Narita Bahra

Narita Bahra

‘She has excellent strategic oversight, particularly in multi-handed cases.’

Legal 500 2016
Year of call: 1997
For enquiries please call: 020 7353 5324 or email vcard cv linkedin save

Criminal Defence

Narita has an established defence practice focusing on terrorism, murder, organised crime (including overseas drug cartels, firearms and armed robberies) and serious sexual offences.

Narita’s expertise and reputation as an artful tactician who achieves successful results has merited instruction as counsel of choice by both professional and lay clients in private and legally aided serious and complex criminal cases. She is experienced in cross-examining expert witnesses, jury handling, identifying inadequacies in the prosecution case and challenging non-disclosure.

Narita is respected as a Barrister who leaves “no stone unturned” in the forensic preparation and presentation of her client’s case.

Narita advises and appears in significant criminal appeals. She provides clear and focused oral and written advice to both lay and professional clients. Narita has appeared before the Special Court and is currently instructed to seek adjudication upon a point of law in the European Court of Human Rights.

Cases

R v Mr S

Narita lead Christopher Ware in a child sexual exploitation and historic grooming case in which six defendants from Diego-Garcia, were tried on a fourteen count indictment including allegations of gang rape, sexual activity with a child and supplying drugs. The six child witnesses were school girls aged between 13 and 15 years at the time of the alleged offences. Intermediaries were utillised to assist the complainants.
The client was the only defendant who faced allegations made by three complainants.

The case involved complex strategic and tactical decisions which enabled successful arguments to be mounted, which identified significant flaws in the prosecution disclosure exercise and its impact on the integrity of the investigation and trial.
This resulted in the prosecution taking the unusual step of offering no evidence on all counts, prior to the close of the prosecution case.

R v Bailey

Narita secured an acquittal of three counts of Fraud and three counts of theft for her client, the Personal Assistant to Barbara Broccoli, Producer of James Bond, and employee of EON Enterprises Limited. Due to a number of disclosure failures over three years of investigation, the prosecution offered no evidence and not guilty verdicts were entered on the entire indictment.

R v Rana [December 2015]

Leading Harry Bentley, Narita secured an unanimous acquittal for their client, who was one of seven defendants tried for Conspiracy to Commit Violent Disorder. The case was prosecuted by appointed Treasury Counsel, due to the sensitive religious, cultural and political aspects involved.

It was alleged that violence was planned as revenge in the United Kingdom as a direct retaliation against the followers of those who had desecrated the Sikh holy scriptures in Punjab, India previously over an eighteen month period. The defence team’s instruction of experts enabled the successful exclusion of damaging material. Their client’s case was distinct from all other co-defendants and therefore, involved exercising judgement and “nerves of steel” in the forensic analysis and presentation of the case.

R v Hill [2015]

Narita secured the unanimous acquittal of an Assistant Headteacher charged with six sexual offences. The case took over 26 months to complete due to novel and complex legal argument, relating to challenging Computer Expert Evidence. The Court ruled in favour of the defence submissions, which challenged the reliability and means by which the alleged images had been obtained and attributed. The jury acquitted of the remaining sexual offence allegation in less than 10 minutes at the retrial.

R v Boureanu

Narita Bahra was instructed to lead on behalf of the first defendant in a multi handed Human Trafficking and Controlling Prostitution case. The Crown’s case was that Narita’s client was the main organiser for arranging and facilitating the transfer of complainants from Eastern Europe to the UK, where they were then forced to into employment as sex workers. The case involved obtaining and challenging disclosure from International jurisdictions. Narita was allocated the sensitive and skilful task of undertaking the issue of admissibility and the bulk of cross-examination of the complainants by the Trial Judge, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules and vulnerable witness safeguards. The case involved challenging disclosure, cell site and DNA expert evidence.

Graff Diamond Robbery

Narita was instructed as Leading junior for the fourth defendant in the largest diamond heist in British history [£40 million] at Graff Jewellers, Mayfair. The case rested on expert evidence of face recognition, APNR and cell site. The case received National media coverage.

R v Phipps

The Crown alleged that the client had attempted to Murder the complainant by carrying out a savage and feriocious stabbing and then leaving the complainant for dead. The case was tried before the Resident Judge at Stafford Crown Court. Narita successfully cross-examined twenty eye witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged stabbing. The jury acquitted the twenty one year old male in less than an hour.

R v Chohan

Narita was instructed to defend the only sixteen year old in a twenty defendant Class A Drugs Conspiracy. The prosecution alleged this was an established and large-scale operation spanning over two years. Narita’s client was placed in a significant role and was often stopped with thousands of pounds of cash and observed by police plugging drugs.

Narita was selected as Counsel of choice based on her experience and understanding of problems faced by vulnerable youths in the Crown Court and her knowledge of specialist provisions and considerations for these individuals.

Narita identified that her client was suggestible and easily influenced by authority and adults. An Educational Psychologist and Psychiatrist were instructed and issues of suggestibility and duress were advanced. Consideration was given to whether the client required the aid of an intermediary to aid his communication. This enabled her vulnerable client to participate effectively in the court process and receive a fair trial.

The Police’s failure to acknowledge developmental differences between Narita’s client and the adults co-defendants during all the searches and interrogation context was a live issue in the trial. Narita was able to demonstrate the strengths and limitations of a youth’s memory, their communicative capacities, their social styles and orientation to adult questioners, and their susceptibility to suggestion.

portfoloo Barrister Portfolio [10]
Barrister Portfolio close
Barrister Call CV Email

Remove All


Click here to email this list of barrister to a colleague.