• Crime (including fraud)
• Civil Liberties and Human Rights
• Regulatory
• Sports Law

The Legal 500 2009 lists Jamas as a Leading Junior in the area of Media, Entertainment and Sport and describes him in the Crime section as "methodical, efficient and meticulous in every detail".

Jamas has acted both as single advocate and junior counsel in a wide variety of serious criminal cases, including fraud, money laundering, confiscation and restraint proceedings (both under CJA 1988 and POCA 2002) drug and tobacco importation offences, corruption, murder, rape and other serious sexual offences, arson wih intent to endanger life, robbery, false imprisonment, firearms offences, s.18 and public order matters.

He also has substantial Administrative Court experience (both for the Claimant and the Defendant) in matters often involving complex Human Rights Act issues and has considerable experience in appeals to the House of Lords. Jamas is regularly instructed for his outstanding expertise in all areas of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act in the sphere of criminal and quasi-criminal law.

He conducts various regulatory and disciplinary work (GMC, GDC, GOC, GSCC) including sports-related matters, as well as having appeared in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Owing to his common-law background, Jamas is also instructed to represent clients in ancillary civil litigation arising from criminal investigations.

Notable cases:

Court of Arbitration for Sport
Player X v WADA and UEFA		Junior counsel. Represented a Premiership footballer in his appeal against WADA’s and UEFA's refusal to grant the player a Therapeutic Use Exemption for the use of emergency medication that was on the WADA prohibited list.
Kovel v FC Karpaty and FIFA           House of Lords		Represented an international footballer in a transfer dispute between FC Dinamo Minsk and FC Karpaty Lviv in which the player alleged that his signature had been forged on a permanent contract whilst he was on short-term loan from Minsk. The player was then sold by Minsk to FC Saturn for $3m whist the dispute was ongoing.
R v Chargot and others	[2008] UKHL 73	Junior counsel. Instructed by the Health and Safety Executive in what is now the leading authority on what the prosecution must prove in order to establish a prima facie case in a prosecution under ss.2, 3, 4, 7 and 37 of the Act.
R (“O”) v Harrow Crown Court	[2006] UKHL 42; [2007] 1 AC 249	Junior counsel. The application of the presumption against bail in s.25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is not incompatible with Article 5(3) of the ECHR provided the overall burden is not on the Defendant to prove that bail should be granted. The expiration and non-extension of the custody time limits does not automatically equate lack of “all due diligence and expedition” in s.22(3)(b) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 with lack of “special diligence” in Article 5(3). Application pending in the ECtHR.
R v Sheldrake	[2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264, [2005] 1 All ER 237, [2004] 3 WLR 976, [2005] 1 Cr App Rep 450, 168 JP 669	Junior counsel. This is the leading domestic judgment on “reverse burdens” of proof.
Court of Appeal R (AM) v Home Secretary and Kalyx Ltd         R v O'Dowd	[2009] EWCA civ747; [2009] ALL ER (D) 177         [2009] EWCA Crim 905; [2009] Cr App Rep 280; [2009] All ER (D) 103 (May)	Junior Counsel. Acted for Kalyx Ltd in resisting a claim fo judicial review of the Home Secretary's refusal to order a public inquiry into a serious disturbance at Harmondsworth IRC. Arguments involved analysis of case-law relating to Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the ECHR. Junior Counsel. Leading judgment on the admission of disputed "bad character" evidence. Convictions for a number of rapes quashed on appeal following the introduction of "bad character" evidence (acquittal fo rape, disputed conviction for rape and a rape allgation stayed as an abuse process) amouting to substantial satellite litigation.
R v C and others	[2007] EWCA Crim 680; [2007] 3 All ER 735	Sentencing dangerous offenders to consecutive extended sentences.
R v Bartaby	[2007] EWCA Crim 2350; [2007] EWCA Crim 3147	Challenging the method of calculation of “benefit” in POCA confiscation proceedings.
Divisional Court
R (“X”) v Medway Magistrates’ Court		Judicial review of a costs order made by the magistrates.
R (Chaney) v Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor		Instructed by the Claimant on an application for declaration of incompatibility between the funding arrangements in the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001 and Article 6(1) of the ECHR where a Defendant in confiscation proceedings was unable to obtain representation by counsel owing to the low payment rates applicable under the graduated fees scheme.
R (Edwards) v CCRC		Junior counsel. Judicial Review of CCRC’s refusal to refer back to the Court of Appeal a conviction which the ECtHR had declared to have been in violation of Article 6 (Edwards and Lewis v UK).
R (K) v HMP Bronzefield		Junior counsel. Instructed by the Defendant in relation to the separation of a child from its mother who was a serving prisoner.
R (Meeson) v HMP Forest Bank		Instructed by the Defendant in relation to a claim by an IPP prisoner for damages and a declaration of a violation of Article 5 in relation to his lack of progress through the prison system.
R (Grundon) v Medway Magistrates’ Court		Judicial review of a decision by magistrates to commit a substantial mortgage fraud for trial to the Crown Court.
Weightman v DPP		Instructed by the CPS in a Case stated appeal following an unsuccessful appeal against conviction in which scant reasons were given by the Judge.
R (Corner) v Southend Crown Court		Judicial review of a driving disqualification imposed by the Crown Court on an appeal against sentence.
May v DPP		Whether a car showroom car park was a “public place” for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Planton v DPP		Whether a causeway was a “public place” for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Crown Court
Fraud/Money Laundering   Dep of Health v "G"		Defendant charged in a multi-handed conspiracy to supply imitation pharmaceutical drugs on the UK market resulting in Level 1 product recall (Operation "Singapore"). The largest case of its type in Europe.
R v “C” and ors		District Council employee charged along with other employees of corruption in obtaining council contracts and conspiracy to steal computer equipment.
R v “W” and ors		Junior counsel. Accountant charged with conspiring with his clients to defraud the Inland Revenue for over a decade.
R v “C” and ors		Conspiracy to remove criminal money from the country and a related tobacco duty evasion.
R v “T” and ors		Use of bank accounts to dissipate the proceeds of numerous thefts of cheques totalling £300,000.
R v “G” and ors		Substantial conspiracy to obtain pecuniary advantage by deception involving numerous mortgage frauds.
Sex/Murder
R v "B"		Junior Counsel. Historic sexual abuse of daughter and sister. Case involved preparation of argument on abuse of process based on delay, witness collusion and failure to follow Home Office guidelines in the preparation of the prosecution evidence and s.78 PACE argments on the basis of failures in the ABE interview process.
R v “O”		Junior counsel. Reported as the longest ever rape trial in British legal history lasting 6½ months.
R v “T”		Junior counsel for the prosecution in rape and murder of an 86 year old woman.
Miscellaneous
R v “T” and ors		Conspiracy to handle stolen high-value motor cars
R v “D” and ors		Junior counsel. Handling and attempted sale of the original 1957 “Nagra Reels” Beetles recordings.
Regulatory
Jamas Hodivala has conducted a large number of cases defending optometrists charged with disciplinary offences including:
GOC v X		Optometrist charged by the General Optical Council with failing to take the necessary care in relation to 200 geriatric patients.
GOC v X		General Optical Council applied for an interim suspension order following a fraud conviction.
Other regulatory/civil work
Re: Player X		Instructed as independent disclosure counsel in relation to the transfer of a Premiership footballer.
Ramsgate FC v The Ryman League		Appeal to the FA on the interpretation of the League’s transfer rules.
L v Security Industry Authority and ors		Private civil claim for misfeasance in a public office following the Claimant’s arrest during the course of an SIA investigation.