Priya Malhotra

Barrister

Priya is an exceptional advocate best known for her attention to detail, meticulous preparation, sound judgment, and skilful witness handling. An experienced barrister who regularly appears in tribunals, public inquiries, and inquests – often in complex cases attracting significant media attention.

Priya is ranked a leading junior for Inquests and Inquiries (Legal 500 2023).

Priya sits as an Assistant Coroner for Inner West London.

Priya has expertise in public inquiries. She is instructed counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, counsel to the Covid-19 Inquiry, and counsel for a core participant in the Undercover Police Inquiry.

Priya has experience acting for local authorities and the bereaved at Inquests, including jury inquests. She has expertise examining experts and professional witnesses, such as challenging pathologists on the likely cause of death.

Priya’s practice encompasses a broad range of regulatory work, including acting for professionals appearing before Fitness to Practice Committees, Investigation Committees and Misconduct Tribunals. Priya has experience representing those before the GMC, NMC and HCPC. She also presents for the GDC.

She is experienced in environmental law, particularly matters concerning waste and representing those prosecuted by the Environment Agency. Priya has experience representing those faced with noise abatement notices.

Priya has experience of appearing in the Court of Protection.

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. She also has experience advising those facing civil fraud allegations in the High Court. She has represented the interests of those charged with conspiracy to defraud, money laundering, Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud and high-profile benefit frauds, including defending private prosecutions.

Education and Scholarships

Called to the Bar: 2007 (Inner Temple)
Bar Vocational Course BPP London: September 2006 – June 2007 (Very Competent)
The University of Sheffield & The University of Trier (Germany): September 2002 – June 2006 BA (Hons) Law with German Law 2:1
Inner Temple scholar: BVC Exhibition & the Yarborough-Anderson Prize 2006
Neuroscience, Fundamentals Part 1, Harvard (2019)
Anatomy: Know your abdomen, University of Leeds (2006)
Coronial Law, Bolton University (2022)

Publications and Lectures

Culture Based Crime, Lecture, May 2015
Identity Documents Act 2010, Lecture, August 2011
The nuts and bolts of trial advocacy, The Circuiteer, 2010
Bail vs. Gaol – The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Solicitors Journal, May 2009
Update on abuse of process, Criminal Bar Quarterly, 2009

Regulatory and Disciplinary: Healthcare

Priya is an experienced advocate, representing those facing disciplinary proceedings before their regulatory bodies. She is also a case presenter for the GDC.
GMC v OM – currently instructed to represent a doctor facing several allegations of sexual misconduct on a patient.
NMC v M – represented a registrant nurse charged with sexual misconduct in respect of three colleagues. The registrant received a 9-month suspension order.
NMC v P – represented a registrant nurse where breaches of patient confidentiality occurred, whereby the registrant accessed the medical records of several individuals known to her, details of which were alleged to have been posted on social media. The registrant received a 2-month suspension order without review.
NMC v O – Represented a registrant nurse in a contribution to death case resulting from the over warfarinisation of a patient by the registrant. The matter was originally set for a 6-day hearing with expert evidence from two Consultant Haematologists and a Pathologist. The registrant accepted the misconduct allegations and impairment on the first day of the hearing. Counsel successfully argued against strike-off.
HCPC v S – registrant faced multiple charges arising out of inappropriate contact with a service user. Counsel successfully argued there is no impairment. Priya subsequently represented the same client at a nine-day employment tribunal. The Claimant asserted public interest disclosure (whistleblowing).
NMC v M – represented a registrant nurse at an interim order hearing concerning issues of neglect in a care home and the death of a patient from a fall where the registrant had failed to ensure bed rails were installed. The NMC sought a suspension order for 18-months. Counsel successfully argued against any interim order being imposed.
NMC v C – represented a registrant nurse at an interim order review hearing. The registrant was alleged to have made medication errors and was the subject of an interim conditions of Practice Order for 18-months, following successful submissions by counsel the order was revoked.
NMC v G – conditions of practice were favourably varied, enabling the registrant to work as a nurse in charge at an interim order review hearing following submissions in a health case.

Environmental

A v M – following a 5-day trial Priya successfully secured an acquittal for her client who was charged with operating a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for the treatment and storage of end-of-life vehicles, contrary to Regulation 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. The case turned on the definition of waste and the and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. The case turned on the definition of waste and the application of the discard test. The court did not follow European authorities and instead adopted a subjective test for the definition of waste. Two other charges, the deposit of controlled waste, contrary to s.33(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and failing to register the production of hazardous waste, contrary to Regulation 21 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 were previously dismissed against her client following legal submissions.
EA v M – following a 5-day trial Priya successfully secured an acquittal for her client who was charged with operating a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for the treatment and storage of end-of-life vehicles, contrary to Regulation 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. The case turned on the definition of waste and the application of the discard test. The court did not follow European authorities and instead adopted a subjective test for the definition of waste. Two other charges, the deposit of controlled waste, contrary to s.33(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and failing to register the production of hazardous waste, contrary to Regulation 21 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 were previously dismissed against her client following legal submissions.
B v R – counsel for the respondent in a private prosecution under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The applicant sought a noise abatement order against his neighbour. The respondent was successful in opposing the order.
London Borough of Greenwich v M – proceedings brought by the local authority under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Counsel successfully appealed against a noise abatement order, following service of a detailed skeleton argument. The case did not therefore require a substantive hearing; the Local Authority conceded the points raised in counsel’s skeleton argument.
S v AMC – instructed to represent a Model Aeroplane Club who were the subject of a private prosecution under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for a noise abatement notice from a local resident. The case concerned expert evidence from acoustic experts on the levels and nature of noise emitted from model aircraft necessitating cross-examination of expert evidence of a highly technical nature.

Fire

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority v R – counsel for a landlord charged with multiple breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 relating to an HMO where a fire occurred.

Trading Standards

London Borough of Enfield v S – counsel for a company director charged with breaches under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Public Inquiry

Priya has been appointed counsel to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
Priya is currently appointed counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (Module 4), specifically investigating the response of Category 1 and 2 responders and central government in the immediate aftermath of the fire, as against the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its associated framework.
Priya is instructed as part of the counsel team for a state core participant in the Undercover Policing Inquiry.
Priya has undergone vetting.

Inquest

Inquest into the death of SB, Leicester Coroners Court – counsel instructed to represent a nurse at an inquest into the death of a detained patient.
Inquest into the death of SM, Staffordshire Coroners Court – instructed to represent the bereaved family of an inmate, who died in custody. Counsel cross-examined the Pathologist on the cause of death.
Inquest into the death of HC, Beaconsfield Coroners Court – represented the interests of Wycombe District Council’s Health and Safety investigator, who was called to give evidence at a jury inquest into the death of a man who slipped and died in a council owned car park.
Priya sits as an Assistant Coroner for Inner West London.

Fraud

R v G (Operation Manta) – Led junior defending in a Royal Mail prosecution concerning an £8million fraud and alleged corruption by post office workers at a Mail Centre. The defendant was acquitted following an 8-week trial.
R v C (Operation Airbrick) - Led junior in a £20 million money laundering case, concerning duty evasion from the sales of alcohol in the underbond market. The defendant was acquitted following a 6-week trial.
R v D (Operation Scheat) - Led junior for the first defendant in a multi-handed conspiracy to defraud (value approx. £4 million) from a horse racing betting scam involving tipster services.
R v I (Southwark Crown Court) - Junior alone instructed to represent the wife of a convicted fraudster, who had inflated his connections with the Saudi Royal family to lure potential investors into a variety of schemes, including the fraudulent purchase of London Welsh RFC. The defendant was acquitted following a trial.
R v K (Operation Forbear Mimosa Sterling) - Led junior counsel in a multi-handed, multi-million-pound MTIC fraud involving multiple jurisdictions. The case concerned detailed analysis of over a quarter of a million pages of prosecution evidence including material from the now defunct FCIB Bank.
R v M (Liverpool CC) - Led junior in contested confiscation proceedings following a conviction for importation of class A drugs. The realisable assets and assumptions were disputed.
An Insurance Company v R (High Court) - Counsel for defendant facing civil fraud proceedings in the High Court. Case resulted in the acceptance of a Calderbank offer.
P – 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 S (Old Bailey) - Instructed counsel in a large-scale fraud on the passport office, arising out of the use of stolen birth certificates across London Registry offices between 1994 and 2004.
T v Serious Fraud Office – (High Court) - Counsel in a £300 million civil damages claim brought by international businessmen. The civil claims arose out of unlawfully obtained search warrants and subsequent searches. The criminal fraud investigation, which led to the issue of the search warrants surrounded the collapse of Kaupthing Bank in Iceland and the subsequent closure of its parent, Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander in the UK. The SFO has since abandoned their criminal investigation. Priya was instructed by Slaughter & May as part of the counsel disclosure team on behalf of the Serious Fraud Office.
R v M & M (Basildon Crown Court) - Led junior in a high-value conspiracy to defraud, involving an investigation into accounts and companies set up in the British Virgin Islands. The case attracted media coverage. The defendant was initially running the defence of marital coercion, a defence only available to a wife. Following lengthy, yet successful negotiations with the Crown, a plea was accepted to a summary only offence and the defendant was sentenced to a conditional discharge. The Crown did not pursue confiscation.
R v O (Inner London Crown Court) - 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 F (Taunton Crown Court) - Represented an undischarged bankrupt, who was prosecuted by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (now known as Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) 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. The defendant pleaded guilty to 6 counts on indictment. Counsel successfully argued for a suspended sentence.

General Crime

R v E (Stockwell Bus Crash Murder) - Led junior. The defendant was acquitted following a 6-week trial at the Old Bailey. The case involved scrutinising many hours of video footage, as well as telephone evidence.
R v T (Operation Vulture) - Led junior for the first defendant in a nine-handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The defendant was said to be a major class A drug dealer with a wide network. The case involved vast police observation evidence, telephone evidence including cell site. The case required forensic analysis of all mobile telephone evidence.
R v M - 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 R - 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.

Court of Appeal

R v R - 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 U- Successfully obtained leave to appeal against a recommendation for deportation. The full court quashed the recommendation.
R v C - 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.

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 H - 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.