Anand Beharrylal QC

Year of Call: 1997  Silk: 2018  


Overview


Anand is a highly experienced barrister who is instructed to lead in both criminal and civil cases.

His criminal practice includes prosecution and defence in the full range of the most serious and complex criminal cases. These include murder/manslaughter, sexual offences (inclusive of child sexual offences, procuring abortions, prostitution etc), firearms offences, drug importation/supply, human trafficking, gang violence and serious organised crime.

Anand’s business crime practice covers serious fraud (including property, mortgage and tax fraud), directors’ disqualification, corruption, bribery, misconduct in public office, money laundering, restraint and confiscation proceedings. Related civil law work includes civil fraud, freezing of assets, detention of cash, condemnation proceedings, restraint proceedings and judicial review/public law proceedings.

He also undertakes judicial review/public law cases arising from criminal or regulatory cases, actions against the police, habeas corpus for those unlawfully detained, wasted costs orders made or contemplated against solicitors, and professional negligence/misconduct of solicitors and doctors.

Anand’s practice has a Caribbean dimension. He practices in Trinidad & Tobago in both criminal (inclusive of capital murder) and civil cases. He is also instructed in advisory and appellate work before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in both criminal and civil appeals from Trinidad and Tobago and other Commonwealth Caribbean territories.

As a direct Public Access approved barrister, Anand is registered with the Bar Council to accept instructions directly from clients. To instruct Anand directly please contact the Clerk’s Room on 020 7440 8888, clerks  or visit the Public Access section of the 2 Bedford Row website.

 

Appeals


Anand has extensive experience in appellate work and practises at the highest levels. In criminal cases he appears in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and in both criminal and civil cases he appears before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Cases

  • Republic Bank v Lochan & Another [2015] UKPC 26; All ER (D) 93 (Jun): Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – Land – Possession of land appeal in Privy Council – Mortgage fraud – Expert survey evidence – Whether new claim can be raised in Reply where related to claim – Adverse possession – Doctrine of Priorities – Conflicting deeds of conveyance.
  • Regina v AJR [2013] 2 Cr.App.R. 12, CA; [2013] 2 F.L.R. 1383; Archbold 2015 at 19-353: England & Wales – Restraining Order – Whether special verdict amounts to an acquittal for the purposes of statute where the latter did not so provide – Whether criteria for making restraining order fulfilled – Whether restraining order for 5 years reasonable.
  • Calix v Attorney General [2013] UKPC 15; [2013] WLR (D) 219; TLR 16th July 2013: Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – False Imprisonment – Quantum – Good character – Whether good character has an objective value – Proper assessment of damages as to reputation where successful appellant member of lower income bracket.
  • Regina v Brock [2010] EWCA Crim 1041: England & Wales – Attempted Robbery – Commission of offence at the behest of others of younger age – Low IQ – Evidence of mental age of 11 years 4 months not available at sentencing – Sentencing Guidelines for Robbery.
  • Panday v Espinet [2009] CV2007-04133: Trinidad & Tobago – Application to recuse for apparent bias – Judicial officer (Magistrate) hearing evidence and giving adverse ruling in committal proceedings – Evidence the same as evidence to be heard in pending summary trial – Whether Magistrate wrong not to recuse – Whether circumstances give rise to apparent bias and breach of constitutional rights – Judicial review.
  • Rambharose v Bovell [2009] UKPC 7: Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – Negligence and Estoppel by Representation of Fact – Whether vicarious liability could be a defence to an action for negligence against employee where he was found liable based on his admitted responsibility at the material time – Relevance and weight to be attached to letters written many months after critical representation made.
  • Panday v Virgil [2008] UKPC 24; T.L.R. 11th April 2008; [2008] WLR (D) 102; [2008] 3 W.L.R. 296, PC; Archbold 2015 at 7-112: Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – Whether finding of apparent bias in first trial is a bar to re-trial – Limitation period for repealed summary offence – Abuse of process re conduct of the executive – Abuse of process re age, state of health and inability to recover defence costs – Discretion to order costs in the appeal.
  • Lawrence v Poorah [2008] UKPC 21; Blackstone’s Civil Practice 2014 at 24.24: Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – Equitable doctrines of undue influence and unconscionable bargain – Sole issue before High Court whether donor of sound mind, memory and understanding – Whether Court of Appeal entitled to reverse decision of High Court on grounds not pleaded and for which permission to raise new grounds neither sought nor granted – Whether doctrine of unconscionable bargain applicable to gifts.
  • Regina v Deyemi & Edwards [2007] EWCA Crim 2060; [2008] 1 Cr.App.R 25; (2008) 172 J.P. 137; [2008] Crim LR 327; Archbold 2015 at 24-30: England & Wales – Possession of a Prohibited Weapon – Definition of possession – Concept of strict liability – Change in legal climate regarding offence of strict liability following the decisions of B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428, R v K [2001] 3 All ER 897 and R v G [2004] 1 AC 1034 – Whether concept of strict liability affected by Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • Regina v Drew & Others; Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2008 at B3.208; Blackstone’s 2009 at B3.216: England & Wales – Conspiracy to Control Prostitution for Gain – Definition of “control” – Whether includes element of compulsion and/or power to exert influence over another person’s behaviour – Applicability of Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1995) per Rose LJ on “control” for previous law.
  • Panday v Virgil [2007] MAG. APP. NO. 75 OF 2006: Trinidad & Tobago – Knowingly making a False Declaration – Appearance of bias on the part of a judicial officer (Magistrate) – International judicial standards.
  • Regina v Willis [2007] EWCA Crim 79: England & Wales – Conspiracy to Steal and Assault With Intent To Rob – Application of Sentencing Council Guidelines for Robbery – Young Offender – Departing from Guidelines – Lawfulness of concurrent sentences.
  • Regina v Crandle & Cullen [2006] EWCA Crim 2663: England & Wales – GBH With Intent – Bad character notice – Lateness of service – Procedure for application – Application of Criminal Procedure Rules – Procedure for dealing with written jury question – Prosecution counsel going beyond scope of jury question in cross-examination – Sentencing range for GBH With Intent where no disabling or permanent injuries.
  • Regina v Green [2005] EWCA Crim 2513; (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 1350, CA; Archbold 2015 at 4-418: England & Wales – Murder and Manslaughter – Joint enterprise and intent – Role of principal and secondary – Manner in which indictment framed and case advanced to jury – Final evidential landscape – Inconsistent verdicts – Value of written aide-memoire in complex cases – Form of summing-up in complex cases.
  • Campbell v Hamlet (as executrix) [2005] UKPC 19; (2005) 66 WIR 346; [2005] 3 All ER 1116: Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – Attorney at law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Allegation tantamount to criminal offence – Distinction between civil and criminal standard – Standard of proof to be applied – Delay of 8 years.
  • Ramsarran v Attorney General [2005] UKPC 8; (2005) 66 WIR 280: Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – Constitution – Human rights and fundamental freedoms – Arrest and detention of person on warrant of commitment for non-payment of fine – Police refusal to allow detainee to communicate with lawyer – Whether contravention of constitutional rights.
  • Attorney General v Ramanoop [2005] UKPC 15; (2005) 66 WIR 334: Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – Constitution – Human rights and fundamental freedoms – Unlawful arrest and detention of appellant – Appellant assaulted by police constable during arrest and detention – Whether entitled to additional award for gravity of constitutional infringement.
  • Boodoosingh v Ramnarace [2005] UKPC 9; (2005) 66 WIR 287: Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council) – Assault and battery (Civil) – Fresh evidence – Perjury in judicial proceedings – Judgment tainted – Appeal to set aside whole judgment – Dismissal of appeal – Whether if perjury established, setting aside whole judgment necessarily proper remedy.

Business Crime


Anand has substantial experience in Business Crime. This includes serious fraud (including accounting, mortgage, tax fraud), corruption, misconduct in public office, bribery, misconduct of company directors and director’s disqualification. His knowledge and experience of commercial and company law is an asset when advising individuals and companies alike both pre-charge and pre-trial, especially in relation to complicated financial transactions and company structuring in both criminal and related civil cases.

Cases

  • R v Khan & Others: Conspiracy to Commit Misconduct in Public Office. This conspiracy involved bribery, a serving customs officer, excise fraud re importation of alcohol, complex modus operandi, complex company structuring and financial evidence and circumventing HMRC approval procedures re WOWGR and MG. Anand was instructed to lead for the second defendant company director and successfully cross-examined two financial experts resulting in substantial concessions favourable to the second defendant.
  • R v Pawlyn: Theft and False Accounting. The offences involved deception of an elderly, unwell company director and theft from the company by an accountant. The deception was perpetuated by an elaborate deception accessing accounts, bona fide remuneration and compromising banking access preventing early discovery. The case involved detailed cross-examination of a forensic accountant on complex financial records and non-compliance with the rules for adducing expert evidence and expressing opinions.
  • R v Chellerpermal & Another: Human Trafficking for Exploitation and Employing Illegal Immigrants. Anand was instructed for the second defendant company director in this complex exploitation by deception involving care homes for the elderly and infirm. The case involved cross-examining numerous workers and a successful complex legal argument in relation to the issues of constructive knowledge, the lack of threat or use of force and employment law as to the minimum wage.
  • VOSA v Wills & Banham: Serious and complex MOT fraud. This fraud involved the owner/manager and an employee circumventing MOT computer testing protocols. Anand was instructed for the first defendant and successfully led a complex voir dire cross-examining VOSA officials and making an abuse of process argument involving VOSA’s prosecution policy and practice, the application of the evidential stage test, contradictory disciplinary findings, failure to disclose those findings and the application of the ex post facto principle.
  • Virgil v Panday (Trinidad & Tobago): Corruption and alleged breaches of the Integrity in Public Life Act. Anand was instructed as led junior in a long running case alleging corruption of a former Prime Minister. The first trial was followed by a successful appeal involving the apparent bias of the then Chief Magistrate, with severe implications for the then Chief Justice where improper interference was alleged. At the re-trial the defendant was acquitted.
  • State v Galbaransingh & Others (Trinidad & Tobago): Receiving Corrupt Payment and Aiding and Abetting in Receiving Corrupt Payment. Anand is instructed as sole junior in this long running complex bribery and corruption case involving the construction of Piarco International Airport for the third and fourth defendants. The case involves complex issues of the required essential knowledge, role and involvement of multiple public bodies and companies, and the decision making matrix for determining tenders.

Confiscation


Anand has extensive experience in confiscation. He is regularly instructed in contested high value confiscation proceedings since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 became law. His advice is often sought prior to related criminal proceedings as related issues often arise during criminal trials that require early anticipatory preparation.

Cases

  • R v Ghafoor: Confiscation proceedings in high value claim involving VAT, Corporation Tax, Excise Duty arising from multiple companies, directorships and accounts. HMRC sought in excess of £2 million. After a number of complex legal arguments, including a company law argument against piercing the corporate veil and the proper application of the reference in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to lifestyle offences, the confiscation order was reduced to £7,700.
  • R v Iqbal: Confiscation proceedings in high value claim involving gains from a fraudulent scheme involving academic undergraduate tuition and Colleges. The prosecution originally sought in excess of £1 million from the director. Following detailed analysis of the financial material resulting in concessions, legal argument and negotiation, the order was agreed in the total sum of £228,100.
  • R v Chellerpermal: Confiscation proceedings in high value claim involving VAT, Corporation Tax, Minimum Wage and Employment Law e.g. as to provision of accommodation in the course of employment. The prosecution originally sought in excess of £1.9 million from two directors. Following detailed analysis of the financial material resulting in concessions, successful legal argument and negotiation, the order was agreed in the total sum of £225,000 from each director.
  • R v Corda: Confiscation proceedings in high value claim involving Conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs. Following detailed analysis of the financial material and successful legal argument a minimal payment was agreed.
  • CDC v Fabb: Confiscation proceedings in high value claim involving counterfeit / pirate films, games and other media. Following detailed analysis of the financial material and successful legal argument a minimal payment was agreed.

Crime


Anand has extensive experience in single and multiple defendant serious and complex general criminal cases. This includes armed robbery, firearms offences and drugs offences etc.

Cases

  • R v Yoxall & Others: Conspiracy to rob with possession of firearms. Professionally planned conspiracy to rob a travellers’ site involving over twenty people, arising in the context of the commission of drugs offences. The case involved cross-examination on detailed and complex cell site expert evidence and also included substantial phone downloads, GPS, photographic, CCTV, and expert evidence on fingerprints and DNA.
  • R v Paget: Wounding with intent with firearm. Point blank shooting of a security guard following an altercation outside a nightclub. Offence caught on CCTV and resulted in serious injuries. The case involved substantial CCTV and cross-examination of numerous eyewitnesses and firearms and ballistic expert evidence.
  • R v Male & Others: Conspiracy to kidnap and false imprisonment. Well planned attack and kidnapping for ransom involving over eight people arising in the context of a gang dispute over drugs territory. The case involved cross-examination of the victims, detailed and complex cell site expert evidence, substantial phone downloads, GPS, photographic, covert surveillance and CCTV evidence.
  • R v Rideout & Another: Class A drugs supply operation. Sophisticated market targeting, contentious drugs valuations, covert surveillance, complex modus operandi and cut-throat defences.

Environmental


Anand has represented companies in environmental criminal and regulatory proceedings and for breaches of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Cases

  • LBL v Shaker Kitchens Ltd: Company indicted for breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to commercial waste disposal, waste transfers and statutory administrative requirements for waste transfers. The prosecution also applied to adduce evidence of bad character against the company for previous breaches. Anand mounted a complex pre-trial application to dismiss based on the 1990 Act, Companies Act 2006 and Waste Duty of Care Code of Practice, which was successful.
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Marathon Ltd: Judicial review of the Secretary of State challenging a decision arising from averred inadequate investigation into a competitor company’s commercial conduct in placing products into the aftermarket and for failing to take regulatory action for alleged breaches of the Motor Vehicles (Replacement of Catalytic Converters and Pollution Control Devices) Regulations 2009, involving environmental protection (emissions) in the motor vehicle industry. Anand was instructed for the claimant company for judicial review, which resulted in a successful settlement of the claim.

Fraud


Anand has extensive experience defending in serious and complex fraud cases. His knowledge and experience of commercial and company law is an asset to advising individuals and companies alike both pre-charge and pre-trial. His attention to detail, especially in relation to complicated financial transactions, is widely regarded as second as none and he is widely sought after as leading counsel in such cases.

Cases

  • R v Khan & Others: Conspiracy to Commit Misconduct in Public Office. This conspiracy involved bribery, a serving customs officer, excise fraud re importation of alcohol, complex modus operandi, complex company structuring and financial evidence and circumventing HMRC approval procedures re WOWGR and MG. Anand was instructed to lead for the second defendant company director and successfully cross-examined two financial experts resulting in substantial concessions favourable to the second defendant.
  • R v Okunsanye & Others: Serious and complex £3m fraud against Wonga. The fraud involved the circumventing of online security procedures for obtaining payday loans using multiple false identities. Anand was instructed for the second defendant in a cut-throat defence involving the first and third defendants.
  • VOSA v Wills & Banham: Serious and complex MOT fraud. This fraud involved the owner/manager and an employee circumventing MOT computer testing protocols. Anand was instructed for the first defendant and successfully led a complex abuse of process argument involving VOSA’s prosecution policy and practice, the application of the evidential stage test, contradictory disciplinary findings, failure to disclose those findings and the application of the ex post facto principle.

International


Anand is a member of the bar of Trinidad and Tobago and has practised in that jurisdiction since 2001. His practice there encompasses both criminal and civil work. His services are regularly sought by local attorneys for High Court trials, appeals to the Court of Appeal and appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

Cases

  • State v Galbaransingh & Others (Trinidad and Tobago): Receiving a Corrupt Payment and Aiding and Abetting in Receiving a Corrupt Payment – Knowledge of essential matters – Actual role in participation – Involvement of State or public body – Decision making matrix for determining tender for construction of Piarco International Airport (Trinidad) by a private company – Sufficiency of evidence and proper inferences
  • Virgil v Panday (Trinidad and Tobago): Corruption and alleged breaches of the Integrity in Public Life Act. Anand was led in a long running case alleging corruption of a former Prime Minister. The first trial was followed by a successful appeal involving apparent bias of the then Chief Magistrate, with severe implications for the then Chief Justice where improper interference was alleged. At the re-trial the defendant was acquitted.
  • SH v Government of India (England and Wales): Alleged breach of contract for legal services in the High Court (London) – International arbitration – Status of standard terms of business – Contract terms contained in letter as basis for retainer – Whether letter to prevail in the event of conflict with standard terms – Drafting defence and counterclaim
  • R v Mohammed (Trinidad & Tobago): Capital Murder involving joint enterprise. Anand was instructed as sole counsel and formulated a complex successful legal argument to quash the indictment post-committal on the basis of insufficient evidence.

Judicial Review


Anand has substantial experience in judicial review in both criminal and civil cases. His experience includes challenging decisions of Magistrates’ and Crown Courts as well as government departments and other public bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions.

Cases

  • R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Marathon: Judicial review of the Secretary of State for failing to take regulatory action for breaches of a statutory instrument involving environmental protection in the motor vehicle industry.
  • Oak Furniture Land v ASA Adjudicators: Judicial review of advertising review body for upholding a complaint in relation to advertising standards when their own Code of Practice did not support such conclusion and ran counter to it.
  • Panday v Espinet (Trinidad & Tobago): Judicial review of Magistrate’s decision refusing to recuse herself in a corruption case on the grounds of apparent bias.

Murder & Manslaughter


Anand has extensive experience defending in serious and complex murder cases. One of his earliest notable murder trials was in 2005 where following the trial Anand was instructed to replace a distinguished leading Silk for the appeal and secured an acquittal on a charge of murder in R v Green [2005] EWCA Crim 2513; (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 1350, CA (cited in Archbold), which set a precedent for providing written directions to a jury. From his early years of criminal practice Anand has been instructed in multiple defendant cases involving extreme violence and homicide. For almost twenty years he has been regularly instructed to defend in such cases and on taking Silk to lead homicide cases. He has vast experience in relation to the law on police interviews, identification, complex cell-site evidence, DNA, fingerprint, blood spatter, gun-shot residue and unusual medical conditions.

Cases

  • R v Boakye & Others – Murder, conspiracy to murder and supplying class A drugs. Leading. Complex case alleging lynching of drug addict for robbing drug dealer and cross-examination of eyewitnesses. Extensive phone, media, cell site and CCTV evidence. Successful application to dismiss drugs offences pre-trial where drugs offences were alleged to be the motive for the murder.
  • R v Warnock – Murder and rape. Led. Historic offences. The case involved complex expert evidence including DNA (degradation of samples and historic standards of obtaining and storing samples) and Dental impressions (movement of teeth over 30 year period, causation, effect of post-mortem on sample). Anand made a successful argument to exclude evidence of child offences on arrest sought to be adduced as bad character and joinder for the murder trial.
  • R v Mahdi: Murder involving complex medical evidence. Led. The case involved complex expert cardio-thoracic evidence, expert blood chemical evidence and causation evidence. This required forensic cross-examination of prosecution expert evidence and amending the defence statement in light of the new expert evidence. Following a trial and re-trial the defendant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter.
  • R v Radpaul: Attempted murder of an infant. Sole counsel. The case involved complex psychiatric evidence and a complex legal argument in relation to the law on insanity. Following cross-examination of numerous police and eyewitnesses and a psychiatrist at trial, the defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
  • R v Toto & Others: Attempted Murder resulting in permanent disability. Sole counsel. The case involved complex cell-site and gunshot residue evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, as well as alibi. The case also involved legally complex issues in relation to related proceedings for possession of the firearm. Following trial and appeal the defendant was acquitted.
  • R v Mohammed (Trinidad & Tobago): Capital Murder involving joint enterprise. Sole counsel. Formulated a complex successful legal argument to quash the indictment post-committal on the basis of insufficient evidence.

Professional Discipline


Anand has significant and varied experience in professional discipline work, which encompasses both discipline and professional negligence. In this regard he has advised and appeared in high value claims involving serious misconduct or negligence, including where death has occurred

Cases

  • The Estate of LP v NHS: Medical negligence claim against hospital following death of a patient following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. After inquest hearing and correspondence a settlement was offered.
  • GMC v Dr S: Doctor charged with offences before the GMC involving issues of probity in representations made to police on investigating a road traffic offence. Anand represented the doctor where the act was not disputed. After calling evidence and making legal submissions a minimal penalty was imposed.
  • R v Dr R: Doctor accused of multiple road traffic offences. Anand represented the doctor making a successful legal argument resulting in the prosecution conceding the charges were duplicitous or unnecessary, and only one charge was appropriate.
  • Campbell v Hamlet (as executrix) [2005] UKPC 19; (2005) 66 WIR 346; [2005] 3 All ER 1116 (Trinidad & Tobago – Privy Council): Attorney at law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Allegation tantamount to criminal offence – Distinction between civil and criminal standard of proof – Standard of proof to be applied – Delay of 8 years

Serious Sexual Offences


Anand has extensive experience defending in serious sexual offence cases. These have included multiple defendant rape cases, child rape and sexual assault cases (including in family settings), multi-handed grooming, trafficking and prostitution cases. Anand was also involved in the case of R v Drew & Others (cited in Sexual Offences Law and Practice by Rook and Ward) on the modern definition of controlling prostitution. In recent years, as these types of cases have increased, they have become a more prominent feature of Anand’s practice

Cases

  • R v M and others: Conspiracy to control prostitution, trafficking and money laundering. Leading for second defendant prostitute and manager. Complex case involving cross-examining over ten sex workers alleged to have been trafficked from Romania. Prostitution operation based on a non-coercion business model. Substantial and complex modus operandi and financial evidence. Acquittal on main charge of international trafficking. Complex sentencing exercise resulting in short sentence and successful resistance to the imposition of a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
  • R v G: Child rape and sexual assault. Sole counsel. The case involved historical allegations against a father by his children. Following sensitive and restricted cross-examination of the children and more robust cross-examination of adult parental witnesses the case was discontinued.
  • R v IF & Others: Multi-handed grooming, trafficking, rape and sexual assault case. Sole counsel for the third defendant. The case involved multiple defendants alleging trafficking for sexual exploitation. Following Sensitive and restricted cross-examination, and challenge to cell site, phone data and social media evidence. Defendant acquitted.
  • R v M: Controlling prostitution. Sole counsel. Complex case involving female owner of internet sexual services provider. None of the sexual services or activities of the prostitutes were denied. Complex sentencing exercise resulting in suspended sentence.
  • R v D & Others: Conspiracy to control prostitution, trafficking and money laundering. Sole counsel for second defendant bookkeeper in complex case involving cross-examination of sex workers alleged to be trafficked within the UK, as well as support workers to facilitate trafficking. Defendant acquitted.
  • R v C: Child rape. Sole counsel. The case involved allegations against an elderly great-grandfather. Following sensitive and restricted cross-examination of the child and robust cross-examination of the parents a financial motive was identified. The case also involved complex expert evidence on sexual/hymen injuries for the prosecution and the defence, defence expert evidence on erectile dysfunction and causation. Defendant acquitted.

Memberships


  • Constitutional & Administrative Bar Association
  • Criminal Bar Association
  • Law Association of Trinidad & Tobago
  • Professional Negligence Bar Association

Qualifications


  • Attorney at Law (Trinidad & Tobago)
  • LLB Hons (Herts)
  • LLM (Lond)