Out of Hours:
07710 077 419 
020 7520 6000  
East Anglia:
01245 280 880
Cyrus Shroff

Cyrus Shroff

Call: 1983

T: 0207 520 6000    E: chambers@18rlc.co.uk

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

Background and expertise

Called in 1983, his practice covers all aspects of crime, and consists of cases of murder, rape, 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.


Homicide and Serious ViolenceSexual OffencesGeneral Crime

  • 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. Re-instated on voluntary bill and subsequently withdrawn by Crown just prior to trial. Continued case as leading counsel on remaining charge of aggravated burglary.
  • R LA AND NH (2020) – prosecuting S.18 wounding where issues of join enterprise evident.
  • R v HP (2020) – defending 20 year old on S.18 wounding X 2. 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 eye witnesses, conflicting accounts from victim prior to death as to who was involved. Defendant alleged to have confessed to a neighbour shortly after 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 S.18 wounding where snooker cue 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 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 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.

  • 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 relying 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 reported 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 in it’s place. Further, having heard submissions the LJ 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 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 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 that crossed the two statutes 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 RP (2020) – defending vulnerable defendant in aggravated burglary allegation where a gun alleged to have been used. His vulnerability was not immediately apparent, but after initial advice to the psychologist, a very positive report has been obtained.
  • R v JF AND TP (2020) – leading (prosecuting) in multiple child cruelty allegation of 3 year old, where primary issue is whether ASD and ADHD of child is responsible for self-infliction.
  • R v MD (2019) – defending 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 robbery x 2. 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 iron bar.
  • R v JC (2019) – when prosecuting, successfully resisted application to sever robbery counts.
  • R v PS and GT (2019) – prosecuting robbery x 3 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 cellsite 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 new indictment.
  • R V JK (2016) written advice to CPS during trial that evidence compromised to 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.

Historic Cases

  • R v Anthony Jeffreys [2006] EWHC 1377 (Admin) This case related to the issue of service of the certificate of analysis in an excess alcohol case. Successfully argued that the District Judge was entitled to infer from the peculiar circumstances of the case that service had been effected.
  • R v G F defending death by dangerous driving, complicated by the defendant’s epilepsy.
  • R v Rahman Neglect in a care home, successful prosecution of a care assistant who had maltreated and assaulted very elderly dementia patients.
  • Detailed advice on defence psychiatric evidence of historic sexual abuse of a 5-6 year old boy by a defendant with a mental age of 9-12 at the time. Eventually, the psychiatrist was called on a preliminary hearing and the Crown offered no evidence.


    • “He is an exceptionally able barrister who is extremely hardworking and very effective in court.”Legal 500 2021


See more

South-Eastern Circuit


See more


The Council of Legal Education, Inns of Court School of Law


See more

Languages: Cantonese (Fluent)


See more

Leading Individual in the Legal 500 directory (see Recommendations)