Harry Ahuja

Harry’s criminal practice spans a broad spectrum, including:

• Serious violence (GBH, attempted murder)
• Firearms and armed robbery
• Public disorder offences
• Drug offences, including county lines cases
• Full range of sexual offences
• Child cruelty and other sensitive offences

Harry also has wide-ranging experience of litigating ancillary orders which include;

• Breaches of SHPOs and registration requirements
• Firearm appeals
• ASBOs
• Closure orders
• Road Traffic Act – special reasons and exceptional hardship arguments

Recent Cases of Interest

• R v FU (2024) at Bristol Crown Court – multiple defendant stabbing case charged under section 18, GBH with intent.  Harry represented a youth involved in this drug related gang incident which occurred in a park in Taunton.  Defendant was a foreign national with limited ability to speak English, 16 years of age with various vulnerabilities.  Client had mental health difficulties requiring psychiatric assessment and the case involved advancing modern slavery arguments to secure a favourable result.
• R v LM (2024) at Taunton Crown Court – acquittal of client upon counts of rape and assault.  Case involved entry into the complainant’s home and committing an alleged violent rape whilst she claims to have suffered numerous ‘black outs’.  This case also featured significant covert recording made by the defendant and post allegation contact between the parties.
• R v JO (2024) at Taunton Crown Court – acquittal of client upon a count of rape.  Case involved the use of a defence instructed gynaecological expert at trial to challenge the impact of a diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome and operative procedures on the complainant’s cervix, just prior to the alleged rape, leading to medical advice for her to refrain from sexual intercourse, thus strengthening her allegation.
• R v JA (2024) at Taunton Crown Court – acquittal of multiple rape counts upon a 14 year old female child. Case involved a campaign of alleged repeated violent and abusive sexual assaults over several months involving a very vulnerable youth complainant with significant mental health difficulties and suffering with Tourette’s syndrome.  This case required a careful and tactful examination of the complainant who was assisted by an intermediary as well as a detailed analysis before the jury of extensive CAMHS records.
• R v AG (2024) at Taunton Crown Court – successfully defended a client facing a charge of section 18 GBH with intent.  Self-defence advanced in a case involving the defendant’s use of a motor vehicle to cause significant injuries to the complainant.  Led to conviction on section 20 and a much more favourable sentence, with some mitigating features.
• R v AS (2023) at Bristol Crown Court – successfully defended a husband accused of multiple allegations of rape against his wife.  Case involved cross examination of a physically and mentally vulnerable complainant as well as having to surmount a damaging covertly recorded confession by the defendant.
• R v SB (2023) at Taunton Crown Court – defendant charged with ABH and strangulation successfully acquitted.  This case required a tactical and detailed consideration of unused material to challenge the complainants’ credibility and to establish self-defence.
• R v DC (2022) at Taunton Crown Court – successfully defended serious sexual allegations against two youth complainants (sisters), alongside additional historic allegations by a third adult complainant (half-sister).  Involved careful cross – examination of young vulnerable witnesses.  Acquitted of all counts.
• R v PB (2022) at Taunton Crown Court – multi-defendant rape and false imprisonment case.  Case involved examination of a vulnerable young complainant, with intermediary assistance, who was alleging a violent gang rape conducted upon her in her own home.  This case involved sensitive disclosed material and successfully arguing a crucial section 41 application which enabled an effective cross-examination of the complainant at trial, leading to acquittal.
• R v DW (2022) at Taunton Crown Court – successfully defended client in relation to an allegation of racially aggravated assault.
• R v AW and others (2019) at Bristol Crown Court – multi-handed defendant trial involving a gang attending a property to inflict serious injuries using hammers and other weapons.  Successfully defended client against an allegation of aggravated burglary.
• R v JD (2019) at Taunton Crown Court – successful acquittal in relation to multiple historic counts of sexual assault upon children under 13.  Case involved examination of 3 complainants (all sisters) who were the defendant’s step- grandchildren and numerous ‘recent complaint’ witnesses.
• R v B and others (2016) Bristol Crown Court – Multiple defendant murder trial.  Represented one of six defendants in this high-profile Somerset case involving the use of shotguns which resulted in a fatal dispute between rival traveller families.

Harry has substantial experience of prosecuting and defending in regulatory matters, including:

•     Trading Standards
•     Environmental Health
•     Food Safety
•     Health and Safety breaches
•     Benefit Fraud
•     Animal Welfare (RSPCA)

He is regularly instructed by local authorities and regulatory bodies and has acted in several high-value and complex prosecutions.

Recent Cases of Interest

• Cornwall Council v Richards (2024) at Truro Crown Court – prosecuted a high value trading standards case involving a rogue trader, resulting in a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
• R v Aktar & Decarteret (2021) at Bristol Crown Court – successful multi-handed prosecution involving serious food safety offences relating to a local Bristol business premises.
• Cornwall Council v Underwood (2020) at Truro Crown Court – prosecuted a £400,000 fraud case involving the provision of illegal sky streaming services.
• Forest of Dean District Council v Chaloner (2020) at Gloucester Crown Court – successfully prosecuted a complex breach of enforcement notice relating to land located in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
• North Somerset Council v Gasson (2020) at Bristol Crown Court – prosecution of serious food safety offences relating to a local Bristol business premises.

• AG Reference (French) (2017) EWCA Crim 1207 – Successfully challenged this AG reference to ensure an immediate custodial sentence was not passed for a serious sexual offence.
• R v Vaughn Glynn (2012) EWCA Crim 73 – Successful appeal against the imposition of a discretionary life sentence for serious sexual offending against children on the grounds that this was wrong in principle.
• R v Ryan Shaun Andrew (2010) EWCA Crim 798 – Appeal against conviction – Possession Class A drugs with intent to supply. The focus of this unsafe conviction related to the conduct of the Judge at trial. The court considered the nature of the Recorder’s questioning of the appellant when giving evidence before the jury and improper comments made by him during the summing up. The appeal against conviction was allowed and accordingly the three-year sentence was overturned.
• R v Popescu and others [2010] EWCA Crim 2466 – Appeal against sentence – Multiple frauds. Sentence successfully appealed in respect of fraudulent use of cloned credit cards of Japanese bank customers by a group of Romanian nationals in the UK. The court accepted that where criminal activity was within the scope of the ‘banking and insurance fraud’ sentencing guideline it is incorrect to sentence outside the prescribed range on the basis of the impact of the offending on the commercial system since such an impact is an inherent part of any activity to which the guideline applies.
• R v Chalupa [2009] EWHC 3082 (Admin) – Case stated – Failing to provide a specimen of breath under section 7(6) RTA 1988. Appeal by way of case stated in relation to the Magistrates’ decision not to exclude evidence of breath test procedure under section 78 of PACE 1984.
• R v Jason Higgins (2009) EWCA Crim 708 – Appeal against sentence – Racially aggravated common assault. Sentence appealed on the basis that the court should have adopted a two-stage approach in considering the appropriate term for the basic offence of assault and then imposing an uplift to reflect the racial aggravation. The court agreed with this principle and confirmed that the judge had erred in not following approach, however the overall term of 18 months’ imprisonment was still not deemed to be manifestly excessive.