Phone: 01244 323070
Year of call: 2015Book BarristerDownload Details
Jemma specialises in criminal law and is instructed in a wide range of criminal matters. Jemma was called to the Bar in 2015 and joined St John’s Buildings in 2017 after successful completion of pupillage. Jemma has completed the Bar Council Vulnerable Witness Advocacy Training and is experienced in dealing with vulnerable clients and witnesses.
Jemma is also a CPS Level 3 prosecutor.
Jemma has a busy criminal practice, dealing with cases which include sexual offences, serious violence and large-scale drugs conspiracies. In particular she has a developing practice representing youths accused of serious sexual offending. Jemma is very experienced in sensitively dealing with vulnerable clients and witnesses, including those with disabilities or other additional needs.
R v R (2023): Represented a client charged with s.18 wounding.
R v D (2022): Represented a youth client charged with two counts of assault by penetration.
R v B (2022): Represented a youth client charged with two counts of rape.
R v W (2022): Represented a client who was charged with multiple rapes and other sexual offences against a child family member over a period of nine years.
R v R (2022): Represented a client who was one of 13 charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs.
R v S (2021): Represented a youth in the Crown Court charged with drugs and firearms offences.
R v K (2021): Represented a client charged with robbery, possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence along with other offences of violence.
R v G (2021): Represented a client who was one of 13 charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs.
R v A (2020): Represented a client charged with attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity.
R v C (2019): Represented a client charged with drugs offences and blackmail, along with possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and perverting the course of justice.
Court of Appeal
R v R (2017): Represented a client in an appeal against sentence. Successfully argued that despite the client falling outside the sentencing guidelines due to his extensive history of offending, the sentence passed was disproportionate to the offence committed and manifestly excessive.Book BarristerBack to top