Jamas Hodivala

Year of Call: 1998  


Jamas Hodivala has acted both as single advocate and junior counsel in a wide variety of serious criminal cases.

Jamas offers specialist advice and advocacy in business crime, professional discipline and judicial review. He brings a range of specialist knowledge in different areas to help clients achieve the best possible result.

He is often instructed to advise clients at an early stage of an investigation, including on a Direct Access basis. He acts as leading or junior counsel for individuals and companies in  cases that often involve an international element including serious fraud, bribery and corruption, money laundering, restraint, confiscation and civil recovery proceedings as well as regularly being instructed in investigations and prosecutions brought by specialist regulators such as the Health & Safety Executive, the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

He is also instructed to represent professionals facing disciplinary proceedings and has appeared in the General Dental Council, General Optical Council, General Medical Council, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal the Police Disciplinary Tribunal, the England & Wales Cricket Board, the FA Appeals Board and in Rule K arbitrations, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Jamas has considerable experience in proceedings in the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal House of Lords / Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.



  • Koli v UK: One of three conjoined cases challenging hidden assets and the compatibility of the statutory presumptions with the presumption of innocence in Article 6 ECHR.
  • Day v UK: Compatibility of Article 7 ECHR with varying definitions of causation in different statutes.
  • O’Dowd v UK: Compatibility of s.25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (presumption against granting of bail where there is a relevant previous conviction) with Article 5 ECHR.
  • Player X v WADA & UEFA: Representing a premiership footballer in his appeal against UEFA’s refusal to grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption for emergency medical treatment using a prohibited substance.
  • Kovel v Karparty FC & FIFA: Footballer involved in a transfer dispute and alleging that his signature had been forged on a permanent contract following a short-term loan from FC Dinamo Minsk.
  • HSE v Chargot: Appeal relating to what the prosecution must prove in order to establish an offence contrary to ss.2, 3 and 37 of the HSWA.
  • R v O’Dowd: Compatibility of s.25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (presumption against granting of bail where there is a relevant previous conviction) with Article 5 ECHR.
  • DPP v Sheldrake: Compatibility of reverse burdens of proof with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) ECHR.



  • R v Pyatt: (Operation Elveden) News International journalist alleged to have made corrupt payments to public officials in return for information.
  • R v Larcombe: (Operation Elveden) News International journalist alleged to have made corrupt payments to public officials in return for information.
  • R v Davies: (Operation Aardvark) £8m mortgage fraud involving PII applications relating to ARIS agreement.
  • R v Campbell: (Operation Stingray) £26m inward duty diversion fraud.
  • R v Majeed: Pakistan cricketers charged with spot-fixing during Lord’s Test match.
  • R v Westfield: Essex cricketer charged with spot-fixing.
  • R v Thayaparan: (Operation Civilian 2) £130m money laundering through Bureau de Change.
  • R v Lowe: (Operation Rize) £600,000 cash seized from safety deposit box as part of Operation Rize.

Judicial Review


  • R (Gill & Others) v Central Criminal Court: Judicial review of Crown Court’s jurisdiction to authorise the retention of unlawfully seized material following the quashing of search warrants by the Divisional Court.
  • R (X Ltd) v HSE: Judicial review of HSE Dispute process relating to Fee for Intervention scheme
  • R (Y Ltd) v HSE: Judicial review of Enforcement Notices issued pursuant to the Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011 and claim for £3.7m damages
  • R (Asliturk) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Judicial review of failure to discharge defedant pursuant to s.75(4) of the Extradition Act 2005.
  • R (Chaney) v Ministry of Justice: Judicial review of funding arrangements in confiscation proceedings.

Professional Discipline


  • GDC v X: Over 600 specific allegations including fraudulent NHS claims, radiographic failings, periodontal examination failings and inadequate treatment.
  • GDC v X: Allegations of fraudulent NHS claims.
  • GOC v X: Case involved the use of expert psychological evidence to demonstrate why the client’s acceptance of a police caution for theft was not a reliable admission of guilt.
  • GOC v X: Optometrist alleged to have failed to take necessary care in the examination and treatment of over 200 geriatric patients.
  •  ECB v Westfield: Disciplinary proceedings following criminal prosecution.
  •  PSD v Byrne: Police Misconduct hearing involving allegation that constable had dishonestly failed to declare £64,000 in salary overpayments over 7 years.



  • MHRA v Gillespie: (Operation Singapore) £7m international counterfeit medicines fraud involving EU law.
  • MMO v Craig: Breach of UK fishing quota case involving abuse of process and EU Competition law arguments.
  • HSE v Stocker: Packhouse manager of a large apple farm charged with gross negligence manslaughter
  • EA v ES Ltd: Haulage company charged with depositing waste.
  • EA v O’Grady: Owner of a waste transfer station charged with depositing 25,000t of waste.

Directory Quotes

  • “He has a brilliant technical ability and he is hardworking and has great knowledge of the cases he is dealing with.” Chambers & Partners 2016
  • “His advocacy skills are finely tuned and very persuasive.” Legal 500 2016
  • “He is an intellectual giant who is extremely thorough in terms of preparation and the way he conducts hearings.” Chambers & Partners 2015
  • “He is a calm and measured advocate, he leaves no stone unturned and possesses excellent forensic skills.” Chambers & Partners 2015


  • LLB, Leicester University