Joy Lewis

Barrister

Joy practices in all areas of criminal defence, with an emphasis on serious violent crime, drugs and public order offences. She also has a growing reputation for Public Inquiry work, and is currently instructed on behalf of a key core participant in a major Public Inquiry.

Joy is known for her outstanding client care and robust advocacy in defence of her clients. She has a particular interest in representing young and vulnerable clients, and has experience working with clients with mental health disorders, including appointment by the court to represent defendants found ‘unfit’ to stand trial.

She is instructed alone and as a led junior, and appears before the appellate courts.

Joy is currently instructed on behalf of a core participant in a major Public Inquiry. She has impressed with her command of the extensive body of material under examination and ability to work within and lead a team of other lawyers.

Joy appears regularly in hearings before the Inquiry Chair, where she demonstrates her grasp of the complex and sensitive issues and her ability to establish a rapport with the tribunal.

Education

LLM International Criminal Justice and Armed Conflict, University of Nottingham, Distinction (2015)
BPTC, Nottingham Law School (2014)
GDL, Nottingham Law School, Distinction (2013)
BA History, University of Sheffield (2007)

Languages

French

Awards

Lord Denning Scholar of Lincoln’s Inn
Nottingham Law School BPTC Advocacy Prize, 2014
Blackstone's National Criminal Advocacy Competition Winner, 2013

Memberships

Criminal Bar Association

Positions

Joy is a Trustee and Board member of the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS), a charity which provides legal advice and support to prisoners across England and Wales.

R v MJ – Junior counsel instructed to represent a vulnerable young client with a significant mental health diagnosis, who was charged with the possession of a sub-machine gun that had been used in the commission of a murder just hours before. Prosecution accepted a plea to possession, rather than the more serious possession with intent to endanger life, and the Judge was persuaded to sentence him to a 12-month Intensive Referral Order. This exceptional non-custodial outcome reflected his very young age, vulnerability, and the role and influence of others.
R v GJ – Represented at trial a client charged with arranging a child sex offence, namely the anal rape of a 6-year old child.
R v SS – Secured an acquittal following a 5-week trial on behalf of a vulnerable client charged with involvement in a serious double false imprisonment committed in the presence of a young child. The prosecution case was that SS and his brother had lain in wait for a woman to return to her home, whereafter they assaulted her and her brother, tied them up and left them in the control of her former husband, who went on to further violently and sexually assault them. Whilst the first defendant was convicted of almost all charges, SS and his brother were unanimously acquitted after trial.
R v TF – Appointed by the court to represent the defendant, who had been found unfit to stand trial for arson with intent to kill. Acquitted by a jury following an ‘actus reus’ trial involving extensive legal argument relating to the admissibility of confessions.
R v HP – Secured acquittal as junior counsel in an £8m Royal Mail fraud. Client, an employee of Royal Mail, was accused of accepting bribes in order to facilitate this large scale fraud on the part of a large web-based company. The prosecution relied heavily upon the evidence of the manager of the company, who had previously pleaded guilty to the fraud.
R v HB – Led in a 6-week armed robbery trial involving the use of a firearm to steal a safe from a public house. The case involved extensive cell site and phone download evidence.
R v PP – Large-scale drugs conspiracy involving extensive observation and telephone attribution evidence.
R v AK – Client acquitted of possession with intent to supply nitrous oxide under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. This was the first case to hear disputed expert evidence on the question of whether nitrous oxide is a psychoactive substance for the purposes of the 2016 Act, and formed part of the debate around the interpretation of what was, at the time, a controversial new law. The trial involved extensive cross-examination of eminent experts in the field of neuropsychopharmacology.
R v DH – Appeal against sentence before the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, relating to the appropriate approach to sentencing for offences committed under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 in respect of nitrous oxide.
R v BR – Perjury trial involving complex hearsay evidence arguments arising from family court proceedings before the High Court.
R v ML – Secured a suspended sentence for a young client in a multi-handed conspiracy to commit high value moped-facilitated commercial burglaries. Whilst the defendant had turned 18 by the time of conviction, he had been a youth at the time of the offence.
R v RM [2018] EWCA Crim 1588 – Appeal against conviction before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), challenging the rejection by the trial Judge of a submission of no case to answer in respect of an offence of allowing premises to be used for the supply of drugs. Reported in CrimeLine.
R v AD – Junior counsel in a multi-handed fraud trial involving complex issues of admissibility under s.76 PACE 1984, which required a week-long voir dire and contested expert evidence to resolve. Client was acquitted after trial.
R v CJ – Successfully advanced self-defence on behalf of a young woman of previous good character charged with s.20 wounding involving a meat cleaver, following a background of domestic abuse.
R v MP – Successfully defended a young client charged with possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply and possession of an offensive weapon, after he was stopped by police in a vehicle in possession of the items.

Public Inquiries

Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI)
Joy is currently instructed on behalf of a core participant in the UCPI.
Her work relates to Tranche 3 of the Inquiry, which will examine undercover policing in the 1990s and 2000s. The public hearings are scheduled to take place from February 2025.
Joy appears regularly in closed hearings before the Chairman, Sir John Mitting, where she has demonstrated her grasp of the complex and sensitive issues at play, and her ability to establish a rapport with the tribunal.
Undercover Policing Inquiry: Official Website