Ramya joined No5 chambers in January 2015 after two years practising at leading Chambers in London.
Ramya has built a wealth of expertise in criminal matters, for both the Prosecution and the Defence, representing both individuals and corporations. She has advised on a range of matters, including the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, international human rights law, appeals to the Court of Appeal (including in Imprisonment for Public Protection cases) and appeals to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The vast majority of her work is in the Crown Court, where her practice is in all areas of general crime, but she also has experience in the Magistrates’ Courts, and in the Court of Appeal.
Ramya has also worked on various cases involving large volumes of disclosure, legal professional privilege and Public Interest Immunity evidence. This included being part of a team of representatives for an Interested Party to the Hillsborough Inquest, as disclosure junior for two attempted murder trials involving highly sensitive information, disclosure junior in a large sexual offences trial involving sensitive third party disclosure and roles within Peters and Peters and Corker Binning analysing documents for legal professional privilege.
Ramya’s experience of financial crime is supplemented by her secondment to the Business Crime Group at Peters and Peters from July 2015 until November 2015 (where she worked on large scale SFO investigations), and before the Bar working at Corker Binning solicitors between 2011 and 2012, where she specialised in fraud cases (primarily a multi-million pound carbon credit fraud).
Before coming to the Bar, Ramya specialised for several years in human rights and international criminal law. She worked at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the Kurdish Human Rights Project, a grassroots human rights charity in Bangalore, India and the International Criminal Law Network in The Hague. In addition, Ramya gained a Masters in Human Rights from the London School of Economics. Ramya therefore demonstrably has a particular interest and capability in cases raising human rights issues.
Ramya also currently sits on the West Midlands Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel
Disclosure and Legal Professional Privilege
Ramya has acted in several large trials as disclosure junior involving attempted murder and sexual offences
Ramya acted in the Hillsborough Inquest for one of the interested parties, analysing the evidence for the purposes of their representation
Ramya analysed large volumes of documents over a four month period for legal professional privilege whilst on secondment to Peters and Peters
Ramya analysed large volumes of documents for legal professional privilege whilst working at Corker Binning
Ramya speaks decent Dutch, much better upper intermediate French and better, though homely, Kannada (a language native to the South Indian State of Karnataka).
R v Knights and Parsons [ 2 Cr App R (S) 33 (288);  EWCA Crim 1052]
Ramya acted as junior counsel for the appellants before Leveson LJ, in these cases involving appeals against sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection.
R v N(Z)  EWCA Crim 92
Ramya acted as junior counsel for the appellant in this reported case before the Court of Appeal. The case concerned the definition of harassment, the Court, allowing the appeal, agreed with the appellant’s submissions that harassment requires an element of oppression.
R v Zafran Khan
Ramya represented the appellant in a successful appeal against sentence for offences of aggravated burglary and blackmail
Between 2017 and 2018, Ramya prosecuted a multi-handed case of 19 Counts of burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary. The prosecution was the result of an extensive and complex investigation, so the case involved forensic analysis, cell site evidence, ANPR evidence, CCTV evidence and a large volume of telephone evidence. The case resolved shortly before trial after two of the defendants entered guilty pleas.
R – v- Ryan Egan and another (August 2017)
Ramya successfully argued, at Taunton Crown Court, that Nitrous Oxide fell under the medical exception to the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and therefore could not be proven to fall within the definition of ‘psychoactive substance’ within the meaning of the Act. As a result, the case was dismissed against her client. The case was the subject of widespread national publicity in both the print and television media (e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/laughing-has-nitrous-oxide-psychoactive-substances-act-judge-taunton-crown-court-a7920991.html, http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/30/nitrous-oxide-is-actually-still-legal-after-landmark-court-decision-6889733/). As a result, a number of test cases were taken to the Court of Appeal by defendants who had been found guilty in relation to Nitrous Oxide cases on previous, unrelated occasions under the same Act.
Ramya was led junior for the Prosecution in a large scale, multi-handed money laundering case. That resolved on the day of trial following guilty pleas.
R – v- Hindocha (December 2017)
Ramya was led junior to Andrew Mitchell QC, acting for the defence, in a confiscation case in which the Prosecution claimed a benefit figure of over 32 million. The defence successfully argued that the defendant fell under the category of mere custodian/courier and so should, exceptionally, not be found to have benefited to the full amount. As a result, the final confiscation order was below 200,000.
R – v Connors and Others (July 2016)
Ramya (as led junior) represented the first defendant in the case of Connors and others. This case formed part of Operation Imperial, investigating slavery and forced labour alleged to have taken place over the last few decades. The trial received national media coverage. More information can be found here:
Ramya achieved unanimous acquittals in a historic sexual abuse case where the allegations were several counts of an uncle abusing his niece in the 1980s and 1990s over a number of years, when she was aged between six and twelve years of age.
Ramya defended in a conspiracy to defraud involving allegations within a business of large-scale car ‘clocking’ to sell cars at an inflated price. Following a guilty plea on the day of trial, the defendant received a suspended sentence.
Lincoln’s Inn Award for internship at the International Criminal Court (2008)
Jessup Mooting Competition (Award for Best Applicant Memorial) (2011)
London School of Economics (LLB) (2007)
London School of Economics (MSc in Human Rights) (2011)
College of Law, London (Bar Vocational Course) (2008)
Hate Crime C.B.Q., 2016, 3(Aut), 9-11
Hate Crime Parts 1 and 2 C.L. and J. 2016, 180(30), 538-540
Committing criminal acts when sleepwalking: is it time to change the law? C.B.Q., 2015, 4 (Spring), 10-11;
Closed criminal proceedings or the "secret trial": past, present and future C.L. and J. 2015, 179(11)
Finding the Truth: An analysis of the El-Masri Decision before the European Court of Human Rights C.B.Q., 2013, 2 (Summer), 10-11;
The Scope of Legal Advice Privilege C.L. and J. 2013, 177 (13/14), 218-219;
What to do with Al-Bashir: Options in International Law The Law Journal UK (2009)