Gemma is a barrister practising in all areas of criminal law. She also accepts instructions in family and extradition proceedings.
Here’s what some of those who have worked with Gemma have to say about her:
“I found her to be hardworking, ever present when needed, her knowledge was sound, clear and direct; and that she has a natural affinity for criminal litigation.”
“Her communication skills are first class, and she strikes up an instant rapport with clients – engaging them fully and inviting confidence and trust.”
Professional Panel Appointments
- CPS Advocate Panel Member Grade 1.
- University of Law - BPTC – Very Competent
- University of Warwick - Law (LLB) – 2:1
- Inner Temple
- Criminal Bar Association
- Women in Criminal Law
- Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum
- Young Fraud Lawyers Association
Gemma has been instructed in a variety of family matters including occupation and non-molestation orders. She has experience acting for both applicants and respondents in child arrangement orders and has represented parents facing care proceedings.
She has also appeared on behalf of the police, dealing with sensitive disclosure applications in family proceedings.
Cases of Note
Criminal Case of Note
R v S 
Gemma’s client was charged with dangerous driving and received a 9-month custodial sentence suspended for 2 years following a Newton hearing in the Crown Court. The conduct accepted by D involved several periods of driving with someone on the bonnet of their vehicle.
R v EH 
Gemma prosecuted a committal for sentence where a 16-year-old was sentenced to 3 years detention for an offence of arson with intent to endanger life. The case involved issues surrounding the basis on which D should be sentenced following conviction at trial.
R v M 
Represented a client charged with s.18 GBH. D was said to have kicked an ex-partner and broken her arm. Following PTPH the Crown accepted D’s plea to a s.20 on the basis of recklessness. Gemma’s client was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment.
R v B 
Gemma successfully argued that exceptional hardship should be found by the bench. Her client was being sentenced for 9 offences of speeding which had all accumulated in a 2-week period. 33 points were endorsed on D’s licence but he was not disqualified under the ‘totting’ provisions.
R v S 
Gemma represented a client at his sentence for facilitating a breach of immigration law. D was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in a case where he had driven 6 strangers into the UK using a specially adapted vehicle, and had accepted he was going to receive £10,000 for doing so.
R v D 
Gemma successfully represented a youth client acquitted at trial for an offence of ABH where the issue was self-defence and it was accepted D had hit C with a belt buckle. The trial involved the use of social media evidence and a non-defendant bad character application which was granted by the court.