The secure CJSM email is:

jemma.levinson@1mcb.cjsm.net

Jemma is a busy criminal defence practitioner with extensive experience in the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal. She 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 cases involving young or otherwise vulnerable defendants, expert evidence and issues of disclosure.

Jemma has been recognised as a notable practitioner in Chambers & Partners.

Crime

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.

Recent cases

Murder

  • R v S Led by Queen’s Counsel in a retrial. The defendant was charged with murder and during the first trial blamed a co-accused who was at large at the time. The jury were unable to reach a conclusion. In the interim between the trials the absent co-accused was apprehended. The retrial involved intense cut-throat defences resulting in substantial legal argument.
  • R v P Led by Queen’s Counsel. 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 D Led by Queen’s Counsel. Multi-handed 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 J 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 T Led by Queen’s Counsel. The defendant, aged 16, was charged with murder in a multi-handed stabbing case. This case received significant media attention and was the subject of a film.
  • R v B Led by Queen’s Counsel. The defendant was charged with murder in a two handed stabbing case.
  • R v B Led by leading junior. The defendant was charged with murder in a two handed stabbing case. The allegation was that the defendants had killed their drug dealer. The defendant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. This conviction was later quashed in the Court of Appeal.

Causing death by careless or dangerous driving

  • R v D 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 W The defendant was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The allegation was that he had fallen asleep at the wheel.
  • R v H The defendant was charged with causing death by careless driving and other offences. The allegation was that he had been driving his motorbike when intoxicated, causing an accident. This defendant was particularly vulnerable as the deceased was his girlfriend.

Sexual offences

  • R v T Historic sexual offences case. The defendant and his brother were charged with multiple sexual offences relating to three complainants. The defendant’s father had previously been convicted of rape in relation to the mother of the complainants. D was acquitted.
  • R v P Historic sexual offences case. The defendant was charged with multiple sexual assaults relating to his step daughter. D was acquitted on a retrial.
  • R v G Historic sexual offences case. The defendant was charged with multiple sexual assaults relating to a younger family member. The defence was false memory. The case involved extensive argument regarding third party disclosure, defence expert reports on false memory and legal argument as to the admissibility of the expert evidence (contested by the Crown). The Crown eventually offered no evidence.
  • R v S 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 whilst Jemma was the sole counsel for the defendant. The defendant was acquitted of all counts.
  • R v T 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.

Other cases

  • R v S The defendant, a former member of the armed forces, was charged with s.18 offence after being captured on CCTV in a wholly unprovoked attack on a random individual. The defence case was that the defendant had no memory of the incident but was suffering from PTSD and in the grip of an episode. Expert evidence was relied upon following legal argument as to its admissibility. The defendant was convicted but after lengthy argument and with reliance on expert reports, received a suspended prison sentence.
  • R v I Led by Queen’s Counsel. The defendant, a nurse, was charged with numerous Modern Slavery offences. The allegation was that she recruited vulnerable women in Nigeria and arranged for their transportation to Europe to work in prostitution. The case was widely publicised and was the first prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act involving victims who had no connection to the UK and offences that took place overseas. The case involved expert evidence, intercept evidence, intermediaries and live links to Germany and Nigeria. The defence argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process and challenged the admissibility of various strands of evidence.
  • R v D The defendant, a female, aged 17, stood trial alongside her older boyfriend on a charge of perverting the course of justice. Her boyfriend was also charged with murder. The allegation was that the defendant had helped to clean up the scene. The defendant was convicted but after lengthy argument and with reliance on expert reports received a suspended prison sentence.
  • R v JP 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.

Public law & judicial review

Examples of Jemma’s judicial review cases include:

  • Challenging the decision of the Crown Court to refuse or revoke bail;
  • Challenging the decision of the Magistrates Court to adjourn or allow an amendment of an information;
  • Challenging the decision of the police to issue a caution in circumstances where there was insufficient evidence to do so;
  • Challenging various decisions of the prison service;
  • Challenging the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute an individual.

Education

  • LLB in Law – University of Leeds
  • Bar Vocational Course – BPP Law School

Languages

  • Spanish (basic)
Menu