Manveer exclusively defends in the Crown, Magistrates’ and Youth Courts. He has an exceptional track record in securing acquittals as well as lenient sentencing disposals owing to his “assertive and charismatic style of advocacy”. He is routinely requested by name by both clients and solicitors alike.
Manveer is instructed in a wide range of criminal matters, including offences of violence, offensive weapons, firearms, drugs supply, robbery, burglary, and road traffic matters.
Prior to joining Chambers, Manveer was a legal researcher in the Business Crime Department at Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP, whereby he specialised in international sanctions law. He also worked as an All England Law Reporter, covering the leading judgments of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
“Manveer was outstanding… his attention to detail was exceptional and the way he built the defence in such a short space of time was amazing… I am in awe of his skills” – Acquitted Client
“Best pupil ever… he will fight tooth and nail… a fearless advocate” – Banks & Partners Solicitors
“One of the first names I look to from his Chambers” – SVS Solicitors
“An extremely persuasive advocate” – Bark & Co Solicitors
“Stands out from the competition” – Stuart Miller Solicitors
R v KA (2021)
Junior counsel for D1 on a multi-handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs case. Crown place D1 as the ‘leading role’ offender in the supply of significant quantities of heroin and crack cocaine across Medway, Grimsby and Southend.
R v BS (2021)
Successful submission of no case to answer in regards to an offence of ABH. An independent eyewitness positively identified the defendant in a PACE-compliant ID parade. Defendant also admitted to being in the area in his police interview.
R v IH (2021)
Defendant acquitted of theft of a motor vehicle and handling stolen goods. Defendant was the driver of a stolen vehicle (displaying false plates) mere hours after it was reported stolen. The defendant failed to stop for police and was involved in a high-speed police pursuit, ending in a road traffic collision.
R v AM (2021)
Secured a suspended sentence for a defendant who pleaded guilty late to s.20 GBH. Defendant had a poor history of compliance with court orders, was in breach of a separate suspended sentence, and was wanted on two Bench Warrants.
R v RM (2021)
Privately instructed by a defendant successful in his appeal against conviction, involving submissions on the interpretation of a non-molestation order. Defendant retained his good character.
R v IQ (2021)
Defendant acquitted of assaulting an emergency worker. Complainant police officer gave evidence that the defendant had deliberately coughed in her face during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. BWV supported the Crown’s case.
R v GN (2021)
Successful submission of no case to answer in a domestic violence case, whereby the complainant had significant injuries and provided an immediate first account to police officers. Meticulous cross-examination completely undermined the complainant’s account and credibility.
R v RB (2021)
Defendant acquitted of sexual assault. Prosecution relied on live evidence of the complainant, as well as text messages sent by the defendant in the form of a confession and apology.
R v SL (2021)
Successful outcome for youth charged with s.18 GBH / wounding with intent. Defendant was alleged to have stabbed the complainant with a ‘hunting-style knife’ outside a school. Incident was captured on CCTV, and the defendant was positively identified in a PACE-compliant ID parade.
R v TG (2021)
Privately instructed by a defendant acquitted in a complex drug driving case, following a successful application to exclude the Crown’s expert evidence. Defendant retained his good character.
R v JM (2021)
Defendant acquitted of possession of a bladed article, despite having three previous convictions for knives.
R v EL (2021)
Youth acquitted of assault of an emergency worker. Careful cross-examination completely undermined the complainant police officer’s account and credibility.
R v ZG (2020)
Privately instructed by the North London gym that refused to close its premises during the UK Government’s nationwide COVID-19 lockdown measures. The local authority had applied for a closure order against the gym, sparking widespread publicity.
R v TB (2020)
HHJ persuaded not to impose the 7-year minimum mandatory sentence for a ‘third-strike’ Class A drug trafficking offence, despite the defendant having been on bail for PWITS Class A at the time of the offence.
R v RS (2020)
Defendant subject to extradition proceedings in respect of migrant smuggling across the English Channel. Mr Justice Holgate referred to Manveer’s submissions as “powerful”.
R v NH (2020)
Defendant acquitted of a ‘hate crime’ assault, namely, throwing boiling liquid over the complainant due to her homosexual orientation and disability. Crown relied upon live evidence of the complainant, as well as CCTV footage.
R v QT (2020)
Youth acquitted of knifepoint robbery. Complainant had positively identified the defendant in a PACE-compliant ID parade. Bad character evidence (four previous convictions for robbery) also formed part of the prosecution case.
R v DB (2020)
Defendant acquitted of possession of an offensive weapon (cosh). Defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ had been raised, namely, that the defendant was about to return the weapon to the police station, despite having passed a police station earlier that day and attempted to avoid officers during arrest.
R v AW (2020)
Defendant acquitted of possession of a bladed article. Defence of lack of knowledge had been raised, despite the knife having been located next to the defendant whilst the sole-occupant and driver of a vehicle.
R v YA (2020)
Defendant acquitted of allegations of domestic violence. Meticulous cross-examination of the complainant exposed devastating inconsistencies.
R v GG (2020)
Successful submission of no case to answer in regards to a racially-aggravated assault. Careful cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses revealed significant disparities in their accounts.
R v LW (2020)
Successful submission of no case to answer in respect of two separate allegations of TWOC, alleged to have been committed on the same day in close proximity. Defendant had been under high-level police surveillance in respect of a recent ‘gang shooting’.
R v SB (2020)
Secured a conditional discharge for a defendant guilty of assaulting three police officers by coughing and spitting at them during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mitigation was referred to as ‘exceptionally well presented’. Crown’s position was for the case to be committed to the Crown Court for a lengthy immediate custodial sentence.
R v AR (2020)
Privately instructed defendant acquitted of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit following a submission of no case to answer, involving complex legal argument and authorities.
R v SK (2020)
Defendant acquitted of possession of a bladed article (machete). Defendant was driving his motor vehicle when police officers discovered the machete tucked into the plastic edge of his driver’s seat.
R v SA (2020)
Defendant acquitted of all five charges, including possession of a bladed article. Had the defendant been found guilty, his suspended sentence would have been activated.
R v RS (2019)
Youth acquitted of two charges of being in possession of a bladed article, namely a zombie knife and machete. Two different defences had been raised: lack of knowledge in respect of the zombie knife, and ‘good reason’ in respect of the machete.
R v JT (2019)
Defendant acquitted of all robbery charges in a multi-handed youth trial, involving principles of joint enterprise liability and ID evidence.
R v OS (2019)
Defendant acquitted of assault following careful cross-examination of the complainant. CCTV showed the defendant ‘striking’ in the direction of the complainant.
R v SS (2019)
Youth acquitted of handling stolen goods following successful submission of no case to answer.
University of Law – BPTC
University of Southampton – LLB (Hons)