Emilene Davis

Recent Noteworthy Cases 

• Operation Teg (2026 – On-going): junior counsel instructed on behalf of the prosecuting Local Authority. The case is a multi-handed matter relating to fraudulent trading in respect of call blocking technologies. The value of the fraud is circa £4.7 million.
• R v F, P & P (2026): Emilene represented D3 who pleaded Guilty to Being Concerned in the Supply of Class A Drugs, namely cocaine; the case involved 7kg of cocaine of high purity. The starting point for sentence was 7 years’ custody on the Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guidelines but Emilene was able to persuade the sentencing judge to adopt a lower starting point and following powerful mitigation the sentence was ultimately 3 years and 4 months’ custody.
• R v B (2026): Emilene represented D 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 D, by reason of their supervisor role, had access to the items and was the only person with access to have been on shift for all 3 incidents. Following significant disclosure requests in the Defence Statement prepared by Emilene, 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 Ds period of employment. Following representations that the case no longer had a realistic prospect of conviction, the Crown offered no evidence.
• R v W & R (2026): represented D1 on trial for Possession with Intent to Supply (PWITS) Class A Drugs (crack cocaine and heroin) and handling stolen goods. D2, who was jointly charged with D1, pleaded Guilty to PWITS but Not Guilty to handing stolen goods. D1 accepted presence but denied participation. D1’s previous convictions for PWITS Class A Drugs were put before the jury, as was evidence that they 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 Not Guilty verdict in respect of the PWITS offences; had D1 been convicted, they would have been at real risk of the mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years’ custody as a third striker for PWITS Class A drugs.
• R v F (2025): Emilene represented D, 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 Criminal 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 Not Guilty verdict was entered. The Crown also abandoned the application for a non-conviction restraining order.
• R v B (2025): represented D, who pleaded Guilty to two counts of PWITS Class A Drugs. As a result of Ds previous convictions they were 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, D received a suspended sentence.
• R v P (2025): represented D, 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 D had been previously convicted. Emilene made 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 proceedings would be made. The Crown reviewed the case and at the adjourned PTPH, offered no evidence; a Section 17 Not Guilty verdict was entered.
• Operation Thunderbird (2025): the case began as a 10-handed matter involving the supply of multi-kilos of Class A drugs, with a street value of over £1million. Others changed their pleas and at the time of the trial D1 and D2 faced trial on indictment for Being Concerned in the Supply of Class A Drugs; Emilene represented D2. Following a 7-day trial, both Ds were unanimous acquitted. 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.
• R v B (2024): represented D for sentence in a relation to an offence of s20 GBH; the victim suffered injuries that eventually lead to the loss of their eye. Emilene highlighted to the Court that Ds behaviour was out of character, borne out of their PTSD as well as their vulnerability to the custodial environment and the realistic prospect of rehabilitation in their case. The Court was persuaded to pass a suspended sentence order rather than an immediate custody; the sentencing judge in sentencing remarks made clear that at the outset of the hearing they considered that immediate custody was inevitable.
• R v R (2024): Emilene represented D, who was of previous good character, in a Benefits Fraud case. D, following divorce, received a sum of money that they did not declare as a change of circumstances. D denied being dishonest; they represented themselves in the Family Court proceedings and were not aware that they needed to declare this money; once brought to their attention, D paid back the overpayment of benefits. Emilene made representations alongside the Defence Statement such that the Crown offered no evidence and a Section 17 Not Guilty verdict entered.
• R v B (2024): represented D convicted of Affray and Having an Offensive Weapon in a Public Place (an axe). D had numerous convictions for violence and weapons that were plainly relevant and recent. Emilene was concerned that Ds 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 D had a mental disorder such that their culpability was significantly reduced. Emilene persuaded the Court to defer sentence. Following a successful period of deferment, D received a suspended sentence order.
• R v W (2023): Emilene represented D charged with PWITS Class A Drugs. D 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, Ds 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 C (2023): represented D acquitted of dangerous driving. The Crown’s case was that D had driven their motorcycle dangerously causing it to veer into oncoming traffic, resulting in a collision with a car carrying two people. In the alternative, the Crown averred Ds driving was careless. The lay bench were persuaded that D driving was neither dangerous or careless, and the collision was an accident; D was acquitted.