Chandra Sekar

---

D was accused of sexual assault on a minor (on one occasion). In the s.28 Ground Rules hearing Chandra was threatened with wasted costs, reporting to the BSB and contempt over a dispute over questions the judge wished Chandra to ask in cross-examination which Chandra did not want to ask (primarily because Chandra believed the witness would not understand the questions as formulated by the judge – which turned out to be the case). AM was acquitted.

A local council wished to prosecute a local owner of a shisha bar for offences against s.76 Health Act 2006 (which prevents smoking indoors in commercial premises). The owner said he had been assured his property complied with the regulations by Council officers which they denied. During the trial it became clear that automated notes purported to be relied on by the Council had two versions – which differed. Judicial review was threatened whereupon the Council agreed to settle the matter.

Interlocutory appeal against ruling in preparatory hearing in case on Encouragement of Terrorism (s.1 TA 2006) and Recklessly Expressing an Opinion or Belief that is Supportive of a Proscribed Organisation (s.12(1A) TA 2000).  The case was entirely based on postings on social media obtained from Facebook and previous phone downloads (mainly in Whatsapp group threads) when KM was leaving the country for holidays and was not linked to any particular act or individuals.  Most of the evidence pre-dated the coming into force of the second offence in April 2019.  The interlocutory appeal was based on lack of reasons given for admitting or not excluding material based on relevance, hearsay, bad character and s.78 PACE grounds in a hearing lasting a day that the learned judge and defence Counsel believed was a preparatory hearing (under ss.28-35 CPIA 1996) as had been requested by the defence.  The case was going to be reported with the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Holroyde LJ) stating "This judgment has dealt with matters which are of general importance to judges and practitioners in cases in which a preparatory hearing is or may be held..." but has never appeared in an official report. 

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 an oral renewal application 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 submission on the applicable law and directions, and it is believed the case will be reported and be a leading authority on the issue.  

W sued M and F for assault having previously brought an unsuccessful private prosecution.  M and F were advised by Chandra to counterclaim for malicious prosecution. They successfully defended the assault case and won the malicious prosecution counterclaim for which they were both awarded damages and costs.
 

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. 

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.

Interlocutory appeal agaisnt ruling in preparatory hearing in case on Encouragement of Terrorism (s.1 TA 2006) and Recklessly Expressing an Opinion or Belief that is Supportive of a Proscribed Organisation (s.12(1A) TA 2000).  The case was entirely based on postings on social media obtained from Facebook and previous phone downloads (mainly in Whatsapp group threads) when KM was leaving the country for holidays and was not linked to any particular act.  Most of the evidence pre-dated the coming into force of the second offence in April 2019.  The interlocutory appeal was based on lack of reasons given for admitting or not excluding material based on relevance, hearsay, bad character and s.78 PACE grounds in a hearing lasting a day that the learned judge and defence Counsel believed was a preparatory hearing (under ss.28-28 CPIA 1996) as had been requested by the defence.  The case was going to be reported with the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Holroyde LJ) stating "This judgment has dealt with matters which are of general importance to judges and practitioners in cases in which a preparator hearing is or may be held..." but has never appeared in an official report.

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).

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. 

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 application 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. 

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.