Emily Evans

R v P & Ors (2019): P and 3 others were accused of murdering one and wounding with intent to two others by stabbing. The prosecution case was that the defendants were at war with the victims over drug dealing territory. The two surviving victims fled the country. Emily was the instructed Junior led by Richard Smith QC.

R v BB (2020): B was charged with attempted murder x 3 after he was witnessed to stab 3 separate individuals whilst on a “rampage”. Issues included fitness to plead and whether the defence of insanity was available.

R v W (2011): prosecution of a foreign national for assaulting 3 police officers. W was initially a witness for the prosecution but subsequently became a suspect following Police unlawfully detaining W and seizing a mobile phone. Successful legal argument in showing that the Police were not acting in the execution of their duty resulting in the Judge dismissing the case against W at trial.

R v W (2016): Following a fatal road traffic accident caused by W’s partner, W provided a statement to Police. W was reluctant to provide a statement but was persuaded to do so by the Police. She could not be clear of the time that she collected her partner. She was subsequently prosecuted for providing a false alibi. Following successful legal argument the case was dismissed before reaching trial. HHJ Lambert commented that the advocate’s skeleton argument was “first class”.

R v R&R (2014): R had assisted her daughter to commit suicide following a 20 year battle with severe ME. After an 11 month investigation, the decision was reached not to prosecute on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to do so.

R v E (2015): Multi-handed prosecution relating to a conspiracy to supply £800,000 worth of Class A drugs. The trial involved extensive cross-examination of the Crown’s telecommunications expert. E was acquitted by the jury following a 6 week trial. The trial Judge commented that the advocate did “exceptionally well”.

R v G (2015): Multi-handed conspiracy to supply in excess of £1 million worth of Class A drugs to the Bristol and Nottingham area. Undercover surveillance operation which included extensive analysis of telephone data, ANPR cameras and cell site analysis.

R v B (2018): B was charged with the supply of cocaine and production of cannabis after being located in a friend’s warehouse together with his friend when police raided. Despite representations from the defence the prosecution continued. After a submission of no case to answer at half time B was acquitted of all charges.

R v H (2019): large scale undercover police operation where H was seen to hand over a package containing a significant amount of money. Text messages revealed that she was directed to do so by her partner. The issue in the case was knowledge. After representations the prosecution dropped the case against H just before trial.

R v G (2016): Aggravated burglary of a farmhouse in 1995 where 4 masked offenders threatened the occupants with sawn off shotguns. The original investigation, over 20 years ago, resulted in the case being discontinued through lack of evidence. A subsequent re-investigation resulted in the prosecution of G as a result of advances in DNA technology. Issues concerning the preservation and storage of samples from the original investigation and credibility of the subsequent forensic analysis of the samples.

R v S (2016): multiple count indictment where it was alleged that S had committed a number of dwelling burglaries having used a particular vehicle that had been sighted in the area by a number of witnesses. Issues of identification evidence lead to the case being successfully defended and S being acquitted of all charges.

R v B (2017): dwelling burglary where B was said to be linked through footprint evidence. Expert witnesses were called at trial and B was subsequently acquitted following a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case.

R v P (2018): P was accused of stealing £13,000 from her employer. Abuse of process argument relating to the investigation and failure to retain all CCTV material. 2 day trial where the jury acquitted P on all counts.

R v A (2018): D was charged with aggravated burglary. On the day of trial the prosecution were persuaded to accept a plea to theft and assault.

R v B (2020): 39 count indictment for fraud related offences where B and his partner were accused of renting various properties and then writing our cheques which subsequently bounced and making numerous representations that they would pay when in fact the landlords had to instigate repossession claims to remove them. Prosecution dropped the case against B on the day of trial.

R v RT (2020): 13 count indictment for numerous dwelling burglaries. Following representations from the defence the prosecution agreed to accept 3 counts of handling stolen goods.

R v B (2015): Prosecution of an experienced carer accused of assaulting an elderly resident. Issues of causation; lawful restraint techniques; hearsay and expert evidence resulting in no evidence being offered on the day of trial.

G v R (2014) Appeal against sentence imposed by the Crown Court for offences of sexual assault where the Defendant was of previous good character and showed significant remorse – sentence of 6 months imprisonment overturned replaced with a community order.

R v J (2018): J was accused of causing ABH by using a knuckleduster to assault the victim. Clear issues relating to identification that involved careful cross-examination of multiple prosecution witnesses. Acquitted after trial.

R v M (2019): M was charged with causing ABH to a prison officer by biting her. At trial the defence called a forensic odontologist who casted significant doubt upon that proposition. Acquitted by the jury.

R v W (2019): D was charged with coercive & controlling behaviour. Following a successful application to dismiss D was acquitted.

R v W (2016): W had significant and entrenched mental health difficulties that lead to a siege where he barricaded himself into a room armed with a knife threatening to harm himself. Police arrested and charged him with affray. W was advised by another firm of solicitors to enter a guilty plea which he acted upon. Before being sentenced W sought further legal advice. After obtaining psychiatric reports which deemed W unfit to plead and unfit to stand trial a successful application was made to vacate W’s plea. After making further representations to the Crown Prosecution Service they were persuaded to offer no evidence and W was acquitted.

R v A (2018): A and another were charged with affray, although the case facts were more akin to an aggravated burglary, where they were alleged to have forced entry to a family home and threatened the occupants with knives. Multiple prosecution witnesses were cross-examined. A was acquitted by the jury.

R v F (2019): F and another were accused of starting a fight with another group of males in the city centre of Bath on a night out. F raised self defence and was acquitted by the jury.

R v P (2019): P was accused of getting involved in a road rage incident and then taking a knife from the boot of his car and threatening the victim with it. P was acquitted following a successful submission of no case to answer before the case even reached half-way.

R v S (2017): S was accused of travelling to France and picking up two illegal immigrants, providing them with false identity documents and attempting to facilitate their illegal entry into the UK.

R v FM (2017): M was a young adult with significant learning and mental health difficulties. He was accused of abducting a 14 year old girl from her care home. Medical reports showed M to have the capacity of a 14 year old child and did not believe that he was doing anything wrong as the girl wanted to spend time with him as friends. The case was subsequently abandoned by the prosecution.

R v M (2020): Conspiracy to transfer firearms having imported them from America and then sold them on the black market to an undercover officer.

R v J (2017): Modified firearm found discarded in a park by a member of the public. Submitted for forensic analysis which linked the Defendant. Legal argument as to whether the prosecution could prove possession of the firearm since it had been modified resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.

R v B (2016): Following a raid at D’s home address Police found a stun gun in a locked cabinet which had been placed there by D’s son without her knowledge. D was charged with possession of the stun gun which carried a mandatory minimum term of 5 years imprisonment. Following representations to the prosecution the case was dropped.

Alongside Emily’s Criminal practice, she is also available for instructions in the Family Courts.

Counsel is an ideal choice to assist Clients involved in care proceedings, particularly where she will be assisting vulnerable clients troubled by addictions, violence and similar issues.

Emily has a wealth of experience assisting vulnerable clients based in her work as a criminal practitioner. Bringing this experience to bear in Family Law, Counsel accepts instructions in Public Law and Domestic Abuse matters.

Alongside her evident client care skills,  Counsel is adept at cross-examining experts on medical evidence, police matters, and breaches of injunctions. She is highly regarded for her detailed approach to preparation and her forensic advocacy. Having worked previously in-house at a busy solicitor’s office, Emily appreciates the need to liaise closely with those instructing.