Sachin Rajput Barrister

Languages

  • English - English

Office location

Harlesden

17-19 High Street, NW10 4NE

Tel: 020 8961 5146

Summary

Sachin Rajput was called to the bar of England & Wales in 2004. Having joined the team of expert criminal defence lawyers at EBR Attridge LLP in 2011 he has continued to develop his working practice nationally throughout the UK courts

Sachin Rajput is an experienced trial advocate with a busy and varied Crown Court practice. He is entitled to appear in all Courts and in all proceedings including civil proceedings. He is regularly instructed both privately and through public funding in serious and complex crime including white collar crime. He does not discriminate against the nature of any case and is able to defend in cases whether brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, Serious Fraud Office or other law enforcement agency. He is often instructed in cases which have an international element of criminality including elements of cross-border police investigations.

Sachin is able to provide representation to company directors and owners as well as other corporate bodies facing prosecution by law enforcement agencies and financial regulatory authorities including, by way of example, the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority), formally known as the FSA (Financial Services Authority) and the National Health & Safety Executive.

Although Sachin has a busy Crown Court advocacy practice, he is police station accredited and has rights to conduct litigation too whereby he can represent clients from the police station stage right the way through to the Crown Court and Appellate Courts making him a valuable asset to the EBR Attridge LLP team and indeed of benefit to clients in general due to the breath of his experience.

Contact Sachin Rajput

Sachin Rajput can be contacted via email enquiries@ebrattridge.com  to discuss how he together with other team members at EBR Attridge LLP may be of service.

Experience

EXAMPLES OF CASES:

Homicide and violence

  • R v. H – Attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. The defendant was charged with another in relation to the drive by shooting of a male who suffered life changing injury.
  • R v. W – Murder. The victim suffered head injury as a result of striking the pavement after being flung to the ground which subsequently resulted in his death.
  • R v. R – Unlawful wounding. Victim suffered a broken eye socket and skull.
  • R v. B – Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life – Discharging of a firearm through a bedroom window from which someone had just appeared.
  • R v. M – Multi-handed case involving weapon-enabled violence, robbery, kidnap and false imprisonment of a male and his girlfriend.
  • R v. D – Multi-handed violent disorder including a fatality. The defendant faced proceedings along with many co-defendants, including for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm on his part.
  • R v. B – Murder. Resulting from a fatal stabbing in a busy London bar.

 

Sexual offences

  • R v. A – Sexual assault allegation on the London Underground tube network.
  • R v. C – Rape. - The defendant was charged with stranger rape involving the added trauma of robbing and thieving from his victim.
  • R v. M – Serious sexual assault by penetration by a previously convicted sex-offender against his cousin.
  • R v. H – Serious sexual assault on numerous occasions including penetration by a male of his step-grand daughter.
  • R v. D – Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Vulnerable mentally disabled male forced to engage in penetrative anal sex with the defendant.

 

Organised crime

  • R v. N – Multi-handed case of kidnapping along with robbery, false imprisonment, blackmail and burglary on the indictment.
  • R v. M – The defendant herself was a female prostitute who was charged along with others with conspiracy to traffic persons into and also within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation. She was also charged with controlling prostitution for gain and related money laundering offending. The prosecution brought against the criminal gang involved both UK police and the Romanian authorities and many prosecution witnesses gave evidence via live-link from a Romanian Court.
  • R v. T – Cash-transit / ATM armed robbery, including possession of a firearm, with a loss of c. £235,000.
  • R v. C – Importation of a significant quantity of Khat through London Southend Airport
  • R v. N – The defendant was prosecuted with others for armed robbery concerning the robbing of a number of jewellers with the use of serious violence including the use of a stun gun.
  • R v. D – Conspiracy to steal motor vehicles and receiving stolen motor vehicle. Large scale theft of luxury cars for part stripping.
  • R v. S – Armed Robbery. The defendant was prosecuted along with others after a Flying Squad investigation, involving twelve armed robberies on bookmakers in London and the home-counties with the use of firearms.
  • R v. S – Controlling prostitution for gain. Organised sex parties with an allegation of trafficked women partaking alongside consenting pornographic models.

 

Fraud, Money laundering and Proceeds of Crime (POCA)

  • R v. P – The defendant was a leading role in this advance fee fraud conspiracy with 187 victims across the country and a loss exceeding £1 million.
  • R v. P – The defendant was a leading role in this conspiracy defrauding a well-known national business with around £280,000 losses suffered.
  • R v. A – The defendant was a company director prosecuted along with other professional businessmen in relation to money laundering.
  • R v. D – Conspiracy to defraud and money laundering involving several senior charity figures with a c. £5.5 million loss suffered as a result of the Gift Aid fraud.
  • R v. H – Immigration fraud – The defendant was prosecuted along with others following a Panorama exposé into mass-scale fake student exam-sittings and production of fraudulent banking material and qualifications to permit extensions to student visas for foreign nationals otherwise not entitled to the same.
  • R v. M – Cheating the public revenue. The defendant was a qualified accountant and director concerned with defrauding HMRC to the sum of c. £170,000.
  • R v. C – Theft and Fraud. Theft of significant sums of money over a lengthy period of time by a carer in significant breach of trust.