Criminal Law


Chandra has practiced in all Courts, always for the Defence, and always with a commitment to Human Rights.  He particularly specialises in cases involving technical evidence (such as DNA, video or audio analysis, accounts analysis, etc).  His most notable cases are:

R v CPS - Judicial Review, Crime - CPS charged R, a minor with developmental difficulties, after the alleged victim's mother succeeded in persuading the CPS to review the previous decision not to charge.  Following a pre-action protocol letter for judicial review the CPS agreed to withdraw all charges (believed to be the only successful challenge to the victim's right to review thus far).

R v Leonard Archbold News, 8/2009, [2009] EWCA Crim 1251
Mobile phone text messages about previous drug dealing are inadmissible as hearsay following a correct interpretation of the applicable parts of the 2003 Act.  Cited with approval in many articles and in particular in the leading case on hearsay R v Twist [2011] EWCA Crim 1143.

R v G
Doctor accused of several indecent assaults against several staff acquitted on all counts (lead by Kim Hollis QC).  After trial also advised on employment/regulatory issues.

R v JK
JK was accused of being a courier for very large amounts of cash (£21m) being laundered by foreign exchange bureaux in London in an operation spanning many years and said to involve at least £57m. Following disclosure applications and an abuse of process about the historical inter-relationship between SOCA, HMCE and a wholesale foreign exchange bureaux, which the Crown eventually conceded was bound to result in a stay, no evidence was offered and a not guilty verdict entered. The Crown were asked by the Court to provide an explanation for their multiple defaults and the defence were commended for their efforts. Lead by David Jeremy QC.

R V LG
Historic Indecent Assault and Robbery case from 1988. Billion to one DNA match successfully challenged and excluded under s.78 PACE application. Lead by Andrew Campbell-Tiech QC but conducted case up to final week and drafted the skeleton argument.

R v UM [2007] 

Advice provided to challenge computer evidence in terrorism case at request of leading Counsel including brief analysis of problem in offence definition which later was the basis of successful appeal (Zafar & Others v R [2008] EWCA Crim 184 (13 February 2008) ([2008] 2 Cr App R 8, [2008] 2 WLR 1013, [2008] 4 All ER 46).
 
R v NG
Private speeding case. Crown eventually accepted that abuse of process application was bound to succeed as could not provide evidence that use of a generator for a speed camera was not contrary to Home Office guidelines, but also rendered any speed reading unreliable. National speed limit campaigners said it was the first case of this kind they had seen being won having followed cases around the country.

R v KC
Historic Rape case from 1990. Billion to one DNA match challenged by abuse of process culminating in successful half-time submission.

K v DPP, Archbold News 2003, [2003] EWHC 351 Admin
Forbes bites where the defence is presence but non-participation, particularly in the context of street identification. In other words, there should be an identification parade. (There is also an article on its implications in Criminal Law Review, October 2003)

R v SR [2000]
Computer "expert" challenged on expertise and scientific methodology in credit card cloning case.  Expert's company subsequently criticised for their scientific methodology (or lack thereof) in Soham child pornography case resulting in CPS dropping that case. 


Articles
Drug Contamination on Banknotes, p.4 Archbold News, Issue 7, 2006
Article challenging the basis of admission of evidence of trace amounts of drugs found on banknotes in a defendant's possession on the basis of incorrect statistical analysis and applicability, based on the successful exclusion of such evidence in R v Singh [2005].   The evidence, if attempted to be adduced, is now supposed to be subject to a large number of caveats following recommendations  by the Home Office forensic regulator.

Can capacity be a backstop in sexual consent cases?  p.6, Archbold Review, Issue 6, July XX, 2013
Article discussing issues as to which are the appropriate offences to charge in cases  involving those who may not have the capacity to consent.

No comments: