Cyrus Shroff

Call: 1983

  • Email
  • Direct phone
  • Cyrus is a calm presence in court – he is always in control and forever unruffled. He is always in complete control of his case and is highly respected by the judiciary.

    Legal 500 (2023)
  • He is an exceptionally able barrister who is extremely hardworking and very effective in court.

    Legal 500 2021
Cyrus Shroff

Personal profile

Cyrus Shroff appears on the CPS List of Advocates at Grade 4 but undertakes work both as defence and prosecution counsel.

Called in 1983, his practice covers all aspects of Crime, and consists of cases of Murder & Manslaughter, Sexual Offences, Drug Offences, Serious Violence and Proceeds of Crime, amongst other criminal matters.

He has particular aptitude for serious cases of a violent or sexual nature and has conducted cases of homicide both as leading counsel and junior counsel. He has acted as leading counsel for the defence and the Crown. He also has experience in the High Court and in various more isolated areas such as bigamy.

He has been on the CPS Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (“RASSO”) list since its introduction and has extensive experience of dealing with ‘vulnerable’ witnesses. He is an approved facilitator for training in this field.

He has been described as having a particularly effective manner when defending in cases of a sensitive nature and is often instructed for both sides in the youth court. He has been instructed on many of the most serious cases by the CPS and defence solicitors.


"Cyrus is a calm presence in court – he is always in control and forever unruffled. He is always in complete control of his case and is highly respected by the judiciary."

― Legal 500 (2023)

“He is an exceptionally able barrister who is extremely hardworking and very effective in court.”

― Legal 500 2021

Murder & Manslaughter

  • R v JM (2022) – Prosecuting attempted murder where defendant alleged to have strangled his partner.
  • R v ZH(2022) – Prosecuting attempted murder (stabbing) of 3 year old girl and S.18 upon her mother. Sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, including extended sentence.
  • R v RB (2021) – Defending in murder where following an altercation on the A406, RB drove his 4×4 towards the female driver of the other car, knocked down the female driver of the other car, drove over her on the ground and left her with catastrophic injuries, which ultimately proved to be fatal. The main evidence was the footage from R.B’s dashboard camera. Issue: whether done deliberately/with intent to cause her death/GBH; or whether this might have been a tragic accident. Jury invited not to approach the case on the basis that “someone must pay” but to consider it a tragic accident. Unanimous not guilty verdicts were returned.
  • R v DG and JC (2021) – Leading for prosecution in ‘single punch manslaughter’. MB (deceased) and DG, unknown to each other at a bar, with their own group of friends. When groups leave, an altercation breaks out with some members of the group. MB not involved, but tries to assist. DG then punches MB once, having failed with an initial attempt to hit him. MB then falls backwards and hits his head on the concrete. JC conceals whereabouts of DG (boyfriend). Issue: self-defence. Legal argument on DG’s ‘lies’ successfully entered into evidence and Crown permitted to cross examine. Crown successfully resisted ‘no case to answer for JC. Both defendants convicted.
  • R v RC (2021) – Prosecuting manslaughter involving punches to deceased. Initial indication of not guilty resulted in guilty plea after further evidence obtained. Disagreement in relation to sentencing guidelines ruled in favour of the Crown. 12 years imprisonment imposed.
  • R v RS (2021) – Prosecuting attempted murder involving the use of a knife. Upon advice to seek a psychiatric report on behalf of the Crown, the defendant received a S.37 MHA hospital order with S.41 restriction.
  • R v A-B D (2021) – Prosecuting attempted murder where complainant unsupportive. Offer of S.20 refused; and defendant eventually pleads to S.18.
  • R v AL and others (2020) – Leading (defending) in murder allegation where application to dismiss was successful upon skeleton argument and oral argument drafted by leading counsel. Reinstated on voluntary bill and subsequently withdrawn by Crown just prior to trial. Continued case as leading counsel on remaining charge of aggravated burglary.
  • R v LA and NH (2020) – Prosecuting S.18 wounding where issues of joint enterprise evident.
  • R v HP (2020) – Defending a 20 year old on two counts of S.18 wounding. Previous convictions for violence and on licence at the time. Avoided indeterminate sentence despite PSR stating he posed a high risk of serious harm to the public.
  • R v NP (2019) – Prosecuting S.18 wounding where bottle used to cause injury to eye.
  • R v CB (2019) – Prosecuting S.18 GBH with use of samurai sword.
  • R v SK (2018) – Representing man (on murder charge) alleged to have beaten, kicked and stamped to death, in the street, a man accused of historic allegations of rape of a 13-year-old. Killing witnessed by several eyewitnesses, conflicting accounts from victim prior to death as to who was involved. Defendant alleged to have confessed to a neighbour shortly after the altercation took place. Involved research into highly contentious pathology/neuropathology evidence as to interpretation of, and causation of, the underlying traumatic brain injury. Defendant entrenched alcoholic, diminished responsibility raised, three psychiatrists called at trial. Initial advice and liaison with experts. Unused material was voluminous needing careful examination, summarising and inclusion of relevant factors into agreed facts. Drafting and assisting with legal arguments. Disputed bad character evidence successfully excluded involving prior incidents of violence against the victim.
  • R v DD (2018) – Defending a S.18 wounding where a snooker cue was used.

Historic Cases

  • R v LB – Defending murder where the defendant had made full admissions in interview: during trial Crown agreed to accept a plea to manslaughter.
  • R v DP and WR – Prosecuting a cut-throat murder: successfully resisted appeal by one defendant.
  • R v BH – Defending the domestic murder of his partner of 11 years. During the trial it emerged that BH had taken photographs of the deceased after death.
  • R v M and others – A multi-handed murder trial of a reclusive victim killed by two teenagers: death by multiple injuries. One teenager found guilty of murder, another of manslaughter; two others acquitted.
  • R v F – Successful prosecution, murder of girlfriend by strangulation, and two counts rape and one of assault.
  • R v R and others – Prosecution of complicated murder and stabbing. Defendant acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter after the court found he acted in self-defence. Another defendant was convicted of assisting R by driving him from the scene of the killing. R’s appeal was later successfully resisted.
  • R v AH – Prosecuting an attempted murder where the victim initially stated he could not name his attacker. Prior to the trial he informed the police that the defendant was not his assailant. The defendant was convicted of s18 wounding.
  • R v MH – Defending a s18 stabbing. Persuaded Crown to accept plea to s.20.
  • R v MD – Defending in arson with intent where the defendant had set fire to his friend with life threatening injuries. Successfully argued severance of identical offence on 2 males he did not know that occurred 4 days later.
  • R v RD & GO – Prosecuting a s18 wounding originally against 4 defendants. 3 pleaded guilty, one of whom agreed to give evidence against a defendant who had not been charged. Convictions against the remaining two.
  • Successfully defended a s.18 with a knife where the defendant absconded after he had given evidence and the trial continued in his absence.

Sexual Offences

  • R v CC (2022) – Defending in multi-count sexual allegations. Despite vigorous opposition to Section 41 questions, the Judge allowed the areas sought. Successfully argued the exclusion of certain aspects of bad character.
  • R v SS (2022) – Instructed to defend in case where SS alleged to have attempted to engage in sexual communication with 3 separate complainants.
  • R v MW (2022) – Instructed to prosecute serious sexual allegations upon daughter of defendant’s girlfriend when aged between 12-14 years.
  • R v SB (2022) – Instructed to defend serious sexual allegations upon a work colleague.
  • R v CP (2021) – Defending in multi-count sexual allegations involving legal argument to exclude bad character (indecent images) evidence.
  • R v DW (2021) – Defending in (decoy) sexual allegations involving argument not to impose indeterminate sentence.
  • R v NA (2021) – Prosecuting sexual penetration allegations by complainant against her partner. Advice provided in relation to whether S.28 YJCEA 1999 applies.
  • R v TL (2021) – Defending TL who was facing joint rape allegations with husband who then passed away. Involved a complicated legal argument in relation to bad character which has now been successfully excluded. Trial pending.
  • R v RP (2021) – LD (complainant) at home when RP (first on indictment) and two others are let in. One of the men pointed a gun at her, demanding to know where her safe was. The other two men went upstairs and within a matter of minutes went through the different bedrooms upstairs ultimately stealing some items. Issue: Presence accepted but say went to collect drugs. Successful arguments by RP: Admission of ‘pros. intelligence’ relating to LD’s husband’s alleged previous drug activity; and under s.35(1)(b) CJPO 1994 for RP not to give evidence due his mental or physical condition. Unanimous not guilty verdict.
  • R v HE (2020) – Prosecuting multiple rape.
  • R v JS (2020) – Prosecuting rape.
  • R v DS (2019) – Prosecuting serious sex offences including attempt to engage in sexual communication and arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence.
  • R v LH (2019) – Prosecuting sexual activity with a vulnerable child (mental health issues)
  • R v IS (2019) – Defending sexual offences (engaging in sexual activity, sexual assault of a child under 13, making indecent photographs of a child). Received non-custodial sentence.
  • R v SS (2019) – Prosecuting rape on 9 year old girl by her uncle.
  • R v BH (2019) – Prosecuting 12 count sexual grooming indictment.
  • R v AS (2019) – Prosecuting attempted grooming.
  • R v AS (2019) – Prosecuting assault by penetration.
  • R v DS (2018) – Leading in prosecuting historic sexual abuse upon 8 year old beginning in 1979. Case complicated by fact the Crown relied on evidence of complainant’s sister who also alleged being abused by same defendant, but refused to pursue allegations relating to herself. Complainant had suffered a number of emotional and mental problems in her adult life and required careful handling prior to and in court. The unused material was voluminous and contained highly sensitive material that required meticulous consideration.
  • R v JL (2018) – Defending in historic sex abuse on daughter and step daughter involving over 200 offences, many of which had been recorded. Pleaded guilty to 28 offences. The learned judge initially indicated that the defendant was likely to be found ‘dangerous’. The pre-sentence report stated that the defendant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public. The learned Judge altered his view having heard skeleton argument and rejected the ‘logic’ of the PSR, imposing a determinate sentence.e. Further, having heard submissions the was persuaded to give full credit, despite the plea being entered at the PTPH.
  • R v MJ (2018) – Prosecuting sexual offences involving breach of trust – advised subsequently on ULS
  • R v TL (2017) – Defending historic sexual abuse by teacher. Proceedings stayed after abuse argument.
  • R v KC (2017) – Prosecuting rape in youth court.
  • R v RC (2017) – Prosecuting rape on 10 year old brother of defendant in youth court.
  • R v MT (2016) – Prosecuting a 15 year old for rapes on 6 and 8 year olds.
  • R v DP (2016) – Prosecuting historic rape of complainant who suffered from severe alcohol dependency.
  • R v HS (2016) – Defending a 19 year old charged with sexual activity with a girl under 16.
  • R v MJ (2016) – Prosecuting rape where complainant unable to consent through drink.
  • R v PM (2016) – Defending in historic sexual allegation upon daughter.
  • R v RM (2016) – Prosecuting father for voyeurism on daughter.
  • R v RW (2015) – Defending sex assaults on under 13 niece.
  • R v MW (2015) – Defending serious sexual allegations.
  • R v JL (2014) – Defending rape in youth court. Prosecution offer no evidence after argument on disclosure.

Historic Cases

  • Prosecuted a senior police officer who had sent indecent images to a child.
  • Successfully prosecuted historic sexual offences case and various ages for the complainants. A 23 count indictment required careful drafting and amending once evidence had been given.
  • Successfully prosecuted a rape where the Crown alleged that the defendant had drugged the complainant.
  • Successfully defended a vulnerable defendant who had allegedly sexually abused his niece. This required very sensitive examination in chief of the defendant who had the assistance of an intermediary.


  • R v KJ (2022) – Prosecuting high profile (due to celebrity status of defendant) case of racially aggravated public order and assault. Substantial advice provided to police in order to encapsulate relevant CCTV evidence. Acceptable pleas tendered. [Press report]
  • R v SC (2022) – Defending in attempted Section 18 GBH. On potential of application to dismiss, prosecution no longer pursued charge and eventually accepted pleas to summary only matters. Sentenced to conditional Discharge of 12 months.
  • R v KS (2021) – Prosecuting robbery involving use of a knife that resulted in puncture wounds to chest, slash wound to face and deep laceration to leg. Sentenced to eight years imprisonment.
  • R v LR (2021) – Defending in attempted Section 18 GBH upon police officers. Prosecution persuaded to accept pleas to assaulting emergency workers. Suspended sentence imposed.
  • R v DC (2021) – Defending in firearms case where over 500 weapons found, including firearms that invoked minimum term of 5 years. Upon submission of skeleton arguments in support of exceptional circumstances and oral argument; HHJ eventually sentenced DC to a suspended sentence.
  • R v LW (2021) – Defending LW who pleaded guilty to arson. After seeking a psychiatric report, which HHJ found helpful, the defendant received a community order.
  • R v RP (2020) – Defending a vulnerable defendant in an aggravated burglary allegation where a gun was alleged to have been used. His vulnerability was not immediately apparent, but after initial advice to the psychologist, a very positive report was obtained.
  • R v JF and TP (2020) – Leading (prosecuting) in multiple child cruelty allegations of 3 year old, where the primary issue is whether ASD and ADHD of child is responsible for self-infliction.
  • R v MD (2019) – Defending a 16 year old. Abuse argument served after Crown refused to follow recommendation from NCA relating to defendant being victim of modern slavery. Crown eventually offered no evidence.
  • R v JC (2019) – Prosecuting aggravated burglary where hammer used during assault.
  • R v AJ and CJ (2019) – Prosecuting arson with intent. Involved careful handling of extremely sensitive information
  • R v CC (2019) – Defending in two counts of robbery. Crown persuaded to proceed on one count where use of knife by 1 male – received non-custodial sentence.
  • R v JC (2019) – Prosecuting robbery of a taxi driver with use of an iron bar.
  • R v JC (2019) – When prosecuting, successfully resisted application to sever robbery counts.
  • R v PS and GT (2019) – Prosecuting three counts of robbery with use of knives, including dangerousness considerations.
  • R v LW and BP (2019) – Prosecuting indictment for assisting an offender who had escaped from lawful custody.
  • R v JP and others (2018) – Leading in prosecuting aggravated burglary where males entered a flat armed with firearms, axes and hammers. Faces covered with balaclavas demanding money. A gun (BB) was held towards the owner’s 4 year old son whilst counting down from 5. Owner was cable tied with an axe being swung around his feet striking him on his ankle. At some point the owner managed to free himself and grab the axe. As he wrestled with one of the burglars that burglar received serious injuries to his head and wrist and subsequently died. Case rested on telephone and cell site presentation.
  • R v DL (2017) – Defending being in possession of explosive substances.
  • R v PU (2017) – Defending in 5 handed conspiracy to evade excise duty in excess of £1m.
  • R v AF (2016) – Defending blackmail upon his brother.
  • R v H-A (2016) – Advising CPS that initial charges were insufficient. Pleaded guilty to a new indictment.
  • R v JK (2016) – Written advice to CPS during trial that evidence was compromised to such an extent that case should no longer continue. Judge stated the decision was correct in the circumstances.
  • R v SC (2016) – Defending autistic defendant (with severe cognitive difficulties) where prosecution agreed to no longer proceed after hearing from defence psychiatrist.


  • B.A Law Hons
  • The Council of Legal Education, Inns of Court School of Law


  • South-Eastern Circuit


  • Languages: Cantonese (Fluent)

Other expertise