practice in the area of judicial review.
Jemma is committed to providing fearless and thorough representation to all her clients and particularly focuses on public funded work and cases involving young or otherwise vulnerable defendants.
Jemma has extensive experience in the Crown Court representing defendants charged with a wide range of offences from homicide and death by dangerous driving to serious sexual offences and fraud.
- R v AP (Central Criminal Court): Led by John Benson QC. The defendant was charged with murder, four counts of attempted murder and violent disorder. This was a complex case involving multiple defendants and multiple complainants. The defence case was that the prosecution witnesses had deliberately colluded to falsely implicate the defendant. Following a thorough exploration of the lengthy history between the parties, an acquittal was secured on the murder charge and all four attempted murder charges;
- R v JP (Maidstone Crown Court): The defendant was alleged to be the getaway driver in a string of robberies of travel agencies, committed with a firearm. The defence was duress. The defendant was acquitted of the firearm offences and received a suspended sentence for her involvement in the robberies, the judge accepting there had been a measure of coercion albeit falling short of duress. Expert evidence on the issue of duress was relied upon during the trial following successful argument as to its admissibility;
- R v JD (Central Criminal Court): Led by Queen’s Counsel. Multihanded case in which the defendant was charged with murder following a confrontation and stabbing in the Windsor area. The defence relied on expert evidence on the issue of left or right handedness;
- R v DJ (Croydon Crown Court): Led by Queen’s Counsel. The defendant, a financial adviser, was charged with murder and fraud. The allegation was that he had stolen vast sums of money from his professional client and then killed him. This case attracted significant media attention;
- R v JS (Oxford Crown Court): The defendant was charged with several counts of rape. It was alleged that he was part of a gang of males who had groomed the young complainant over a period of years. The Crown was represented by QC and junior counsel. Jemma was sole counsel for the defendant. The defendant was acquitted of all counts;
- R v AD: The defendant was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The allegation was that he had reversed his van over a pedestrian whilst eating at the wheel. The defendant was acquitted following a successful submission of no case to answer;
- R v MW (Canterbury Crown Court): The defendant was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The allegation was that he had fallen asleep at the wheel;
- R v T (Croydon Crown Court): The defendant, aged 14, was charged with causing a child to engage in sexual activity. The allegation was that she assisted another to rape the complainant. All parties were school children and the incident occurred in the school toilets. The defendant was acquitted following a successful submission of no case to answer. This case required extremely sensitive handling and involved the use of intermediaries;
- R v T (Central Criminal Court) Led by Queen’s Counsel. The defendant, aged 16, was charged with murder in a multihanded stabbing case. This case received significant media attention (‘the honey trap case’) and was the subject of a film;
- R v SB (Central Criminal Court): Led by Queen’s Counsel. The defendant was charged with murder in a two handed stabbing case;
- R v TB (Maidstone Crown Court): Led by leading junior. The defendant was charged with murder in a two handed stabbing case involving the killing of a drug dealer by two of his customers. The defendant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. This conviction was later quashed in the Court of Appeal.
Public law & judicial review
Examples of Jemma’s judicial review cases include:
- Challenging the decision of the magistrates court to adjourn trial in circumstances where there had been prosecutorial error;
- Challenging the unreasonable refusal of bail in the Crown Court;
- Challenging the unreasonable revocation of bail in the Crown Court;
- Challenging the decision to caution in circumstances where there was insufficient evidence to do so;
- Challenging the decision of the magistrates court to allow amendment of an information;
- Challenging various decisions of the Prison Service.
- LLB in Law – University of Leeds
- Bar Vocational Course – BPP Law School
- Spanish (basic)