Mahdev is a Crown Prosecution Service - Grade 2 Prosecutor.

His recent work include:

Crown Court

R v RS [2024] (Sheffield Crown Court) – defended a client charged with 32 offences, including 14 offences of assaulting police officers. The defence of non-insane automatism was raised. Mahdev advised on the law of automatism, and the instruction of a range of mental health experts. RS was sentenced to a 3-year community order following acceptable pleas.

R v DH [2023] (Leeds Crown Court) – the defendant entered guilty pleas to two counts of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply, carrying a street value of up to £30,000. Mahdev successfully mitigated the sentence from a 5.5 year starting point to 3.2 years. The Judge noted in their sentencing remarks that Mahdev made realistic concessions and advanced first-class mitigation.

R v AC [2024] (Teesside Crown Court) – Mahdev was instructed to prosecute a defendant, later convicted by a jury, of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and stalking with a fear of violence. He had pleaded guilty to criminal damage.

Magistrates' Court

R v VS [2024] (Scarborough Magistrates Court) – Mahdev made representations to the prosecution that the arresting officer’s search of a defendant was unlawful and not compliant with PACE Code A. The prosecution then offered no evidence to the single charge of possession of a bladed article.

R v JF [2023] (Manchester City Magistrates Court) – defendant acquitted of charges of common assault and making malicious communications. Mahdev then successfully opposed an application for a restraining order sought by the prosecution after the defendant was acquitted.

Youth Court

Mahdev is guided by the child’s views and wellbeing when in the Youth Court.

R v MM [2023] (Leeds Youth Court) – the prosecution withdrew charges of criminal damage and resisting a police constable in the execution of their duty against MM, following representations made by Mahdev and his instructing solicitor, with the assistance of reports from MM’s social worker and the Youth Offending Team.

R v MA [Ongoing] (Leeds Youth Court) – Mahdev is currently representing a young person charged with attempting to cause grievous bodily harm to prison officers, and an assault occasioning actual bodily harm to another detainee during the young person’s time in a young offender’s institute.

Mahdev has a particular interest in protest cases and financial crimes.

Whilst qualifying as an Advocate & Solicitor at the Malaysian Bar, Mahdev worked on the following matters:

TMC v NPL & THL [2021] (Federal Court of Malaysia) – Mahdev drafted written submissions on the applicability of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities when interpreting section 52(1) of the Mental Health Act 2001, in an appeal about the appropriate test for when a Court may direct an inquiry into a person’s mental state.

Heidy Quah v Government of Malaysia [2021] (High Court of Malaya) – assisted with drafting written submissions on behalf of the Clooney Foundation for Justice, appearing as amicus curiae, in seeking leave to the Federal Court to clarify whether the words “offensive” and/or “annoy” prescribed in section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 infringed the right to equality (Article 8) and the freedom of speech (Article 10) of the Federal Constitution.

Members of a Political Party v Minister of Home Affairs & Registrar of Societies [2021] (High Court of Malaya) – assisted with drafting written submissions on behalf of the applicants judicially reviewing the Minister’s failure to provide reasons when they appealed the Registrar of Societies’ decision not to register their political party.

Mahdev welcomes instructions to advise and appear in matters with human rights claims and judicial reviews.

Attorney General's "Junior Junior" Scheme

As counsel on the scheme, Mahdev has undertaken the following work:

• Drafted written submissions on the issue of costs for the defendant in the judicial review of H v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2023) heard in the High Court (King’s Bench Division).
• Redacted materials to be disclosed as part of civil claims brought against the Ministry of Justice.

Mahdev has prosecuted and defended in the following matters:

Newark & Sherwood District Council v LB (2024) [Nottingham Magistrates Court] – persuaded the local council to accept a plea to a single ‘fly-tipping’ offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in lieu of seven other offences. LB was sentenced to pay a fine.

South Yorkshire Fire & Rescue (‘SYFR’) v ZA (2024) [Sheffield Magistrates Court] – persuaded SYFR to accept pleas to six offences in lieu of 13 offences brought under the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 after two buildings with inhabitants, owned by ZA, caught on fire.

West Yorkshire Trading Standards v Mini Market & MJ (2023) [Kirklees Magistrates Court] – successful prosecution of a mini market and its director for offences of selling alcohol to minors pursuant to the Licensing Act 2003.

Licensing

Mahdev has appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police before the Alcohol, Entertainment & Late-Night Refreshing Licensing Committee of South Kesteven District Council to oppose an application for a Temporary Events Notice brought by the owner of a local public house.

The application was successfully opposed following a cross-examination of the owner of the public house before the committee, based on poor compliance with previous licence conditions and suspected criminal activity.

Mahdev is available to provide and representation before licensing committees.

Mahdev welcomes instructions relating to breaches of contract, shareholder disputes and civil fraud.

• Serba Dinamik Holdings Berhad v Ernst & Young Consulting Sdn Bhd [2021] (High Court of Malaya – Commercial Division) – drafted written submissions, on behalf of the defendant, in opposing an application to join Securities Commission Malaysia and Bursa Securities Malaysia as parties to assist in determining whether the defendant fell within the meaning of “auditor” under the Main Market Listing Requirments.
• Successful defence against a claim alleging that a Share Sale Agreement was void due to unconscionable acts following a 7-day trial in the High Court of Malaya.
• Successful defence against a claim alleging a fraudulent and dishonest transfer of monies by a deceased company director resulting in an unjust enrichment of over RM 10.6 million, following a 3-day trial in the High Court of Malaya.
• Secured an urgent freezing injunction against former employees of a multinational company to prevent the dissipation of appropriated monies and the destruction of documents that would evidence the torts of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation.

He has observed police misconduct proceedings and the judicial review of R (on the application of the Commissioner of the Metropolis) v PAT [2022] EWHC 2711 (Admin) whilst under the supervision of police law specialist, Olivia Checa-Dover.

Mahdev has secured urgent Domestic Violent Protection Orders. He is also engaged to advise, draft skeleton arguments, and appear in longer running civil applications such as Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, Sexual Risk Orders, and Stalking Protection Orders. He has been instructed as independent counsel to advise on whether evidence in police possession attracts Legal Professional Privilege.

Recent work also include:

A Chief Constable v AA (2023 – ongoing) – defending an application for a Violent Offenders Order against an individual convicted of offences of grievous bodily harm. Mahdev persuaded the applicant Chief Constable, through a skeleton argument, to agree to adjourn the final hearing until the individual served a period of his sentence within the community to allow the Court a more comprehensive picture of any risk the individual may pose.

Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police v BG & Ors (2024) [Barnsley Magistrates Court] – Mahdev was instructed, on short notice, to oppose an application for a warrant of further detention of a young person being investigated for murder. The matter involved cross-examining the officer in the case.

A Chief Constable v Local Authority & Ors (2024) – appeared on behalf of the Chief Constable in a Public Interest Immunity Application to withhold disclosure of material from a live criminal investigation, following the death of a baby, into care proceedings. The Court granted the application and allowed disclosure to be withheld for a month.

JH v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police (2024) [Northampton County Court] – Mahdev, appearing on behalf of the Chief Constable, persuaded the Court to dismiss the claimant’s application for a return of electronic devices pursuant to section 1 Police (Property) Act 1897 on the grounds that the County Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that the claimant was estopped by the doctrine of res judicata.

Mahdev also welcomes instructions to advise and represent claimants in actions against the police on a Conditional Fee Agreement basis.

Mahdev is adept at navigating the delicate nature of family proceedings. During pupillage, he attended the ‘Counselling Skills Seminar for Family Barristers’ facilitated by Carvalho Consultancy.

Public Law - Children

LA v NW & Others (2024) [Newcastle Family Court] – Mahdev appeared on behalf of the Local Authority at a 3-day Final Hearing. A Care Order was made to safeguard the child’s transition into the mother’s care. Mahdev was tasked to cross-examine the respondent father, a vulnerable person assisted by an intermediary, on a factual dispute about whether he had had sexual contact with a person claiming to be below the age of 16. The Court made adverse threshold findings against the respondent father.

LA v LD & Others (2024) [Teesside Family Court] – appeared on behalf of the respondent father at a Final Hearing, where a Child Arrangements Order was made in his favour, and the previous Interim Supervision Order was discharged.

LA v GW & Others (2024) [Teesside Family Court] – appeared on behalf of the respondent father, facing allegations of sexual abuse, in a contested Interim Care Order Hearing.

Private Law - Children

ST v LT (2024) [Teesside Family Court] – appeared on behalf of the respondent mother at a Dispute Resolution Appointment, in an application for a Child Arrangements Order, seeking interim removal of the children due to allegations of alcohol abuse. Mahdev secured increased contact time and successfully opposed the appointment of a Children’s Guardian in the early stages of the proceedings.

MS v MQ (2024) [Durham Family Court] – appeared on behalf of the applicant mother at a composite Final Hearing, where the Child Arrangements Order was agreed with limited submissions without the need to litigate factual disputes.

He is available for instruction at all stages of proceedings across private and public law matters.

Mahdev is available to provide pre-action advice, represent parties during settlement negotiations, draft pleadings, and appear before the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Mahdev’s work at Leeds Free Legal Representation include:

• Appeared in a Final Hearing on behalf of an employee bringing claims of direct and indirect discrimination and of harassment experienced during their pregnancy and whilst on maternity leave, against their employer, a travel company.
• Negotiated a settlement of £27,000 for a vulnerable claimant with learning difficulties after they experienced discrimination arising from disability, victimisation and a failure to receive reasonable adjustments from a large company.
• Negotiated a settlement of £18,000 for an elderly employee who faced victimisation and failed to receive reasonable adjustments when working for a public body. Mahdev worked on the case for over a year and provided regular written advice on evolving issues.

• Crown Prosecution Service - Grade 2 Prosecutor; and
• Attorney General’s “Junior Junior” Scheme

• 2019, Taylor’s University, Malaysia/University of Leeds – LL.B, First Class (Honours)
• 2020, University of Law, Leeds – BPTC, Very Competent
• 2020, International Bar Association, Education Trust Award
• 2020, Winner and Best Advocate, Parklane Plowden Family Law Moot
• 2019, University of Law, Advocacy Scholarship
• 2019, Winner, Malaysia’s Next Advocate
• 2018, Top 5 Best Speaker in Asia, United Asians Debating Championship

• Contributor, ‘Law and Practice of Civil Litigation in Malaysia’ (Sweet & Maxwell, 2023)

• Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya
• The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple
• Young Legal Aid Lawyers