At New Park Court Chambers, we do things a little differently. With 70 junior barristers and 16 King’s Counsel, our reach and influence stretches far beyond the bounds of our Circuit.
As a Tier 1 Set based in Leeds and Newcastle we are home to a number of high profile and nationally and internationally reputable Counsel.
Lea Levine joined New Park Court Chambers as a tenant in September 2025, having completed pupillage under the joint supervision of Ben Campbell and Richard Holland. Lea takes instructions across our key practice areas, including Crime, Family, and Regulatory.
Lea regularly appears in the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court. She was recently successful in an appeal against sentence at the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Lea has prosecuted and defended a variety of matters, including child cruelty, criminal damage, assaults, threats to kill, driving matters, stalking and harassment, indecent images, fraud, and drug-related offences.
Lea has an impressive grounding in both financial remedy and private children proceedings. Prior to pupillage, Lea gained exposure to complex and high value litigation while working as a paralegal at Stewarts Law. Of note is Lea’s success in an application to terminate the parental responsibility of a father who had pleaded guilty to the possession of indecent images of children. Lea also has experience acting for parents in complex care proceedings.
Lea has undertaken youth training and general advocacy training. She has also successfully completed the Women’s Aid ‘IDVA training’, providing her with an intricate understanding of domestic abuse. To this end, Lea has published two articles in the Lexis Nexis Family Law Journal focussing on allegations of domestic abuse within private child proceedings.
The Defendant was initially charged with assaulting an emergency worker but subsequently pleaded to obstructing an officer. Following successful mitigation, EN received a Conditional Discharge of 18 months.
Appeared with leave for the Appellant at the Court of Appeal, who was sentenced at Bradford Crown Court on 12 May 2025 to an immediate term of imprisonment for 20 months, for a single count of child cruelty.
The single ground of appeal was that the Judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the Appellant’s substantial mitigation and should have suspended the sentence of imprisonment.
Following submissions, the Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 20 months imprisonment, substituting a suspended sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment with community requirements.
Represented the Defendant in breach proceedings for a Youth Rehabilitation Order (“YRO”). WN received the YRO consisting of 100 hours of unpaid work and supervision for an Affray, committed when he was 15.
NJ had failed to partake in any of the unpaid work. The Judge was initially minded to consider custody, however it was successfully argued that under SA 2020 sch. 7 para 6(5) (c) resentencing should only be considered for wilful and persistent breaches – and that this would have to be at least 3 occasions. WN was only before the court for missing 2 induction appointments. Following considerable mitigation, the Judge agreed to remove the 100 hours of unpaid work, substituting this for just 5 RAR days instead.
Secured an acquittal for the Defendant in a drink drive case through advancing the post-drive consumption defence. JT was initially pulled over by the police for an insurance related matter. The officers allowed JT to drive back to his home address to retrieve his paperwork. Once the Defendant was inside his home, he unwittingly drank a vodka and coke. The Defendant returned to the officers in the driveway with his paperwork. At this point, the officers could smell alcohol and JT was breathalysed, showing that he was just over the limit.
The trial included expert evidence in respect of a back-calculation, and a successful defence application to exclude body worn video footage which the Crown had failed to disclose to the defence in advance of the trial. Defence costs order granted.
Represented the Defendant in a dangerous dog trial. SB was the owner of a bulldog cross breed, and had left the dog in the care of his son. While in the son’s care, the dog got loose and regrettably bit a neighbour. The statutory defence, that SB had left the dog in the charge of a fit and proper person, was successfully advanced. Defence costs order granted.
Prosecuted a committal for sentence in a high-profile dangerous drive case.
Represented the Home Office in an application for forfeiture in civil recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act. A written skeleton argument was provided to the court to assist with the relevant law and powers of forfeiture. KA was an ‘overstayer’ and thus living and working in the country illegally. Accordingly, the sums held across KA’s 12 bank accounts to the sum of £222,500 was deemed recoverable by the court.
Acted for one of three Fathers in a complex case involving 4 children placed under Care and Supervision Orders respectively. The matter featured quasi-private law issues, such as homeschooling and contact between the Father and his two sons. Given a lack of clarity from the expert psychologist in respect of homeschooling as against mainstream schooling, further questions were asked, and I facilitated a call with the expert to establish whether the children’s welfare would be best served by being outside of the home environment within mainstream education. The expert confirmed this to be the position.
Following submissions, the court endorsed the Father’s position that the children should be in mainstream school with robust Education, Health and Care Plans in place.
Represented the wife who had been estranged from her husband for 13 years. The wife had no knowledge as to where her husband lived and was unable to make contact with him. The Husband had previously made an application for divorce under the old law, but never proceeded this to Decree Nisi.
Accordingly, the Wife was unable to make an application under the New Law for a No-Fault Divorce.
Following several attempts to locate the Husband, the court was satisfied that service could be dispensed with.
Submissions were advanced on behalf of the Wife to strike out the original application from 2012 on the basis that the delay constituted an abuse of process. Submissions were further made to dispense with service, which the court granted.
Represented the mother in a private law dispute over contact. Achieved a successful outcome for child arrangements which was agreeable to both parties.
Acted for the Father in uncontested care proceedings. The Father’s only request was for the Local Authority to agree to find adoptive parents who would be willing to facilitate direct contact between him and his son. Following submission, the court endorsed the Local Authority, where possible, seeking post adoptive contact for the father.
We are delighted to announce that following the successful completion of their…
Discover moreLea Levine, instructed by Lumb & Macgill solicitors, appeared with leave for…
Discover more
