Jasmine Kumar

  • Year of Call 2009
  • Year of Higher Rights 2007

Instruct Jasmine

Introduction

Introduction

Jasmine is an experienced criminal defence barrister.

Jasmine has recently expanded her practice into the arena of public and private family law. 

As a former Legal Adviser to the Justices' in Derbyshire, Jasmine trained as a solicitor in 2003 advising Magistrates on law and procedure while managing the business of the court. Jasmine is a natural court advocate having learned her trade in the court forum.

Regardless of which side she is invited to work for, she does so without fear or favour.

Jasmine has exceptional interpersonal skills which makes her an excellent advocate of choice. Jasmine has a reputation of carefully scrutinising her client's case to ensure that any interference with her client's fundamental Human Rights, be that their right to liberty, right to a fair trial or right to a private and family life is both just and necessary. 

Jasmine is both Litigation and Public Access accredited by the Bar Council and a member of the Family Law Bar Association. 

 

Crime

Crime

Jasmine has defended in complex and serious allegations including, historic rape, indecent assault, sexual assault, assaults causing serious violence including wounding and GBH, armed robbery, aggravated burglary, riot, affray, arson, stalking, harassment and breaches of Protective Orders.

Jasmine was involved in the preparation of a VHCC case involving 18 defendants that were charged with facilitating illegal immigration; multi defendant drugs conspiracy cases involving the analysis of copious amounts of cell site and telephone evidence and serious public disorder at regulated football matches often captured on CCTV by undercover specialist police officers.

Jasmine has a keen eye for detail and excels in the cross examination of witnesses and the delivery of compelling closing speeches.

Jasmine is able to engage well with her lay and professional clients and takes a down to earth approach with her clients. She is fully aware of cultural and nationality aspects coming from a dual heritage background and is very adept in engaging with those that have learning disabilities and mental health disorders. Jasmine has been instrumental in some cases whereby intermediary assessments have been necessary and resulted in the discontinuance of proceedings.  Jasmine has also been heavily involved in cases where psychologists and psychiatrists have been required to prepare reports on fitness to plead and to comment on mental health and psychological disorders, often relevant in the mitigation of many serial and repeat offenders. 

Jasmine has prosecuted for the CPS, UK Border Force, National Probation Service and Police Forces. 

Jasmine has prosecuted regulatory offences on behalf of Trading Standards and local authorities: Equally she has defended regulatory offences prosecuted by various government departments and also less obvious authorities such as the Peak District National Park Authority.

Finally, Jasmine has appeared on several occasions, at the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), with success. 

 

Family

Family

Jasmine brings her forensic cross examination skills from the Crown court to the Family court. Jasmine started her route into family law by working as in-house counsel at a Legal 500 firm, exclusively in the Public Law department. Jasmine represented parents repsonding to local authority allegations. 

Her work included contesting applications for interim and final care orders, placement orders, secure accommodation orders and advising on leave to appeal adoption orders. She was responsible for litigation, including drafting response documents to threshold and drafting witness statements. Jasmine also dealt with all advocacy aspects of her cases. 

Jasmine dealt with cases where issues regarding contact developed into private law disputes and also where fact finding hearings were necessary to resolve issues such as domestic violence, sexual violence, the imposition of a non molestation order and the causation of non accidental injuries against children. Jasmine was involved with one case with over 10 legal parties involving several children. 

Jasmine has equally appeared for local authorities across the country in relation to substantial contested cases lasting for several days. Jasmine has been able to identify the relevant issues quickly and with ease in order to achieve the safest outcome for the children. Jasmine has maintained excellent working relationships with her professional and lay clients and is often instructed on repeat. 

Jasmine is keen to develop her private law practice; she has recently appeared for an applicant father who was made subject to allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour towards his partner and physical and emotional abuse of his two young children. Evidence was given by both parties with special measures being utilised. 

Notable Public Law Cases 

Re F

Jasmine was heavily involved in the preparation of a VHCC case which involved non EU parents. Jasmine represented the father of the youngest child. The mother had been convicted of assaulting her daughter and was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence during care proceedings. It was discovered by the local authority that the mother had concealed the existence of another child in Romania who resided with a foster family. The local authority obtained assessments of family members in Romania, Albania and Greece. All family assessments were negative. The case involved the potential separation of half siblings of different nationalities. The foster carers were assessed positively for a SGO of the children, however, they did not wish to care for the youngest child under a final order due to his delayed development. The local authority sought to keep the siblings together in long term foster care under a care order.

Re G

Jasmine represented an Applicant mother who sought discharge of placement order and revocation of the care order: The mother was successful after a contested hearing (with the benefit of an intermediary) and the placement order was discharged, after the child had already met his prospective adoptive family. The mother sought contact with her child in care. The mother had since had a second child after moving to a different area and therefore the case involved the interaction of two local authorities that had different views on the mother's ability to care for her sons. A second independent social worker was therefore instructed. After the court approved a rehabilitation plan for the child in care to be returned to his parents, the parents were involved in a potential separation which caused the court to pause the rehabilitation plan as there were questions as to whether the mother, who had a learning disabilitity, could care on her own for her two children as the father was the protective parent. The local authority reviewed issuing a renewed application for a placement order of the eldest child. 

Re J

Jasmine represented a father with autism; his partner gave birth to their son in a toilet as she did not know that she was pregnant. An interim care order was granted with the condition that the family were placed in a residential setting where they were monitiored 24 hours a day for an extended period of 30 weeks due to the national lockdowns. The local authority asserted that the parents concealed the pregnancy as the mother's two elder children were subject to adoption in previous care proceedings.  The case concluded with the local authority withdrawing their assertion of the concealed pregnancy after detailed parental response documents were advanced and positive PAMS based assessments were successfully completed. The court concluded the case with a supervision order and the family returned home with their son. 

Re P

Jasmine represented a mother at a final hearing whereby the local authority sought to apply for an "open adoption" in relation to one of four siblings. The mother's eldest daughter had been the victim of CSE, the mother and her daughter both given evidence to secure criminal convictions. The mother was a vulnerable person and had to flee her home due to fear of reprisals by the perpetrators. She was subjected to both psychiatric and psychological assessments. She became homeless during the case, and she had a long standing drug addiction. Although the mother acccepted that she could not care for the children, she opposed the adoption of her youngest son. The court ruled that the children remained together in long term foster care with no adoption order. Jasmine maintained an excellent and trusted working relationship with her client throughout this very emotional case.