Elena Papamichael

Overview

Elena is regularly instructed in the most complex cases of serious violence, firearms and drug trafficking, as well as high-profile protest cases and cases involving human rights. She has expertise in relation to cases involving gang evidence, multi-handed cases and in defending youth defendants in the Crown Court.

Notable Cases

R v L [2025] – Unanimous acquittal at Harrow Crown Court, following trial, for Elena’s 16-year-old client who was charged with three counts of rape and intentional strangulation involving two complainants.

R v N [2025] – Multi- handed firearms case and conspiracy to rob. Elena’s client was 15 years old. Following service of legal argument, the Crown agreed to drop the firearm charge, despite DNA evidence linking her client.

R v C [2025] – The Crown discontinued charges against Elena’s client in relation to possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition, following service of an application to dismiss.

R v A [2025] – Acquittal for Elena’s client for Class A drug trafficking who was found with large amounts of cash. £790 worth of drugs and scales.

R v A [2024] – Elena represented a 15 year old in a five-week multi-handed Class A drugs conspiracy trial at Basildon Crown Court. Elena’s client ran a modern slavery defence and was the only defendant acquitted.

R v N [2024] – Eight handed affray where Elena’s client was charged with possession of an offensive weapon and affray. Her client was on CCTV taking a golf club to the scene of the affray and the prosecution called two alleged victims and one independent bystander as witnesses. Elena’s client was acquitted.

R v S [2024] – Elena’s client was 21 years old with two previous convictions from 2021 and 2022 for supply of class A drugs. He was charged with being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. Elena was able to argue against the admission of her client’s previous convictions and her client was successfully acquitted following a modern slavery defence.

R v S [2024] – Elena’s client was 16 years old and charged with racially aggravated public order offences. Following representations, the prosecution refused to drop the case. Elena served a pre-action judicial review letter on the Crown Prosecution Service who consequently agreed to discontinue the case, allowing her client to maintain her good character.

R v I [2023] – Defended Palestine Action activist charged with driving co-conspirators to an Israeli weapons manufacturer who went on to cause £278,000 worth of damage and loss to the factory.

R v A [2023] – Canterbury Crown Court. The defendant was charged with the trafficking of a child and being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. Through legal argument, Elena was able to persuade the court to exclude all the significant evidence in the case, which led to a terminatory ruling and her client was acquitted. The co-defendant had pleaded guilty on the same evidence.

R v J  [2023] – Inner London Crown Court. The defendant, who was 18 at the time of sentence, had entered guilty pleas to six robberies, three at knife point, fraud, theft and handling stolen goods. Elena secured a suspended sentence for her client.

R v C [2023] – Inner London Crown Court. The defendant was charged with possession with intent to supply cannabis. A search of his bedroom revealed a Rambo knife, around £1000 in cash, scales and 16 snap bags of cannabis. Her client was unanimously acquitted.

R v L [2023] – Birmingham Crown Court. Elena defended an adult defendant who was charged with false imprisonment and robbery of a victim who was taken into a vehicle for several hours and had money taken from his banking apps. The victim had £1000 transferred to the defendant’s bank account and was seen on CCTV footage with the victim. Elena’s client was acquitted.

R v L [2022] – The defendant was 15 years old with previous convictions for robbery. He appeared in the Crown Court with two others and entered guilty pleas to a false imprisonment and theft which involved the 14 year old victim being held inside a property for several hours, tied up and hit with knives, which was filmed for social media. Elena secured a youth rehabilitation order for her client, whilst the other youth defendant received a custodial sentence of three years.

R v A [2022] – Harrow Crown Court. The defendant was charged with s.18 wounding with intent. It was alleged she stabbed the victim in the face. The complainant attended court to give evidence. Elena’s client was acquitted of the s.18 charge.

R v Z [2021] – Woolwich Crown Court. The defendant was charged with s.18 (wounding with intent) stabbing of his partner. A bloodied knife was found at the scene and the victim had a stab wound. She gave evidence that the defendant has stabbed her. Elena’s client was unanimously acquitted.

R v T [2021] – Inner London Crown Court. The young adult defendant was charged with possession of a prohibited firearm. Elena successfully argued, on an application to dismiss, that there was insufficient evidence on which a jury could exclude the possibility that the illegal firearm was an antique held as an ornament or curiosity. The court dismissed the charge and her client was acquitted.

R v D [2020] – Elena’s client was charged with s.18 wounding with intent at Inner London Crown Court. The Crown’s case was that the stabbing of the victim was a gang-related revenge attack. Through legal argument, Elena was able to exclude the gang evidence and evidence of lyrics. The defendant was acquitted.

Overview

Elena Papamichael is a crime and youth justice specialist, regularly instructed in complex and serious cases representing children in the Youth Court and Crown Court.

Elena co-authors the youth justice update for Legal Action (the legal magazine published by the Legal Action Group) and worked on a youth justice research project with Newcastle University & the Youth Justice Legal Centre where she provided expert advice. She has worked to develop the youth justice assessment for pupils in chambers.

Elena achieves particularly successful outcomes for child victims of criminal exploitation / trafficking though her forensic understanding of the guidance and case law.

Her practice has a particular focus on racial injustice in her work and was on the Advisory Board to the Racial Bias and the Bench report. Elena was previously the Chair of Directors to 4front, a youth justice and racial justice youth led project.

Elena has written extensively on topics about children’s rights, including on the age of criminal responsibility; drill music and gang injunctions and alternatives to criminalisation for children and young people. Elena is also a contributor to the Youth Justice Legal Centre’s legal updates.

Overview

Elena is part of the specialist protest law team.

In DPP v Manchester City Magistrates Court [2023] EWHC 2938 (Admin) Elena was led by Tom Wainwright representing the first Interested Party. They were successful in the High Court in a judicial review by the DPP of an acquittal in relation to protest rights.

Overview

Elena has appeared with leave in relation to appeal against conviction and sentence.

In R v Wiltshire [2022] EWCA Crim 1034, Elena argued that the court’s duties to protect the welfare of her client’s children and their Article 8 ECHR rights, as well as the principle of totality, meant that her client should not have received an immediate custodial sentence for serious fraud offences. The Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal, halved the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge and would have considered a suspended sentence, except for the time already spent, by the defendant in custody. The successful appeal allowed for her client’s immediate release.

In R v Amaan Khan Brown 2023 EWCA Crim 99 the Attorney General referred the sentence of 3 years and 3 months to the Court of Appeal after Elena persuaded the sentencing judge not to impose the mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years for a third Class A drug trafficking offence.

In the Court of Appeal, Elena successfully argued that the sentence imposed was not unduly lenient, and significantly the Court of Appeal accepted her submission that her client’s young age was an important aspect to the consideration of whether the imposition of the minimum term would be unjust.  This marks a different approach to minimum terms for young adults post R v Clarke.