Avantika Prakash


Avantika Prakash

Practice profile

About Avantika

Call 2000
Avantika is instructed as prosecution counsel by the Crown Prosecution Service on an almost daily basis. Avantika is a Grade 2 advocate on the CPS Advocate Panel List.
Avantika joined chambers in 2004 and over the years she has built up a highly successful and busy prosecution practice. She undertakes work at all levels, but she has a predominantly Crown Court practice.
The work she undertakes is of a varied nature, but she has a particular interest in cases involving violent offences and sexual offences.
She has prosecuted a number of cases involving vulnerable complainants and defendants. She also has extensive experience in prosecuting multi-handed cases. Several cases Avantika has been instructed to prosecute have appeared in the local and national press.
In addition to prosecuting for the Crown Prosecution Service, Avantika receives regular instructions from the National Probation Service.

Notable cases

  • R v Aderimi Ogundele (2015) – Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) - Mr Ogundele was convicted of two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, following a 4 day trial at Woolwich Crown Court. The complainant was the partner of Mr Ogundele. At the time of the assault, the complainant named Mr Ogundele as her attacker. Soon after the assault, the complainant made a withdrawal statement accusing his brother of assaulting her. The case was reviewed and the decision was made to proceed with the case. The complainant attended court and she gave evidence that the person who assaulted her was the brother of Mr Ogundele (in accordance with the contents of her withdrawal statement). Avantika made an application to treat the complainant as hostile and the application was granted. The complainant accepted when she was cross-examined by Avantika about the contents of her original statement that she had told the police officer who took her original statement that Mr Ogundele was the person who assaulted her, but she also said she had lied to the police officer who took her original statement about Mr Ogundele being the person who attacked her (due to her confused state of mind at the time) and the real perpetrator of the assault was the brother of Mr Ogundele. At the close of the prosecution case, a submission of no case to answer was made by the defence (based upon the conflicting nature of the complainant’s two accounts) and the submission of no case to answer was dismissed. Unanimous guilty verdicts were returned on both counts. An application for leave to appeal against conviction was made to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and Avantika presented a number of highly persuasive submissions to the court which resulted in leave being refused.
  • R v Martin Ogazi (2015) – Central Criminal Court – Mr Ogazi was convicted of one offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three offences of common assault after a 5 day trial. Mr Ogazi assaulted four separate victims when he was attending a children’s football match, after he was challenged about his loud behaviour at the match. The case received extensive media coverage and was reported in a number of well-regarded newspapers including “The Guardian” and “The Evening Standard”. Mr Ogazi received a suspended sentence order – due to exceptional personal mitigation.
  • R v William Eliot (2014) – Westminster Magistrates Court – Mr William Eliot was a serving police officer with the Metropolitan Police for over 20 years with an impeccable record. In August 2014, Mr Eliot was convicted of assaulting a man he had stopped near Heathrow Airport who he suspected to be an illegal taxi driver, after a 3 day trial. The assault comprised of Mr Eliot trying to strangle the man. The principal witness for the Crown was Mr Eliot’s colleague who was on duty with him at the time of the assault. Mr Eliot received a suspended sentence order – because of his age and his previous good character. The case was reported in “The Evening Standard” and “The Daily Mail”.
  • R v Hussein (2013) – Mr Hussein (aged 35) was convicted of two offences of sexual assault, after a 4 day trial. The complainant was the sister-in-law of Mr Hussein. This case had to be dealt with a lot of care and sensitivity because of the age of the complainant (she was only 14 years of age at the time of the offences), the numerous learning difficulties of the complainant and the familial relationship between the complainant and the defendant. Unfortunately, Mr Hussein fled from the UK before his sentencing date and a warrant for his arrest remains outstanding.
  • R v S and others (2012) – Court of Appeal - S (aged 17) and 4 other young men were charged with unlawful wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 on a joint enterprise basis. Avantika was instructed as trial counsel at the request of the officer investigating the complaint who had worked with Avantika on a number of complex cases before. S was the main aggressor – he stabbed the complainant in the right leg and left leg with a knife, narrowly missing a major artery. S pleaded guilty to the offence half-way into the Crown’s case (after the complainant and another witness had given evidence). S was a young man of previous good character, but at the time of the offence he was on police bail for an offence of violent disorder (which also involved the use of a knife). The trial judge (following the preparation of a favourable PSR) sentenced S to a Youth Rehabilitation Order with a number of requirements. Avantika advised the CPS to appeal the sentence on the basis that it was unduly lenient and leave to appeal was granted. The Court of Appeal found the sentence given by the trial judge was far too lenient and substituted the Youth Rehabilitation Order with an 18 month Detention and Training Order.


English, Hindi, Punjabi.

Memberships and Affiliations

Avantika is a member of the Criminal Bar Association, the South Eastern Circuit and the North London Bar Mess.

Professional & Friendly
Specialising in crime, immigration, civil and family law.