Levent Kemal is a Senior Associate & Solicitor Advocate within our Criminal Department.
He is a specialist Criminal Defence Solicitor with experience in complex criminal, regulatory, misconduct and disciplinary proceedings.
Levent feels strongly about any injustices and difficulties persons encounter when accused of criminal offences. He provides competitive, specialist legal advice to those persons or entities. He will always endeavour to ensure that the accused are treated fairly and maintain their dignity whilst going through the criminal justice system.
With an exceptional track record, good rapport with clients and fine eye for detail, he is highly regarded by clients and other members of the profession. He is approachable, clear and delivers accurate legal advice.
Levent is frequently instructed to represent suspects at the police station, Royal Military Police venues nationally and internationally. He also regularly represents clients appearing before the Magistrates Court accused of an array of offences.
Levent has Higher rights of audience in Criminal Law and is therefore able to represent clients who appear before the Crown Court.
Levent’s practice comprises of a mixture of private and public funded criminal work.
Levent is experienced in advising professionals accused of professional misconduct who are also under Criminal Investigation. He has advised on many complicated investigations including:
Murder: R v HC: Levent Kemal and Sabina Trigg of Gepp Solicitors, with the assistance of Counsel (Allan Compton KC and Nicholas Wayne) represented HC who was acquitted of murder following a four-week trial at Chelmsford Crown in August 2025. HC was accused, with two others, of pursuing through the streets of Chelmsford a drug user who had previously robbed his co-defendant at knife point. He was accused of eventually catching the drug user and attacking him. The deceased was fatally stabbed, twice in the back. Much of the pursuit was caught on CCTV. It was HC’s case that he was unaware of a knife in the possession of a co-defendant and that he only intended for a fist fight to occur. HC was acquitted of murder and convicted only of manslaughter (a charge that he had always accepted).
Robbery and possession of firearm with intent to cause Fear of violence: R v CM: Levent Kemal was instructed to represent CM, a 16-year-old jointly charged with others with an offence of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and robbery. Following plea being entered to offences accepted by the CPS, the other two defendants received suspended sentences, and our client received a 12-month Referral Order. A Referral Order gives this young person a second chance of a non-criminal future, as the sentence is spent. This means it does not need to be disclosed to an employer at the end of the order, provided the panel agrees that the young person has kept to the terms of their contract.
Possession with intent to supply drugs / conspiracy to supply drugs: R v SH: SH was accused of being concerned in the supply of drugs with others. This was a county line drug supply case with a number of warrants and arrests being executed. The Crown’s case consisted of telephone evidence and cell site analysis. Following representations made to the CPS our client entered guilty pleas to some charges and received a suspended sentence.
Explosives, attempted arson, offensive weapon: R v BM and others: Levent was instructed to represent BM who was jointly charged with others. BM was accused of being in possession of explosives (a charge which required approval from the Attorney General), attempted arson and possession of an offensive weapon. At the time of writing this is an on-going case.
Assault, child neglect, causing unnecessary suffering to a child: R v RB: Our 39-year-old client, RB, who had no previous convictions or understanding of the criminal justice system, was accused of assaulting her child, child neglect and causing unnecessary suffering to her child. Following a review by the CPS no evidence was offered and our client was acquitted.
GBH, assault and affray: R v LB: LB was accused of two assault-related offences: grievous bodily harm (GBH) and actual bodily harm (ABH). It was alleged that the offences took place whilst LB was in a public house. During the incident weapons were used and injuries were sustained. The CPS agreed to our representations and accepted our client’s offer of affray as an alternative charge. After entering a guilty plea to the charge of affray, our client received a suspended sentence.
Indecent images and prohibited Images: R v KN: KN was accused of possessing indecent images and prohibited images. Expert reports were obtained by the defence which led to the CPS agreeing to offer no evidence.
Criminal damage: R v RH: RH was charged with causing criminal damage to a motor vehicle. RH was accused of challenging another regarding the way in which they parked their vehicle, whilst they were both attending a doctor’s surgery. Following this confrontation, it was alleged that RH reversed his vehicle into the complainant for parking too close, blocking his passage and preventing him from leaving. Levent Kemal persuaded the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with written representations that they should not proceed with this case. On review of the representations made the CPS offered no evidence.
Breach of CPN / neighbour dispute: R v CA: Following a neighbour dispute, CA was accused of failing to comply with a Community Protection Notice (CPN). Levent Kemal submitted written representations to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) highlighting why it was not in the public interest to proceed with this case. Following a full review the CPS discontinued the case.
Assault on police officer / assault and public order: R v GR: GR was accused of assaulting his neighbour. When police arrived, it was alleged that our client proceeded to strike a police officer with a weapon. A guilty plea was entered on the day of trial and significant mitigation advanced. Our client received a 6-month conditional discharge. A conditional discharge is a court sentence usually imposed for minor offences where no immediate punishment follows. The offender is required to commit no further crimes within a specified period. If the condition is broken, then the offender can be re-sentenced for the original offence.
If you want to find out more about the services we can offer you, please feel free to get in touch.
“Extremely professional, knowledgeable and friendly.”
Value for money
