Joy is a specialist Defence advocate with extensive experience of representing clients charged with a wide range of serious criminal offences. She is known for being approachable and calm, for her thorough preparation and her robust, focussed advocacy. Always identifying the key issues in a case at an early stage, Joy works closely and proactively with her lay and professional clients to provide the highest quality advice and representation from the outset.

Education

BA Classics (Oxford), PGDL (City University), BVC (ICSL).

Memberships

Criminal Bar Association

Further Professional Information

Accredited advocacy trainer (Grays’ Inn)
Approved pupil supervisor

Languages

French, Dutch

Crime

• Confiscation
• Confiscation and asset recovery
• Criminal law (including fraud)
• Fraud
• Mental Health
• Robbery
• Serious fraud
• Sexual Offences
• Violence

Sexual offences

R v AY: Stranger rape; Defendant following young female complainant onto night bus and thereafter to her home. Defendant with substantial mental health history; pre-trial issues re. fitness to plead. AG Ref on sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 1693.

R v JR: Defendant charged with attempted rape, co-defendants charged with rape. Defendant and 3 other males take complainant back to rented property and assault her following chance meeting on night out. Cut-throat defence. Successful application to exclude video recorded interview of main prosecution witness.

R v LP: Defendant (good character) charged with false imprisonment, assault by penetration, sexual assault of sex worker at D’s home address. Complainant initially co-operative with police but untraceable by trial. Prosecution application to adduce evidence of complainant’s initial statements under hearsay provisions successfully opposed.

R v WJ: Defendant charged with historic sexual abuse of stepdaughter over 10 year period; acquitted on retrial. Legal argument as to admissibility of acquittals from first trial.

R v JB: Female Defendant (61 years, good character) charged with historic sexual abuse of her neighbour’s young daughter.

R v EM: Female Defendant (46 years, good character) and partner both charged with inciting their respective daughters (aged 5 and 7) to engage in sexual activity. Cross-examination of 7 year old complainant.

R v KC: Young Defendant, 12 to 16 at time of offending (18 at trial), charged with offences against two younger nephews over several years, namely rape of child under 13 and inciting child under 13 to engage in sexual activity. Also possession of indecent images. Cross-examination of complainants aged 5 and 11 years old. Successful appeal against sentence re. finding of dangerousness

R v DH: Young Defendant (17 years old) charged with causing child (daughter of family friend) to engage in sexual activity; cross-examination of 4 year old female complainant.

R v S A-H: Young Defendant (16 year old male) charged with conspiracy to rape and rob – Defendant and two others alleged to have planned and carried out attack on sex worker in her home.

R v HJ: Defendant aged 21 at time of offence having sexual relationship (resulting in pregnancy) with 14 year old girl. Case involving detailed analysis of extensive electronic communications between D and complainant.

R v PA: Sexual assault on London underground; cross-examination of blind complainant.

Homicide/serious violence

R v VT: Manslaughter. Defendant, nanny to 10 month old boy, alleged to have caused his death by shaking. Extensive, complex and detailed expert medical evidence covering various aspects of shaken baby syndrome/non-accidental head injury.

R v AT: s.20. Shaking of 8 month boy on several occasions by biological father; injury to eyes, possibly permanent. Consideration of numerous prosecution and defence expert reports evidence covering different aspects of shaken baby syndrome/non-accidental head injury.

R v PK: Attempted murder. Xmas eve axe attack by Defendant on his ex-partner’s new boyfriend.

R v TA: Arson being reckless as to whether life endangered and attempted arson. Defendant was longstanding and complex mental health issues (initially unfit to plead) setting fire to room in supported accommodation.

R v JM: Acid attack: D charged under s.29 OAPA 1861. Successful application to dismiss on issue of ID.

R v JC : Multi-handed kidnap and s.18. Defendant and 2 others abducting/assaulting 16 year old boy and driving him from Hampshire to London in car boot. Cut throat defence – against Defendant’s own father.

R v O’Dubhain: Violent disorder. Serious public disorder outside South London nightclub during which Defendant sustained lasting brain injury. Case turning on detailed analysis of extensive CCTV footage.

R v RR: Child cruelty; assault by nursery nurse on 12 month old boy.

R v NW: Child cruelty; mother (Thai national, good character) repeatedly leaving 12 month old daughter alone while at work.

Firearms

R v MK: Defendant, gun enthusiast, charged with possession of firearms and very substantial amount of ammunition; also charged with manufacturing ammunition. Firearms experts on both sides. Defendant pleading guilty mid trial during evidence of prosecution expert.

R v CB: Conspiracy to supply class A drugs and associated possession of numerous firearms with intent to endanger life.

R v GD: Defendant (35 years and of good character) charged with series of 5 armed robberies of banks/building societies across Midlands, North East and London.

Fraud

R v QA: Immigration fraud. Defendant charged alongside family members with assisting illegal entry to UK; Defendants obtaining and providing false documentation and arranging travel from variety of locations into UK.

R v ORP: Immigration fraud. Defendant (67, good character). His company held a Home Office ‘sponsorship licence’ for certain types of visa applications. Over 5 year period and for substantial financial gain Defendant assisted with what Court found to be a “very substantial number” of fraudulent visa applications by creating and providing false documentation (payslips, contracts of employment etc), sponsorship, and evidence of purported salaries.

R v LL: “Cash for crash” insurance fraud. Defendant charged with 3 others. Defendant contributing to the fraud in several significant ways; found to have had close involvement with and a strong connection to ringleader.

R v AM: VAT fraud; fraudulent vat repayment claims worth £250,000.00 made over 4 year period. Defendant (accountant) jointly charged with company director; cut-throat defence.

Dishonesty/acquisitive offences

R v FD: Husband and wife charged with theft from Barlcays Bank. Defendants alleged to have pressurized Barclays employee into transferring over £180,000 into their accounts over 18 month period. Re-trial.

R v LS: Conspiracy to rob; series of 16 cash in transit robberies across London; [2016] EWCA Crim 750.

R v DB: Theft: Defendant and associate targeting elderly women living in Knightsbridge, ostensibly to purchase jewellery/other valuable items; cross examination of elderly complainants.

R v RG: Conspiracy to burgle: campaign of burglaries of schools in East London targeting computer equipment valued at over £300,000.