Emilene Davis

Recent Cases 

• R v EB (2026): Emilene represented the Defendant facing trial on indictment for three counts of theft; the allegation was that the Defendant had stolen money and medication when working as a supervisor in a care home for elderly residents. The Crown’s case was that the Defendant was the only person on shift for all three incidents and the only one with access to the items stolen by reason for their status. Furthermore, one of the victim’s empty medicine packets was located in the Defendant’s property. Emilene made disclosure requests for details of any theft prior to and following the Defendant’s employment, as well as for the relevant rotas. The disclosed material revealed that a significant number of staff had the means and opportunity to commit the thefts. Further, there were incidents of theft both before and since the Defendant’s period of employment. Following representations that the case no longer had a realistic prospect of conviction, the Crown offered no evidence.
• R v KW (2026): represented Defendant on trial for possession with intent to supply class A drugs and handling stolen goods. If the Defendant were to be found Guilty, they would be liable to the mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years as a third striker for possession with intent to supply class A drugs. The Crown’s case was that the co-Defendant had been preparing drugs at his property for onward distribution; due to the Defendant being present when the co-defendant was arrested, he was jointly charged. The Defendant’s previous convictions for possession with intent to supply class A drugs were put before the jury. Also, as part of the Crown’s case, evidence was adduced that the Defendant had drugs paraphernalia at their property. Emilene highlighted through cross-examination failures in the investigation, including failures to carry out forensic testing and other reasonable lines of enquiry. Following a successful submission of no case to answer in respect of the handling stolen goods, the jury were directed to find the Defendant Not Guilty. The jury then went on to reach a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty in respect of the offences of possession with intent to supply class A drugs.
• R v MF (2025): represented the Defendant who faced trial on indictment arising from an allegation of controlling and coercive behaviour. Following extensive disclosure requests of material from the Family Court relating to the allegations in the present case, material came to light which undermined the Complainant’s credibility. Emilene made representations relating to abuse of process and the CPS Full Code Test, following which the Crown offered no evidence and a Section 17 Not Guilty verdict was entered. The Crown also abandoned the application for a non-conviction restraining order.
• R v DB (2025): the Defendant pleaded Guilty to two counts of possession with intent to supply Class A drugs. As a result of the Defendant’s previous convictions, namely two for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, the Defendant was at risk of the mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years custody. Emilene successfully persuaded the Court that there were exceptional circumstances relating to both the offence and the offender, which justified disapplying the mandatory minimum sentence. The mandatory minimum sentence being disapplied, the Defendant received a suspended sentence.
• R v AP (2025): represented the Defendant who faced trial on indictment for a racially aggravated public order offence. Emilene identified that the single count arose from the same facts for which the Defendant had been previously convicted. Emilene oral representations to the CPS at the PTPH that continuing with the current proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, and that if the Crown chose to proceed, an application to stay the proceedings on that basis would be made. The Crown reviewed the case and at the adjourned PTPH, offered no evidence with a Section 17 Not Guilty verdict being entered.
• R v ND and others (2025): Emilene represented a Defendant (D2) who received a unanimous acquittal. D1 and D2 were jointly charged with being concerned in the supply of a Class A drug. The case involved strong circumstantial evidence proving that D2 had collected a large sum of cash from D1, as well as evidence that D2 had lied during the course of the proceedings. D2 accepted collecting the cash, and lying about doing so, but denied knowingly participating in the supply of drugs.
• R v SB (2024): represented the Defendant for sentence in a relation to an offence of s20 GBH. The Defendant, the victim of a sexual offence, was exempt from wearing a face mask during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Complainant, unaware of the Defendant’s exemption, took issue with the Defendant’s failure to wear a mask. This resulted in a physical altercation where the Complainant suffered injuries that eventually lead to the loss of their eye. Emilene highlighted to the Court the Defendant’s behaviour was out of character, borne out of their PTSD, their vulnerability to the custodial environment and the realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The Court was persuaded to pass a suspended sentence order rather than an immediate custody.
• R v SR (2024): represented the Defendant, who was of previous good character, in a benefits fraud case. The Defendant, following divorce, received a sum of money that they did not declare as a change of circumstances. The Defendant denied being dishonest; they represented themselves in the family proceedings and were not aware that they needed to declare this money; the Defendant paid back the overpayment once the issue came to light. Emilene made representations alongside the Defence Statement such that the Crown offered no evidence and a Section 17 Not Guilty verdict entered.
• R v SB (2024): represented the Defendant convicted of affray and having an offensive weapon in a public place (an axe). The Defendant had numerous convictions for violence and weapons. Emilene was concerned that the Defendant’s mental health had not previously been explored and that there was likely to be an underlying disorder such that mitigated their offending. A psychiatric report was obtained and confirmed the Defendant had a mental disorder such that their culpability was reduced. Emilene persuaded the Court to defer sentence. Following a successful period of deferment, the Defendant received a suspended sentence order.
• R v CW (2023): represented the Defendant charged with offences of possession with intent to supply class A drugs. The Defendant was a third striker and liable to the 7-year mandatory minimum sentence; the sentences they received for their previous offences were “exceptionally lengthy sentences” reflecting their “high level of involvement in very serious organised crime”. Emilene successfully persuaded the Court that, notwithstanding their criminal history, the Defendant’s present circumstances were exceptional such that the mandatory minimum of 7 years’ custody need not apply, resulting in a sentence of 3 years and 8 months’ custody.
• R v EC (2023): represented the Defendant acquitted of dangerous driving. The Crown’s case was that the Defendant had driven their motorcycle dangerously causing it to veer into oncoming traffic, resulting in a collision with a car carrying two elderly people. In the alternative, the Crown averred the Defendant’s driving was careless. The lay bench were persuaded that the Defendant’s driving was neither dangerous or careless, and the collision was an accident.