Julia Cox

Call 2006

Julia Cox

Practice Overview

Julia joined Chambers in 2018 after relocating to Cardiff from Plymouth.

Julia is an experienced criminal practitioner who has a mixed criminal and regulatory practice.

Julia prosecutes and defends across a wide range of offences. She is known for her thorough preparation and attention to detail which has led to instructions in complex cases involving fraud, money laundering, drugs, violence and sexual offences. Julia is currently a Grade 3 Prosecutor.

Julia has ten years’ experience in regulatory law. Julia has been regularly instructed by prosecuting agencies in relation to a range of cases which include health and safety, statutory nuisance, environmental and food safety. Julia’s previous cases have included prosecuting food safety offences following reported incidents of contaminated food and offences following routine inspections. Julia also has experience of taxi licensing including breaches of bye-laws and appeals following removal of licences.

Prior to starting her career at the Bar Julia worked in a solicitor’s firm gaining a valuable insight into the needs of both professional and lay clients. Her experience has proved beneficial when dealing with vulnerable defendants and witnesses, being able to assist them through the trial process.

Notable and Reported cases

  • General Crime
    • R v G (2019) – Defence of a youth charged with possession with intent to supply cocaine. It was successfully argued that the youth was being exploited and was a victim of modern slavery as defined in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As a result, the prosecution offered no evidence.
    • Operation Fardel (Series 4) (2019) – Prosecution counsel in a two-handed defendant money laundering case resulting from ‘phishing’ fraud. The overall fraud totaled in excess of £2million. The case involved £450,000 being laundered through the defendants’ bank accounts.
    • R v S (2019) – Defence of a young man accused of sexual offences against two complainants under the age of 16. Successful defence opposition to an application to amend the indictment where there had a substantial alteration in the nature of the allegations after a delay of 4 years between complaint and trial.
    • R v B (2019) – Defence of a business partner accused of running a fraudulent business.
    • R v Q (2018) – Successful defence of a man charged with historic sexual offences against a family member. The trial involved complex issues as to admissibility of bad character where the offences for which he was previously convicted were still denied.
    • R v H (2018) – Successful defence of a man with learning difficulties charged with sexual offences against a child. At trial both the complainant and the defendant required intermediaries to assist them in giving evidence. The case involved sensitive and carefully constructed cross-examination of the complainant and examination in chief of the defendant to ensure that they were able to fully understand the questions being put to them.
    • R v M (2018) - Defence of a young man charged with serious sexual offences against a child under the age of 13. The trial involved questioning the complainant with the assistance of an intermediary.
    • R v C (2018) - Defence of a man charged with armed robbery in a home. It was successfully argued that the prosecution could not rely upon the complainant’s evidence, in her absence, as hearsay. It was the only evidence available of whether the robbery took place as alleged by the prosecution. As a result of the successful argument, the prosecution offered no evidence.
    • Operation Fardel (Series 5) (2017) - Prosecution junior in a multi-handed money laundering case resulting from ‘phishing’ fraud to the value of £3million. The case involved £1.3million being processed through the defendants’ bank accounts and through the Post Office where two of the defendants worked where funds were converted into foreign currency.
    • R v K (2017) - Defence junior in a case involving multi-complainant historic sexual offences against children, including offences of rape of individuals under the age of 13.
    • R v L (2017) - Defence of a female charged with indecency with a child and child cruelty together with a male relative. The relative was also charged with further counts of child cruelty. The defendant was acquitted after a 10-day trial.
    • R v B (2016) - Defence in a multi-handed multi-million pound conspiracy to supply heroin The trial lasted 3 months and required detailed analysis of mobile telephone data. The conspiracy involved a total of 27 defendants from Liverpool, Scotland, South Wales, Devon and Cornwall.
    • R v P – (2015) Defence of a male charged with attempted robbery and robbery. Involved investigations as to whether the defendant was capable of forming the specific intent to commit Robbery.
    • R v K and P (2012)  - Defence junior in a multi-complainant historic sex case. The defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting young girls throughout the 1970s and up to 2009. A previous trial in 2005 led to a conviction of another man in relation to the offences from 1970. The case involved careful scrutiny of the previous trial papers and complex legal issues on joinder severance and bad character.
    • R v RJ (2011) - Defending RJ, a youth. RJ pleaded guilty to one charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, two charges of causing grievous bodily harm and one charge of attempted burglary. All of the offences taking place over a period of 9 months on separate occasions. RJ was sentenced in the Crown Court as a dangerous offender and received a sentence of detention for public protection with a minimum term of 5years imprisonment. The sentence was appealed. The appeal was successful; the Court of Appeal reduced the minimum term to 3 years imprisonment.
    • R v G (2009) - Representing the Defendant at sentence for possession with intent to supply heroin. The Defendant was stopped entering Dartmoor Prison in possession of heroin which was to be supplied to a prisoner. Following a guilty plea at the first opportunity the Defendant received a Suspended Sentence Order.
  • Regulatory Crime
    • R v RA (2018) – Prosecution of a car dealer for offences of fraud and forgery. The defendant had been running a car dealership for many years falsely representing to consumers the nature of the vehicles being sold. The defendant refused to refund some consumers and forged documents in attempts to deceive consumers.
    • R v C, S and R (2017) - Prosecution for offences of unauthorised use of trademarks. This case involved a Newton Hearing as to the sums received by the defendants and subsequent contested proceeds of crime act proceedings. The proceeds of crime act proceedings involved detailed consideration of the law surrounding “piercing the corporate veil”.
    • R v CT (2017) - Prosecution of a Chinese Takeaway for offences under the Food Hygiene Regulations on behalf of a Local Authority.
  • Career
    • 2006 – 2008: Paralegal,Clinical Negligence Team - Foot Anstey Solicitors
    • 2008 – 2009: Pupillage - Devon Chambers, Plymouth
    • 2009 – 2018: Devon Chambers, Plymouth
    • 2018 – present: 30 Park Place Chambers, Cardiff. Door Tenant at Devon Chambers.
  • Education
    • 1995 – 2000: Stanchester Community School
    • 2000 – 2002: Yeovil Sixth Form College
    • 2002 – 2005: LLB (Hons) - University of the West of England (2:1)
    • 2005 – 2006: Bar Vocational Course – University of the West of England (Very Competent)
  • Memberships
    • Criminal Bar Association, Wales and Chester Circuit, Western Circuit
  • Appointments
    • Accredited Pupil Supervisor
  • Awards
    • Awarded Jules Thorne Scholarship for the BVC (Middle Temple) 
  • Recommendations
    • Extremely competent, professional and impressive in her advocacy. (Legal 500, 2020)
Julia Cox
Extremely competent, professional and impressive in her advocacy. Legal 500, 2020