R v P (2026): Allegation of human trafficking on a large scale. Asylum seekers via lorries from France. The defendant is part owner of a transport company. The case revolves solely on cell site and telephone analysis.
R v IN (2026): Allegation of drug dealing on a massive scale. The current estimate from the prosecution is circa 150 kg of class A drugs being sold in the Northeast of England. The prosecution assert the defendant is one of the key organisers. The totality of case against him rests on cell site evidence and the analysis of co-location data.
R v DW (2026): Murder indictment. A decomposed body was found in a derelict building in SE London. CCTV imagery places the defendant with the deceased some weeks before the last sighting of the deceased. The case involves expert analysis of i) forensic pathology, ii) forensic evidence (DNA/blood and fingerprints) and iii) analysis of cell site data as to the whereabouts of the defendant within the time window of when the murder may have occurred.
R v LM (2027): Conspiracy to convert and sell firearms on a wholesale basis. The prosecution case against this defendant rests on cell site evidence as he is alleged to be a middleman and forensic evidence.
R v SD (2025): Led in an allegation of murder involving 5 defendants. The defendant was a young man of good character and a promising footballer. On trial for the murder of another young man in Bedford Town center. The case involved significant analysis of CCTV footage, including the cross-examination of the Crown's visual imagery expert, who claimed that Mr Dixon was holding an object at the time of his participation in the fatal incident. After a seven-week trial before Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Luton Crown Court, the jury unanimously acquitted Mr Dixon of murder and manslaughter.
Ali Bajwa KC led Yogain Chandarana of Rose Court Chambers and was instructed by Dervise Kocayigit of Boothroyds LLP.
The case was reported in National Press: BBC News
Sky v AH and AB (2024): Two brothers providing an IPTV service to allow end users to obtain Sky services without payment. The fraud led to a loss to Sky UK quantified in millions (GBP) of lost subscriptions/services and entertainment rights. There was detailed cross examination of the foremost expert of television internet streaming services.
The case was reported in the National Press: The Daily Mail
R v RC & Others (2024): Trial - Leading Counsel in an allegation of Chinese underground banking case. The case involved the transaction of circa 54 million of GBP via an underground banking scheme that serviced Chinese students and was alleged to be transacting criminal property back to China. Yogain Chandarana was leading Counsel for the second defendant. She was acquitted of the money laundering counts that were the gravamen of the indictment. Convicted of the offence of operating an un-registered money transfer service. The case involved cross-examination of telephone and cell location data alongside the examination and analysis of vast amounts of banking data, cross referred to messaging. Yogain Chandarana led Robin Younghusband of Lloyds PR Solicitors and was instructed by Mohsin Arif of Lloyds PR.
The case was reported in National Press: The Guardian
R v AC & Others (2024): Led in a murder for the first defendant. The case involved the “driving down” and homicide, after a car chase of a 16-year-old on a moped. The defendants were all middle-aged men. This defendant was convicted of manslaughter. Yogain Chandarana advanced all the necessary legal arguments and ultimately appeared himself at the appeal against sentence.
The case was reported in National Press: The Standard
R v AD (2024): Rape allegation. Acquitted. During the first trial the defendant suffered a heart attack. The second trial lasting three weeks. The complainant had to be cross examined for 5 days by Yogain Chandarana due to thousands of telephone messages that spanned the period of the 3-year relationship between her and the defendant – during which time she alleged that rape had occurred on 3 occasions. The cross examination and trial were complex – and detailed due to the volume of messages and the complainant speaking another language (Turkish). The defendant was acquitted.
R v OZ (2024): Death by careless driving – Yogain Chandarana defended a 75-year-old bus driver for the unlawful death of an 83-year-old grandmother in Woolwich town centre. The trial was heard at the CCC. The trial involved cross-examination of the prosecution experts as tothe fatal collision.
The case was reported in National Press: BBC News
R v KW (2023): Defending in an attempted murder – shooting. All the defendants were young (aged 18 and under). The shooting occurred in broad daylight in a market square in Hackney. Acquitted of attempted murder. Convicted of Violent Disorder.
R v SD (2023): The defendant was involved in ATM raids valued at over 1 million (GBP) in loss and damage. The defendant had previous conviction for a conspiracy some years earlier involving exactly the same process – but having been recorded on intercepts planning ATM raids. Substantial legal argument had to be conducted as to the previous offending.
The case was reported in National Press: The Daily Mail
R v RS (2023): A retrial involving the movement of 1 kg of cocaine directed by the co-defendant who was outside the jurisdiction. This was a large-scale undercover police sting operation. The defendant was ultimately convicted. There was detailed cross examination of undercover officers and cross examination of large amounts of telephone data, due to the volume of communications involved.
R v RS (2022): The case involved the alleged blackmail, assault and robbery of an employee. The defendant’s business involved the purchase of high value watches and handbags from legitimate sources and then reselling in Hong Kong. He was alleged to have held the complainant in an office in Knightsbridge and beaten/blackmailed him. After 3 days of cross examination of the complainant by Yogain Chandarana, the complainant’s credibility was totally reduced. This was due to research and preparation conducted by Counsel during the trial which showed the complainants evidence on key details was false. The cross-examination related to telephone data, computer records and banking records. The prosecution had to review the cross examination and moments prior to the defence case for RS starting, the prosecution offered no evidence.
R v OH (2022): A murder case, that lasted some 2 months. The lay client was indicted on a count of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. The defendant was alleged to have taken the weapon less than minute after the shooting. The prosecution case was initially that the defendant was involved in the movement of the firearm prior to the murder. Through detailed cross examination of CCTV experts and telephone cell site experts by Yogain Chandarana, the prosecution position was changed to taking the weapon just after the murder.
The case was reported in National Press: The Standard
R v TH (2021): It was alleged that in the period between 1973 and 2018 the defendant had committed sexual offences against 3 female victims, all members of his family. Matters came to light when C1’s mother contacted the police in November 2018 after her daughter, then aged 11, disclosed that the appellant had inappropriately touched her. C3 then reported the appellant’s offending against her to police in December 2018 and C2 made disclosures in June 2019. Trial conducted lasting 10 days.
R v ZG (2021): Attempted Murder. A retrial of the attempted murder of his partner during the first “lock down”. In the first trial the complainant attended and gave evidence. At the second trial she failed to attend and indicated that she did not wish to give evidence. out. The defence successfully presented legal arguments as to recent complaint/hearsay. The arguments ran for 5 days. Thereafter there was detailed expert cross examination of the pathologist/radiologist, relating to the 29 stab wounds (a number in the back and at least one of which pierced the outer sac of the heart). Convicted by the Jury.
R v CB (2021): Attempted Murder. Use of Machetes in effect to hack open the face of the complainant in a frenzied attack between drug dealers. The matter was before the Common Serjeant of London and lasted around 10 days. The defendant was acquitted of the attempted murder, though convicted on the s.18 OAPA 1861. Substantial was undertaken as to i) expert analysis of CCTV, ii) cell site evidence, iii) issues of joint participation.
R v AR (2021) - Possession with Intent to endanger life of a sub machine gun/ammunition and a revolver. The trial was listed with a co-defendant (acquitted at half time). It was alleged that this defendant was an armourer/storage for other shootings etc. This defendant contested the proceedings on the basis that he accepted the possession of a firearm, the revolver, but nothing else. The defendant asserted that he was exploited and forced into a position to allow a weapon(s) to be stored in his vehicle. This defendant was acquitted of all the trial counts and received a minimum 5 year. the trial lasted 10 days. However, thereafter, the prosecution maintained that they would continue (after the acquittal) of counts they had chosen not to place on the trial indictment of s.21 of the Firearms Act 1968. After substantial legal argument as to abuse of process the Learned Judge ruled in the defence favour and quashed those remaining counts. The abuse arguments took place a month after the acquittal. Due to the unusual circumstances of the Crown seeking to proceed post acquittal of the main counts the Judge took time to consider and handed down a written abuse of process ruling some weeks later.
R v DA & Others: Follow on trial from a drugs conspiracy. This was the first prosecution of county line drug dealers, using and exploiting young people to “run” drugs pursuant to the precursor of the Modern Slavery Act. Three weeks of abuse of process arguments engaged and advanced by Yogain Chandarana. The trial then was heard twice between two different crown courts, after rulings by the CoA. The final iteration of the trial was heard with Silks involved for all parties. The evidence against DA consisted solely of telephone data and cell site analysis. After 3 days of cross examination of the prosecution cell site expert, by Yogain Chandarana, the prosecution accepted 2 out of 6 counts as guilty pleas.
R v H: Solicitation to Murder. The defendant was alleged to have solicited his son to kill the defendant’s estranged wife. The defence advanced was that the defendant had planned to abduct his wife and then commit suicide in front of her. Acquitted.
The case was reported in National Press: The Daily Mail
R v M: Organised Crime Conspiracy to attack Petrol Station ATMs. Overall loss, £620,000 (stolen, damaged, cash). Conspiracy spanning 4 months and s.46 Serious Crime Act 2007. The case involved detailed cross-examination of cell site evidence. All other defendants convicted/pleaded. Acquitted all counts.
R v H: Large scale organised Crime of residential burglaries, involving the taking of vehicles – losses estimated to near half a million (GBP) in stolen cars.
The case was reported in the National Press: The Daily Mail
R v AP: A large-scale fraud on a charity. The defendant was alleged to have been involved in the supply of products to the charity and then failing to deliver the amounts of goods/services invoiced for. Large scale messaging analysis between the main defendants and cross examination of experts as to the particular products and services sold (printed material).
R v AD: Organised Crime Conspiracy to deal substantial amount of class A drugs via a London Network to the home counties in the South-East.
R v MD: The defendant was indicted with her father and others, on offences of cheating the revenue and money laundering. The case involved analysis of telephone data and messaging to show the defendant had been exploited by her father. Acquitted.
R v O: Organised Crime Gang conspired to kidnap and rob a known high profile drugs dealer. Acquitted of conspiracy to kidnap. Convicted of conspiracy to rob.
R v N: International “Cyber Crime” Credit Card Fraud involving the “dark Market” website, investigated by the FBI, “sting operation” from the USA. Involving 60 arrests across Europe and Turkey. Loss calculated in millions. Criminals from all over the world joined and traded; illustrating the lack of frontiers in cybercrime.
The case was reported in the National Press: Manchester Evening News
R v O: Led in large-scale VAT fraud by two sisters, reclaiming substantial sums from HMRC for worthless companies.
R v K: A ‘boiler room’ fraud whereby worthless shares were sold from Spain to investors based all over Europe. The operation had been set up by fraudulent brokers from the USA and millions were siphoned to the USA via UK accounts.
R v D: Leading in large scale money laundering involving criminal property/cash remitted to Jamaica.
R v L: Leading counsel in a Chinese Snakehead conspiracy to kidnap and blackmail illegal immigrants.
R v G: Serious Aggravated burglary (22 stab wounds) at the Central Criminal Court lasting 6 weeks.
R v B: Conspiracy to kidnap and blackmail, posing as the Police.
R v M: Clothing production fraud/invoicing and under supply. Trial lasting 6 weeks. Acquitted.
R v A: Corruption and Bribery of Local Councilors in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
R v C: Operation Invocation (2006): Leading in a large-scale mortgage fraud.
R v T and others (2005): 5 handed Murder at the Central Criminal Court.
R v S: Solicitation to murder. Defendant soliciting undercover Officers.
R v B: Fraud and theft from Postal Sorting Offices.
R v M and others: Insurance Fraud.
R v C and another: Rape of a young person by two defendants.
R v I and another: Rape, false imprisonment and kidnapping of a 14-year-old girl.
R v T and others: Large scale robberies of security vans.
R v A and others: Drug Trafficking – Trafficking Ecstasy to the USA.
Phillips v UK: Reference to the ECHR re the Drug Trafficking Act 1997.
