As one of the youngest practising barristers in the English Bar, Saravanak Kumar’s practise encompasses a mixed common law practise with a particular emphasis on serious criminal defence.
He has rapidly established himself as one of the most sought after criminal defence barrister in successfully defending in cases beyond his years of call. Saravanak is often instructed by solicitors due to his tenacity and incisive cross examination skills of witnesses which results in acquittals. His ability to expose contradictions and to discredit police officers and their evidence whilst exposing weaknesses in Prosecution case, ultimately leads to ‘not guilty’ verdicts.
Saravanak Kumar has long had an interest in international law and the importance of benefit to be gained in learning from other legal jurisdictions and forging close cultural ties. He is also a door tenant at Kumar Chambers, Malaysia where he had previously advised on large scale fraud cases and civil matters.
Areas of Expertise
Human Rights Law
The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn
R v T Ziemys – Allegations of running 10 brothels and control of 3 prostitutes. Prosecution served last minute compelling telephone evidence (including cell site and billings data) allegedly connecting Client with running of the alleged brothels. Detailed cross examination of prostitutes and police officer over telephone evidence where it was made clear that the prostitutes were not being ‘coerced’ or forced by the Defendant. Acquitted of 4 counts which resulted in a much lower sentence than expected (3 and a half years after time served meant 15 months actual imprisonment) . Judge commented despite overwhelming evidence he was passing the sentence as above as it was evident there was no coercion or force by the Defendant. Read more here.
R v P Manzi – The Complainant was found with cuts and bruises on her (allegedly caused by Client) and was heavily bleeding from the cuts. Complainant’s blood was also on Client’s face and clothes when police arrested him. Attending police officers to the scene also observed blood on the kitchen knife and Complainant’s blood all over the house. The Counts on indictment and allegations were as follows : Count 1 Assault (grabbing of neck and strangulation), Count 2 Assault (stepping on the throat), Count 3 Assault (hitting Complainant on the face with trainers 3 times), Count 4 Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm(cuts to her hand), Count 5 Assault, Count 6 Witness Intimidation, Count 7 Threats to Kill (Counts 5 to 7 were allegedly to have taken place on later dates). This was a case where due to the nature of allegation Crown had relied upon Client’s previous convictions for violence (s 20 Wounding, Affray & ABH) and placed it in front of the jury. Saravanak Kumar secured an outright acquittal on all charges. This was achieved through firm cross examination of the complainant over the course of two days. After more than 3 hours of deliberation, jury returned a majority verdict of Not Guilty on all seven counts.
R v IS & RR – Attempted gang rape allegation where the Complainant was a 14 year old girl. Prosecution had served evidence from UKBA on first day of trial against Client indicating that Client was in the United Kingdom when the alleged incident happened (Client claimed in his interview that he was out of country at the time of the allegation). Delicate but firm cross examination of the young Complainant by Saravanak Kumar ultimately resulted in a Not Guilty verdict for Client.
R v O Brown – An allegation of serious sexual assault. Client’s previous conviction (bad character) against the same complainant was put in by the Defence during cross examination of Complainant. Jury took just mere 8 minutes to acquit and find Client Not Guilty of the sexual assault.
R v A Weeks – Allegation of historic rape made by ex partner. Led by Head of Chambers (Mr Stuart Stevens). Detailed cross examination of 4 recent complainants over the account given by Complainant to them. Not guilty verdict returned by the jury on the rape allegation.
R v A Yusuf – An allegation of assault and knife wielding against a pregnant complainant. During the cross examination of Complainant it emerged that she was actually a drug addict. Client had acted in self defence and used reasonable force on the pregnant complainant as she was trying to force him to take drugs. Client was acquitted after trial.