Criminal Law

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

Reported cases

A murder case referred to him by WISH, a women's charity working in prison with vulnerable women.  Leave to appeal was refused on the papers by the Single Judge, and a renewal applciaiotn was done pro bono.  Leave was granted on the single ground - whether the trial judge had directed correctly on intoxication and intent in specific intent cases.  He was then led in the full Appeal by Keir Monteith QC on essentially the same argument.  The Court agreed with the Appellant's submisison on the applicable law and directions, and it is believed the case will be reported and be a leading authority on the issue. 

R v Leonard, [2009] EWCA Crim 1251[2009] Crim LR 802, (2009) 173 JP 366
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.  Also in Archbold News 8/2009.

K v DPP, Archbold News 2003, [2003] EWHC 351 Admin
Case stated (High Court Appeal) - R v Forbes bites where the defence is presence but non-participation, particularly in the context of street identification (after judge at first instance threatened Mr Sekar with contempt for running the argument). In other words, there should be an identification parade.  There is also an article on its implications in Criminal Law Review, October 2003)

Other notable cases

R v CPS ex parte R (a minor) [2013]
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 first successful challenge to the victim's right to review).

R v G [2013]
Doctor accused of several indecent assaults against several different staff acquitted on all counts (led by Kim Hollis QC).  After trial also advised on employment/regulatory issues.

R v JK [2010]
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. There were repeated disclosure applications about an alleged 20 year inter-relationship between SOCA, HMCE and a wholesale foreign exchange bureaux which on the eve of trial revealed that there were some 800,000 undisclosed documents, which in turn resulted in an appliciotn for a stay of the case as an abuse of process, which also relied on previous cases involving the same protagonists where Courts had ruled that HM Customs and Excise had not behaved within the law.   The Crown eventually conceded that the application 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. Led by David Jeremy QC.

R V LG [2009]
Historic Indecent Assault and Robbery case from 1988. Billion to one DNA match successfully challenged and excluded under s.78 PACE application. Led by Andrew Campbell-Tiech QC but conducted case up to final week and drafted the skeleton argument.

R v NG [2007]
Private Speeding Case. Crown eventually accepted that abuse of process application was bound to succeed as they 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 (after judge at an earlier stage threatened Mr Sekar with contempt for running the argument). National speed limit campaigners said it was the first case of this kind they had seen being won having followed cases for several years around the country.

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 KC [2006]
Historic Rape case from 1990. Billion to one DNA match challenged by abuse of process culminating in successful half-time submission.

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


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: