Back to Members

Education

2007              Called to the Bar 
                       Inner Temple Scholar

2006 -2007    BVC, BPP Law School, London


2002- 2006    BA (Hons) English Law and German Law, University of Sheffield, England / Universitaet Trier, Germany

Practice

Priya practices exclusively in all areas of criminal defence, including complex fraud and financial crime, serious violence, human rights and prison law.  Priya is an experienced Crown Court trial advocate. She has also appeared in the Court of Appeal and VAT & Duties tribunal.  Priya has assisted in the defence of murder and terrorism trials, as well as a ground breaking and complex extradition appeal concerning a Rwandan national charged with genocide.

Priya is acutely aware of the need for sensitivity and discretion required by all clients.  Prior to a career at the bar Priya worked in the legal department of a leading FTSE 100 firm.  She therefore has sound understanding and commercial awareness of the needs of both corporate and private clients. 

Priya Malhotra is associated with the following area of expertise:

Crime
White Collar Crime
General Fraud
Regulatory and Disciplinary
Environmental
Human Rights
International Criminal Law
Prison Law
 

Cases

Fraud and Financial Regulation

Priya is regularly instructed to defend in complex fraud cases and has represented the interests of those charged with conspiracies to defraud, Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud and high profile benefit frauds.  Priya has experience in all types of financial crime and associated areas, such as complex and high value confiscation proceedings, restraint orders and forfeiture proceedings.

  • Patel – represented the interests of an individual in the VAT & Duties Tribunal, who was alleged to be involved in MTIC trading.  The client was on police bail for an MTIC fraud and counsel successfully made legal submissions on the rule against self-incrimination.  The client was not subsequently charged.
  • R v K – currently instructed as junior counsel in a multi-million pound MTIC fraud.
  • R v O – counsel for the chairwoman of Lambeth Living who faced a 36-count indictment, alleging fraud and evasion of liability.  The fraud spanned over a decade and was an intricate benefit fraud.  The fraud extended to large-scale deception under the Governments “Right to Buy” scheme.  The fraud was high value and attracted media coverage.  The defendant pleaded guilty on the day of trial and counsel successfully argued for a non-custodial sentence.   
  • R v Fry – represented an undischarged bankrupt, who was prosecuted by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills for fraud, breaches of a directors disqualification order and perjury.  The defendant, who for a second time declared bankruptcy, was found to have provided false information to the Official Receiver in his second set of bankruptcy proceedings.  The defendant continued to mislead the Official Receiver for over two years before he was formally charged with criminal charges under the Insolvency Act 1986, perjury and fraud.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 6 counts on indictment.  Counsel successfully argued for a suspended sentence.
  • R v Huang – defendant charged with multiple counts of credit card fraud.  In separate proceedings, counsel represented the same client for alleged insurance fraud.

General Crime

  • R v Mustafa – successfully defended in a multi-handed high value armed robbery.  The defendant had previously pleaded guilty and sought counsel’s assistance in vacating his plea, which was successful.  The defendant was acquitted at his subsequent trial for armed robbery.
  • R v Reatus – successfully defended a female charged with stabbing her neighbour’s boyfriend repeatedly in the back and head.  Shortly after the alleged attack the defendant ran away and was only apprehended three years later.  In the intervening time one of the Crown’s eyewitnesses had died, which the Crown sought to adduce as hearsay evidence against the defendant at trial.
  • R v P - successfully defended a youth charged with falsely imprisoning a female for 16 hours, during which she was bound to a chair and assaulted.  The defendant was also charged with robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
  • R v Mehmet – counsel for an alleged gang member who stabbed two passers-by in the street, as a result of them looking at him and his friends.  The defendant faced two counts of GBH with intent and two counts of s.20 wounding in the alternative.  The defendant was acquitted of the most serious s.18 charges.
  • R v J – counsel for a youth charged with possession of an imitation firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of ammunition.
  • R v Jama – successfully defended an individual charged with aggravated vehicle taking, where a passenger in the car tragically died, as a result of a collision.

Court of Appeal

  • R v Rahman – successfully obtained leave to appeal against sentence.  The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply class A drugs.  He had a similar conviction for which he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.  Counsel successfully argued that the starting point was too high and the original sentence of 6 years and 9 months was reduced to 5 years and 3 months.
  • R v Uju – successfully obtained leave to appeal against a recommendation for deportation.  The full court quashed the recommendation.
  • R v Chaudhury – successfully obtained leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment for 4 years and 10 months for 2 domestic burglaries, theft, breach of a suspended sentence and 4 offences of domestic burglary to be taken into consideration.

Regulatory and Disciplinary

  • London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority v Rai – counsel for a landlord charged with multiple breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
  • London Borough of Enfield v S – counsel for a company director charged with breaches under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Environmental

  • Brooker v Rajanayaka – counsel for the respondent in a private prosecution under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  The applicant sought a noise abatement order.  The respondent was successful.
  • Environment Agency v M – defendant charged with various breaches relating to end of life vehicles.

Human Rights

Priya has experience in representing demonstrators charged with public order offences and breaches under the controversial Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, for example:

  • R v Holmes - counsel for a well-known demonstrator charged under section 132 SOCPA 2005, namely for demonstrating in Abington Green without the necessary authorisation.  Counsel argued the legislation infringed on his Article 10 and Article 11 rights.  Following service of a detailed skeleton on legal submissions alleging abuse of process on appeal, the Crown offered no evidence. Counsel also advised the same client in relation to the democracy village campaign at the Supreme Court.

 Prison Law

  • Governor of HMP Chelmsford v Quinn – prison adjudication concerning the staging of a 6-hour protest on the prison roof, which came to a conclusion following the involvement of riot police.

Sexual offences

  • R v SJ – a youth charged with sexually assaulting his 6 year old sister.
  • R v Bridges – counsel for a male charged with sexually assaulting his male business partner.

Associated Work

Articles and Publications

 The nuts and bolts of trial advocacy, The Circuiteer 2010

Bail vs Goal - The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - Solicitors Journal, May 2009

Update on abuse of process - Criminal Bar Quarterly 2009

Professional Memberships

  • Criminal Bar Association
  • Proceeds of Crime Lawyers Association (POCLA)
  • Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (ARDL)
  • United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (UKELA) 
  • Female Fraud Forum 
  • Young Fraud Lawyers Association (YFLA) 

Languages

  • German  
  • Hindi
  • Punjabi

Contact

T. 020 7067 1500

E. pmalhotra@25bedfordrow.com