Rajesh Bhamm

Following a 26 day murder trial at Northampton Crown Court, NS was unanimously acquitted of murder. This case was four-handed and became cut throat with NS co-defendant’s heaping the blame on each other.  The Crown served expert evidence showing all four co-defendant’s leaving Northampton in tangent, moments after the death of the deceased.

This case involving a defendant who had a previous conviction for manslaughter in very similar circumstances. Whilst the Jury convicted after 18 hours deliberation, Rajesh launched a successful appeal against sentence – The sentencing judge had imposed a minimum term of 33 years, but Rajesh appealed on basis that judge erred in invoking schedule 21 as a consequence of which the starting point should be 15 years and accordingly reduced the minimum sentence to 27 years. Rajesh instructed Sam Stein QC of Nexus Chambers in this case.

Rajesh was the solicitor with conduct of this most serious and complex double murder case within the Sri Lankan community. The trial lasted 9 months and involved many prosecution witnesses, tens of thousands of pages of prosecution evidence and a wide range of difficult issues involving identification evidence, admissibility of prosecution evidence, alibi defences, cell-site evidence and joint enterprise.

Rajesh was instructed in a three handed murder. Rajesh’s client allegedly lured the victim from his residence in order that the co-defendant (gunman) could shoot and kill him. A great deal of preparation was undertaken in the case including door to door enquiries with members of the public, following which Rajesh secured the acquittal of his client from the murder charges faced. William Coker QC was instructed in this case.

Whilst Rajesh’s client was initially charged with attempted murder, following defence representations the charges were reduced to s.18 GBH. The complainant suffered life threatening injuries as a result of AM’s alleged use of his car as a weapon (the case was heavily aggravated by this act). The complainant having been involved in an argument with AM, AM had driven the car deliberately at oncoming traffic in order to dislodge the complainant and cause him maximum injury. The complainant fell out of AM’s car after colliding with a stationary Transit van at around 50mph. The entire incident was caught on CCTV from two different angles which bore out the complainant’s account. The Jury was ‘hung’ (could not reach a verdict) after the initial trial. At the retrial following negotiations with the Crown on the ‘basis of plea’, a favourable sentence was obtained for AM.

Prosecution by Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The Defendant was alleged to have been one of the ringleaders running a sophisticated and lucrative shipping business, with the aim of importing prescription only medicines, unauthorised medicines and Class C drugs from India to the UK, for onward sale across Europe. Over 50,000 pages of evidence had to be considered.

Allegations of a conspiracy to defraud the Royal Mail of £33million, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Our client was represented by Queens Counsel and was acquitted of  all charges. There were four defendants charged. Rajesh met with the client pre-charge, had detailed conference with Queen’s Council, at that stage provided complete continuity for the client, in the police station stage, the Magistrates Court and then in the Crown Court. Eventually securing a complete acquittal in relation to all charges.

This case involved Rajesh defendant a defendant who was one of thirteen defendants. This case was described (at the time) as one of the largest prosecutions in the country. This was a multi-jurisdictional case, involving Mexico, Singapore, India and China. There were hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence served in this case (VHCC). Rajesh had to consider this material, ultimately taking the client through the same, extracting his detailed instructions. A favourable outcome was secured for the client.

X was a person of good character and a trainee solicitor of a reputable corporate practice. X was alleged to have used her sisters blue badge fraudulently, having parked in a disabled bay without her sister present. X had made full admissions in a roadside interview under caution with the fraud inspector. At trial, Rajesh successfully put forward that although X had parked in the disabled bay without her sister being with her, as she was going to drop her sister home some hours later, no offence had been committed. The trial largely hinged on the successful cross-examination of the fraud inspector, who admitted that his note of the roadside interview was not verbatim. If convicted, X would have almost certainly have been denied onto the roll of solicitors, as the offence is one of dishonesty.

Wrongful retention of credit – EC was a trainee teacher at the time of her arrest. EC was accused of being a money mule, following over £20,000.00 of fraudulent bank transfers entering into accounts in her name. EC account was successfully put forward that she had no involvement in the illicit transfers and no further action was taken against her.

This was a large scale county lines drug conspiracy. Rajesh was instructed by a defendant, who was said to be highly involved in the said conspiracy with twenty-two co-defendants. The case concerned mobile cell-site evidence, identification evidence, child witnesses and legal arguments concerning issues of admissibility of evidence and disclosure.

Rajesh represented a male who was alleged to have broken his ex-partners jaw and assaulted both of her parents in a drunken attack. The Crown Prosecution Service called our client’s ex-partner, her parents and their teenage daughter to give evidence at the trial. All four witnesses said that they saw our client punch his ex-partner and that he caused her broken jaw. Our client was acquitted of all counts following a five day trial at the Reading Crown Court. We had successfully put forward our client’s defence that the cause of the complainant’s broken jaw had not been established and that the defendant had acted in self-defence against her parents.

Rajesh represented a male who is said to have been a member of a organised crime group.