High Profile client cleared of Sexual Assault, in a Mayfair nightclub, after Narita Bahra KC exposed Police’s failure to hand over vital CCTV evidence.
High Profile client cleared of Sexual Assault, in a Mayfair nightclub, after Narita Bahra KC exposed Police’s failure to hand over vital CCTV evidence.



Disclosure/ Sexual Offences
High Profile client cleared of Sexual Assault, in a Mayfair nightclub, after Narita Bahra KC exposed Police’s failure to hand over vital CCTV evidence.
The release of the vital CCTV was the turning point in the evidence, which supported the client’s contention that the false allegation was an act of retribution, after the client politely rebuked the complainant.
The case gained national coverage after the police failed to identify and /or disclose the vital security video footage until after the complainant’s evidence and repeated defence disclosure requests. Up until this point the police had deemed the footage as containing ‘nothing of interest’.
The case demonstrates why it is imperative to capture any real or direct evidence, as soon as practicable, in rape or sexual allegations, given the sole evidence of the offending usually emanates from the complainant alone. The evidence of a complainant is deemed in the UK courts sufficient to stand alone to secure a conviction. Corroborating evidence is not necessary.
In this case the complainant was personable, presentable and convincingly maintained to the jury that following the alleged sexual attack, their demeanor was hysterical and sobbing. The CCTV footage disclosed to the defence post the complainant's evidence, captured the complainant consuming alcohol, chatting, laughing post the alleged assault and later singling the client out to be detained by security officers.
Following the not guilty verdict, the judge ordered an inquiry into the reasons behind the ‘reprehensible’ late service of footage.The Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police were represented and conceded there had been an ‘unnecessary or improper act or omission’ in respect of the failure.
The client’s good character and reputation was restored. It will not be lost on the reader that the outcome of the case for the client could have been devastating, in the absence of the uncovered CCTV footage.
The case received substantial press coverage click here.
Disclosure/ Sexual Offences
High Profile client cleared of Sexual Assault, in a Mayfair nightclub, after Narita Bahra KC exposed Police’s failure to hand over vital CCTV evidence.
The release of the vital CCTV was the turning point in the evidence, which supported the client’s contention that the false allegation was an act of retribution, after the client politely rebuked the complainant.
The case gained national coverage after the police failed to identify and /or disclose the vital security video footage until after the complainant’s evidence and repeated defence disclosure requests. Up until this point the police had deemed the footage as containing ‘nothing of interest’.
The case demonstrates why it is imperative to capture any real or direct evidence, as soon as practicable, in rape or sexual allegations, given the sole evidence of the offending usually emanates from the complainant alone. The evidence of a complainant is deemed in the UK courts sufficient to stand alone to secure a conviction. Corroborating evidence is not necessary.
In this case the complainant was personable, presentable and convincingly maintained to the jury that following the alleged sexual attack, their demeanor was hysterical and sobbing. The CCTV footage disclosed to the defence post the complainant's evidence, captured the complainant consuming alcohol, chatting, laughing post the alleged assault and later singling the client out to be detained by security officers.
Following the not guilty verdict, the judge ordered an inquiry into the reasons behind the ‘reprehensible’ late service of footage.The Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police were represented and conceded there had been an ‘unnecessary or improper act or omission’ in respect of the failure.
The client’s good character and reputation was restored. It will not be lost on the reader that the outcome of the case for the client could have been devastating, in the absence of the uncovered CCTV footage.
The case received substantial press coverage click here.
Contact Narita Bahra KC
Narita Bahra KC practises from 33 Chancery Lane Chambers and is Direct Access Qualified.
Contact Narita Bahra KC
Narita Bahra KC practises from 33 Chancery Lane Chambers and is Direct Access Qualified.
Narita Bahra KC practises from 33 Chancery Lane Chambers and is Direct Access Qualified.
Contact Narita Bahra KC



For More Information:
+ 44 (0) 203 196 7822
nbkc@33cllaw.com
nbahra@garricklaw.com
© 2024 Narita Bahra. All Rights Reserved. Website Designed and Developed by Ada Studio



For More Information:
+ 44 (0) 203 196 7822
nbkc@33cllaw.com
nbahra@garricklaw.com
© 2024 Narita Bahra. All Rights Reserved. Website Designed and Developed by Ada Studio