Itpal Dhillon

       Terrorism

• R v SL & JL Representation of a mother and father accused of sending money to their son in Syria in circumstances where there was reasonable cause to suspect that the money might be used for terrorist purposes.
• R V D: Representation of client who was successfully acquitted of a charge under the Terrorism Act for alleging attempting to travel to Syria/Iraq for Terrorist purposes. The Defence involved allegations of torture at the behest of the British Security Services, and of the inappropriate collusion between West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit and MI5.
• R V SM Represented client who was accused of conspiring with others to murder a police officer or civilian in the street. It is said to be one of the largest ever investigations by the Counter Terrorism Command with over 2 million files inspected, the equivalent of over 75 miles of paper if printed.
• R V RH Representation of client charged with engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts under Section 5 Terrorism Act 2006.
• R V MI Represented client accused of an offence under Section 5 Terrorism Act 2006 which involved an allegation surrounding a plot to assassinate the Prime Minister at the time Theresa May.
• R V A: Successful representation of client who allegedly breached the terms of his TPIM (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures) notice. The Crown offered no evidence prior to trial on the basis of representations made by the Defence.
• R V A: Represented client subject to a TPIM Notice who was charged with witness intimidation at a local Mosque. Client was found not guilty after trial.
• R v MA, AAS, YAS Representation of three of the defendants in what is known as the “teenage terror plot”.
• R V IK: Represented client charged with an offence of providing a knife to another for a terrorist purpose. Client was acquitted after trial
• R v MAA Representation of a British man accused of providing funding to the Belgium terrorist known as ‘the man in the hat’ following CCTV footage being released of him following a terrorist attack at a Belgium airport.
• R V NE: Represented client charged with numerous count of dissemination of terrorist publications.
• R V A: Represented client charged with a large scale Fraud. The matter was investigated by the Counter Terrorism Unit on the basis that money was being used to fund Terrorism. Following submissions, the allegation regarding funding of Terrorism was removed from all evidence put before the Jury

Serious and Organised Crime

• R V J: Represented client charged with Murder based on an allegation of a group revenge attack following the death of a friend.
• R V M: Represented client charged with Murder based on an allegation that the Murder had been committed because of an outstanding debt.
• R V JE Represented client who was accused of being involved in a revenge attack that led to the Murder of a rival gang member
• R V P: Represented client who was charged with Possession of a Firearm. Successful application in demonstrating “exceptional circumstances” existed.
• R V M: Successful application to dismiss an allegation of Conspiracy to Rob. The case involved an allegation that our client, a branch manager of Phones 4 U, had conspired to commit a large scale robbery of phones during opening hours. The total value of the robbery was over £40,000
• R V N: Representation of client who was acquitted of Rape, following a successful application to dismiss charges of Kidnap and False Imprisonment.
• R V C: Representation of client charged with sexual offences. Although the Home Office failed to recognise our client as a victim of Human Trafficking, we were able to work with our Immigration department and challenge this decision, which finally led to a High Court finding that she is such a victim. We then successfully challenged the decision of the Crown to continue prosecuting our client by working with our Public Law department who began Judicial Review proceedings. Following our letter before claim the Crown offered no evidence.

Business Crime/Fraud

• R V G: Represented one of nine charged with Conspiracy to Breach UK Immigration Laws. The allegation related to a bogus charity that had been set up and over a two and half year period issued visas to migrant workers based on false information. Client was found not guilty.
• R V C: Successful representation of client charged with Conspiracy to Defraud. It was alleged that our client had advised and completed applications for work visas, despite not being registered with the OISC. The allegation spanned over a period of a year and involved numerous applications. Client was found not guilty
• R V B: Representation of clients in a multi million pound Boiler room Fraud involving Carbon Credit.
• R V B: Representation of multiple clients charged with Conspiracy to Defraud estimated at 4 million pounds involving the buying and selling of Land.
• R V H: Successfully represented client charge with Money Laundering offences valued at 2.8 millions pounds. Following strong representations and service of expert evidence the Crown discontinued proceedings and the client was formally found Not Guilty.
• R V AK: Represented client accused of stealing over £400,000 from a charity of which she was a trustee.
• R V GC Represented client charged with fraud and money laundering. It was alleged that the client was fraudulently providing services from an illegal dentist. Client was found not guilty.

“Itpal Dhillon deals with the most serious and complex cases with enthusiasm, determination and compassion” The Legal 500 2021

“Itpal Dhillon is incredibly assiduous and hard working” The Legal 500 2020