Instructed on behalf principal defendant in a case concerning international drugs conspiracies to import and supply class A and B drugs, associated money laundering, and possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition. The case was prosecuted and investigated by officers of the Organised Crime Partnership – a collaboration between the National Crime Agency and the Metropolitan Police.

The prosecution alleged that the client was a key participant in the drugs conspiracies, importing and then supplying class A and B drugs nationwide. A large scale cannabis factory was also discovered in the UK. It was alleged that millions of pounds in cash were moved between international jurisdictions. The case relied heavily on telephonic evidence, including encrochat devices.

As a result of a series of successful disclosure requests and representations made by the defence team, the prosecution reviewed the case against the client five days into the trial and ultimately offered no evidence on the five conspiracy counts, both importing and supplying, indicted against the client.

To achieve this successful outcome, the defence had to challenge the evidence in these key areas, with the assistance of expert witnesses:

• Telephone and Cell Site evidence
• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data
• Forensic and DNA evidence
• Covert recordings and surveillance
• Firearms evidence
• Financial Evidence
• Drugs analysis
• CCTV and Imagery
• Computer and digital forensics

The case received international press coverage.

Secure acquittals for the outstanding defendant dubbed “The Master Mind” in three multi handed drugs conspiracies involving encrypted telephones.

The prosecution alleged the client was the leading figure in three separate drugs conspiracies; arranging the exportation, production and supply of Class A, B and C drugs through prestigious universities. The Crown alleged that the drugs were supplied in UK universities and flown out of the UK in private jets for young high net worth purchasers. Recent studies suggest that young people and students in affluent communities are at greater risk of substance abuse; the cause of which being the enormous pressure to achieve academically.

The co-defendants were tried in 2018 and then adjourned to 2019. Narita and Harry secured acquittals for a co-defendant (dubbed second in command) in the earlier trial. Please read more here.

The police obtained search warrants for all the client’s properties and businesses. They were unable to locate the client at the time of the original two trials. The client voluntarily attended the police station in 2020. He was arrested and charged.

The Crown sought to rely on a combination of encrypted telephones, cell site, digital media, telephone and DNA evidence to secure a conviction against the client.

After extensive preparation and representations by the defence team, the prosecution conceded the written dismissal application and agreed to Offer No Evidence against their client. Not Guilty verdicts were entered on all counts relating to the client.

Appeared for the first defendant in three multi handed drugs conspiracies (leading).

The prosecution alleged the client was involved in a leading role in three separate conspiracies; arranging the exportation, production and supply of Class A, B and C drugs through prestigious universities. The Crown alleged that the drugs were supplied in UK universities and flown out of the UK in private jets for young high net worth purchasers. The Sentencing Council’s definitive sentencing guidelines indicated that the client could have faced a sentence in the region of 20 years imprisonment, in the event of conviction.

The Crown sought to rely on a combination of cell site, digital media, telephone and DNA evidence to secure a conviction against the client. Shortly before the trial the prosecution “cracked” the defendant’s locked iPhone. Following a disclosure request the prosecution made a Public Interest Immunity application.

Narita succeeded in excluding evidence obtained from the unlocked phones on the grounds of unfairness to the defendant. As a result of representations made by the defence the Crown offered no evidence against the client. Not Guilty verdicts were entered on all counts.

The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) brought a prosecution which they alleged had a substantial international dimension. It was alleged the client was the UK ringleader of the sophisticated operation.

The MHRA is an Executive Agency of the Department of Health responsible for the regulation and control of medicines and medical devices for on the UK market. The MHRA Enforcement Group includes a Prosecutions Unit who investigated and brought this case. The MHRA used undercover investigators and extensive covert surveillance methods in the course of their investigation. The case required challenging evidence which had not been obtained in accordance with Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The client was alleged to be one of the ringleaders running a substantial and lucrative drop shipping business, conspiring with others, to import prescription only medicines (POMs), unauthorised medicines and Class C drugs from the Indian subcontinent into the UK, for onward sale across Europe. A number of illicit online drug sales platforms were said to have been used in the conspiracy. The case involved detailed analysis of substantial amounts of digital evidence.

In one raid, the MHRA seized more than 300,000 tablets, worth in excess of £315,000. The prosecution suggested that the tablets seized represented a fraction of the overall illegal operation.

The prosecution then brought complex Proceeds of Crime Act (‘POCA’) proceedings seeking substantial sums of monies from criminal conduct and hidden assets. At a hearing this week, following protracted negotiations, the defence persuaded the prosecution to agree to an order for a significantly reduced sum. Read more here.

The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) brought a prosecution which they alleged had a substantial international dimension. It was alleged the client was the UK ringleader of the sophisticated operation.

The MHRA is an Executive Agency of the Department of Health responsible for the regulation and control of medicines and medical devices for on the UK market. The MHRA Enforcement Group includes a Prosecutions Unit who investigated and brought this case. The MHRA used undercover investigators and extensive covert surveillance methods in the course of their investigation. The case required challenging evidence which had not been obtained in accordance with Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The client was alleged to be one of the ringleaders running a substantial and lucrative drop shipping business, conspiring with others, to import prescription only medicines (POMs), unauthorised medicines and Class C drugs from the Indian subcontinent into the UK, for onward sale across Europe. A number of illicit online drug sales platforms were said to have been used in the conspiracy. The case involved detailed analysis of substantial amounts of digital evidence.

In one raid, the MHRA seized more than 300,000 tablets, worth in excess of £315,000. The prosecution suggested that the tablets seized represented a fraction of the overall illegal operation.

The prosecution then brought complex Proceeds of Crime Act (‘POCA’) proceedings seeking substantial sums of monies from criminal conduct and hidden assets. At a hearing this week, following protracted negotiations, the defence persuaded the prosecution to agree to an order for a significantly reduced sum. Read more here.

Client who ran a renowned Holistic Energy Healing Service acquitted of sexual assaults. A series of targeted disclosure requests resulted in obtaining email, what’s app and text messages between the complainant, client and other customers which enabled the defence to demonstrate that the complainant was unreliable. The Prosecution conceded that the material resulted in a necessary review of the evidence and later conceding that there was no longer a realistic possibility of conviction.

National Press Coverage.

Client was the sole defendant acquitted out of sixteen defendants allegedly involved in four shootings in Bedford. Prosecuted by the tri-force collaboration arrangement including Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, Eastern Region Special Operations Unit, Counter Terror Intelligence Unit and the Regional Organised Crime Unit. Defence succeeded due to deployment of strategic and tactical judgement.

National Press Coverage.

Client tried along with eight other defendants charged with a Conspiracy to supply class A drugs (to the value of three million pounds) spanning over two years. The prosecution alleged that the client played a leading role in the conspiracy by providing drugs to co-conspirators during a drought resulting from police closure of drugs factories. The prosecution sought to secure convictions based upon covert surveillance, automatic recognition plate evidence, CCTV, telephone evidence and cell site analysis. The prosecution alleged that the conspiracy spanned across the UK. Relied upon telecommunications experts to successfully challenge the prosecution evidence.

National Press Coverage.

Client was alleged to be the ring leader in a conspiracy to supply firearms and ammunition to the UK criminal underworld. The five co-defendants were tried previously and imprisoned for a total of 45 years. It was alleged that whilst serving his sentence for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, the client was directing operations, selling and distributing reactivated firearms and ammunition from his prison cell using an unauthorised mobile telephone. The client directed that purchased weapons should be reactivated at a workshop run by former Polish soldiers. More than 40 guns were sourced, including AK-47’s. Only 8 reactivated firearms out the 40+ linked to the gang were recovered. The case revolved around cell site and computer evidence. Experts on cybercrime were material in the case.

National Press Coverage

Instructed to a represent a high profile senior Solicitor in criminal proceedings emanating from civil proceedings in the Family Court. The charges were brought under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The case was unusually prosecuted by two senior CPS Lawyers and Queen’s Counsel due to the serious and unusual nature of proceedings. Post charge, advised on disciplinary hearings before the SRA and the Office for Supervision. Defence submissions and evidence obtained over the course of a year resulted in the prosecution offering no evidence on all counts. Not guilty verdicts were entered on the first day of trial.

Instructed to represent a client charged with managing an industrial cannabis factory within a disused Mill.

The factory was described by the media as “an industrial large scale set-up”. Illegal immigrants from Vietnam, were provided with a phones and food, but were living in squalid conditions and were prevented from leaving the mill. The prosecution case relied upon telephone and CCTV evidence which linked my client directly to the organisation and management of the operation. Narita’s focused written advocacy challenging the expert evidence resulted in the Crown offering no evidence on the first day of trial.

National Media Coverage.

Narita was instructed as a leading junior for the fourth defendant in the largest diamond heist in British history [£40 million] at Graff jewellers, London. The case rested on expert evidence of face recognition, APNR and cell site.

National media coverage.

Successfully defended the only sixteen-year old in a twenty defendant Class A Drugs Conspiracy. The prosecution alleged the client played a significant role in this established and large-scale operation.

The case involved deploying my experience of handling a vulnerable defendant. Narita identified that the client was suggestible and easily influenced by authority and adults. An Educational Psychologist and Psychiatrist were instructed and defences of suggestibility and duress were advanced. An intermediary was appointed to assist the client’s communication and enabled the client to participate effectively in the trial. The Police’s failure to acknowledge developmental differences between the client and adult co-defendants during all the searches and interrogation context was a live issue in the trial. Narita demonstrated the strengths and limitations of a youth’s memory, their communicative capacities, their social styles and orientation to adult questioners, and their susceptibility to suggestion.