Jemima Ivens (1994)Jemima was called to the Bar at Lincolns Inn in 1994. Jemima has extensive experience at the highest level and a reputation of fearless representation of her clients. She is renowned for a high success rate in contested cases.
Crime
Jemima has extensive experience in all areas of serious Crime; Fraud, Sexual Offences (Rape, Child Cruelty, Child abuse), Drugs (Importation, Possession with intent to supply, Conspiracy) Murder, Armed Robbery and Crimes of violence.
Jemima had worked in commerce (before joining the Bar) and for a number of years at FIMBRA with particular experience in Fraud Investigations. Her extensive experience in Mental Health having previously worked as a Counsellor and Legal Advisor at a Law Centre has assisted with difficult and demanding clients.
Family
Jemima has acted for Local Authorities and the Guardian ad Litem in Children Act Cases (Public and Private), disputes between unmarried couples and domestic violence cases.
Prosecution: Instructed by the CPS as specific family liaison in the
Official CPS report;
6.62 The CPS also funded the provision of a Barrister, whose task was to represent the interests of the family at the trial. There was a considerable discussion over this appointment, and it was made clear that the third Counsel would be a full member of the prosecution team and would be subject to the usual duties of Counsel. That person would not therefore be ‘Counsel to the family’ but would liaise with them and act as a conduit for their concerns to the prosecution team.
6.63 There was further debate as to who that person should be, as the consensus was that the barrister chosen should have experience of race related issues. The final choice for the role was Ms. Jemma Ivens, whose name was proposed by Harrison Bundey (Solicitors) and accepted by the CPS. Mr Enzor was complimentary about the work undertaken by Ms Ivens whom he described as playing an important role in the prosecution, despite having joined the team at a late stage…
6.64 In a note of the conversations between Mr Enzor and the IPCC, agreed by him it was recorded that:
‘The family regarded her as being their Counsel, although this was not the case. For example, Mr. Johnson at one point demanded that Ms.Ivens get on and cross examine witnesses, but these were witnesses being called by the prosecution-the family had misunderstood her role and the limits of what she could do’
Criminal Bar Association
French