TQ Case Diary
Please note criminal proceedings unfold through a number of different stages between charged and trial.
In a typical month, TQ will be involved in 5 – 6 different cases.
Depending on the stage of the case, TQ could be attending a bail application, preliminary hearing in the crown court (PTPH) or mention (quick hearing). The case diary will only make references to trials that TQ has appeared in.
RR v F, Central Criminal Court: Defendant charged with section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Following submission of no case to answer, Judge directed jury to return verdict of not guilty on the basis that the publications found in the defendant’s possession did not provide a terrorist with practical assistance.
R v AH, Southwark Crown Court: Successful appeal from the Magistrates court concerning section 298 cash forfeiture proceedings. Crown suggested the money was destined for a criminal purpose / terrorist purpose. Suggested the money was going to Abu BAKRI in Lebanon. Appeal successful and TQ also recovered costs.
R v S, Warwick Crown Court: Defendant charged with allegation of rape. Following the incident the defendant sent the alleged victim a card saying “I am sorry for last night”. Crown relied on this act together with text messages exchanged between the two parties – TQ was able to demonstrate that the messages and the card were all written in an innocent context,– defendant duly acquitted
BRIAH v KHAN, High Court, London: Allegation of civil fraud. Acted for the defendant, claimant alleged that the defendant owed in excess of £100K, defendant denied the claim- claim dismissed. TQ recovered all of the defendant’s full costs.
R v Ironmonger, Nottingham Crown Court: Conspiracy to defraud in connection with the manufacture and supply of counterfeit vodka. Crown relied on cell site evidence and industry experts to prove their case. Following a 5-week trial, of the 4 remaining defendants, TQ’s client was the only defendant acquitted.
R v P, Luton Crown Court: 3 week trial, concerning fraud in the parking enforcement industry. Rouge employees demanded payment for illegal clamping of vehicles, director of company denied all knowledge – TQ represented the director and his client was acquitted of fraud
January – March 2014
Operation Kinyeti, Manchester Crown Court, 3-month immigration fraud involving 7 defendants. The allegation was that immigration case workers had conspired with illegal immigrants to facilitate illegal immigration entry. TQ’s client was the only defendant to be acquitted of all charges
R v Zhu, Bradford Crown Court: 5 week conspiracy to kidnap plot. London based Chinese criminal gang targeted wealthy Chinese students. This was an international plot involving officers from both the British and Chinese authorities. TQ’s client was acquitted.
Operation Quaver, Birmingham Crown Court: Multi-handed conspiracy to commit fraud involving 8 defendants. This sophisticated conspiracy involved defendants stealing high-end vehicles and then using the parts of the stolen vehicles to repair salvage vehicles. TQ’s client elected trial and was the one defendant to be acquitted.
R v P, Teeside Crown Court: Large-scale mortgage fraud involving 8 defendants. Manipulation of bridging loans, alleged conspiracy between solicitors and mortgage brokers. After legal argument, TQ’s client duly acquitted.
Bar Council visit to Kazakhstan, TQ delivered seminars on the Bribery Act and financial criminal regulations
R v J & M, Kingston Crown Court: Allegations of terrorism. The two defendants were alleged to have carried out preparatory acts of terrorism contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The crown relied on WhatsApp messages and social medial in their claim that the defendant was preparing to fight in Syria. Following deliberation, the jury could not reach verdicts and were duly discharged.
Operation Hillmar, Stafford Crown Court: Breaches of the Financial Services Regulations, FISMA and allegations of fraud arising from a property investment scheme set up by five serving police officers. Following legal argument lasting one week, all defendants acquitted.
Trojan Horse Case, NCTL: TQ represented a teacher accused of breaching the professional code of conduct by introducing Islamic themes into the national curriculum and segregating boys and girls in classes. The hearing proceeded before a professional tribunal who went on to make adverse findings, on appeal the High Court quashed the decision.
Operation Frank, Cardiff Crown Court: Largest ever seizure of class A drugs in Cardiff. 6 defendants charged with a £5 million plot to supply class A drugs. Of the 6 defendants, TQ client’s was the only one acquitted after an 8-week trial.
R v P, Isleworth Crown Court Court: The defendant failed to provide his insurance company with accurate information when applying for insurance. The defendant’s answers to questions were recorded. The defendant was acquitted of insurance fraud on direction by the Judge following successful submission by TQ. Operation Red Columbia, Cardiff Crown Court: TQ’s client was charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Covert police investigations showed the defendant attending an area where the drugs were stored. The jury were unable to reach a verdict and duly discharged.
Southwark Crown Court: Defendant appealed his driving disqualification – appeal successful, TQ was also able to recover costs.
R v RH, Blackfriars Crown Court: The defendant was charged with possession of class A drugs with intention to supply. The crown submitted that the quantity of drugs (400 grams with 81% purity) is consistent with supply. The defendant claimed he was in possession for personal use alone. The jury accepted the defendant’s defence and acquitted him of possession with intent to supply. Operation Mitchum, Manchester Crown Court: Large scale immigration fraud involving 6 defendants. TQ represented the sixth defendant. The allegation was that a Sikh Khalsa charity was manipulating the Home Office Migrant workers policy and facilitating the entry of illegal immigrant TQ led and lodged written submissions supported by all 6 defendants that the prosecution case was misconceived. TQ’s argument was upheld resulting in 6 of the 7 defendants being acquitted of fraud.
R v FG, Central Criminal Court: TQ successfully appealed the defendant’s conviction in the Magistrates court.
Operation Perali, Inner London Crown Court: Conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime. Five-week trial involving 5 defendants. High value fraud arising from the metal recycling industry involving allegations of MTEC fraud. TQ’s client was acquitted of all charges.
Contested confiscation hearing, Inner London Crown Court: Defendant charged with fraudulent trading, TQ was able to negotiate pleas on a lesser basis resulting in a suspended sentence. Following sentence, confiscation proceedings commenced. The crown sought to claim the defendant was in possession of £100K in hidden assets. The matter was contested and the defendant was held to have no hidden assets. Final confiscation order: £1.00.
R v EG, Central Criminal Court: Defendant charged with conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime, following trial, TQ’s client acquitted.
R v Anderson, Southwark Crown Court: This matter was prosecuted by the ICO. Following an undercover investigation by Channel 4 journalists, TQ’s client, a private detective, was featured on the Channel 4’s dispatches programme. He was alleged to have committed offences contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. The alleged conduct was all recorded. TQ lodged and pursued a number of disclosure applications resulting in the prosecution being abandoned. R v T, Wood Green Crown Court: Defendant charged with passport fraud, following trial, client was acquitted of all charges
TQ currently instructed to represent an international cricket player in action against News International.
R v Seal, Worcester Crown Court: Property probate fraud. Fraud on creditors whereby siblings conspired to create a sham deed of variation to reduce the value of their assets and avoid a claim. The fact that the deed of variation was a sham was not in dispute nor was it in dispute that the signatures on the deed were forged. The defendants consisted of two brothers and a sister along with respective spouses – ongoing.
Operation Dogstar, Cardiff Crown Court: Sophisticated mortgage fraud involving multiple defendants. TQ acted for the first defendant charged on eight counts of fraud. TQ advanced a successful severance application and also led arguments to exclude material on the basis that it was subject of legal professional privilege. During the trial as a result of the reviewing the unused material, TQ identified an abuse of process argument leading to the discharge of the jury – ongoing. Operation Dogstar was linked to three other trials all of which have been adjourned as a result of the potential abuse of process.
Operation Godspower, Central Criminal Court: Internal banking fraud whereby bank employees facilitated fraud with the assistance of non-bank employees. The crown relied on telecommunications traffic and bank transfers. TQ’s client received in excess of £50,000 worth of fraudulent funds over a six-month period, he was successfully acquitted.
Tanveer applied successfully to adjourn the substantive hearing of former Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s disciplinary hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The SRA brought proceedings against Mr Rahman based on the findings of an earlier ruling before the Election Court. Mr Rahman is challenging this ruling by way of judicial review. The application was made on the first day of the substantive hearing, but for the application the SRA would have gone to consider the allegations.
TQ instructed to appeal conviction. Conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal. Details of appeal currently the subject of reporting restrictions.
TQ instructed privately to pursue an abuse of process application concerning the destruction of evidence. The application succeeded and the proceedings came to an end.
TQ’s client was prosecution for intending to cause grievous bodily harm. The defendant accepted he had caused harm, to the victim, but claimed it was unintentional and he was guilty of the lesser offence of simply causing grievous bodily harm. This was not accepted by the crown. who contended the defendant was guilty of the more serious offence of intending to cause harm. Following the trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty. The client was given a suspended sentence for the lesser offence he had always admitted.
TQ instructed to act for high-profile professional boxer.
Defendant jointly charged with allegations of money laundering. Found in possession of £500,00.00 cash. The case involved a cut-throat defence between TQ’s client and the first defendant. Following cross-examination by TQ of the first defendant, the first defendant changed his plea to one if guilty. TQ’s client continued with the trial and was found not guilty.
Operation Aphrodite. Huge and sophisticated conspiracy to steal high value vehicles, seven defendants charged following a year-long police investigation. TQ was instructed to represent the second defendant. The case against the second defendant was based on text messages from his handset, telephone conversations and association with the co-conspirators. During the trial, TQ successfully excluded bad character evidence. Following trial, the jury took less than one hour to find TQ’s client not guilty. TQ’s client was the only defendant acquitted by the jury.
TQ persuaded the Court of Appeal to quash his client’s conviction on the grounds that she did not receive a fair trial. The court agreed and held the trial resulted in “serious unfairness”. The decision is significant development on the extent of judicial intervention, read it here.
Operation Roam: TQ’s client was the only defendant acquitted following a four-week trial in which it was alleged the defendants conspired to breach immigration laws by arranging sham marriages. The prosecution was based on a covert investigation conducted by a television company [Hardcash Productions] for ITV entitled ‘Exposure.UK – the Sham Marriage Racket’ (which was broadcast on the 3rd July 2015). TQ’s client was described by the prosecution as the ‘fixer of the scam’ and ‘Mr Big’. He was caught on camera introducing a fake bride with a fake name. Although he made no comment in the police interview, TQ told the jury he was not part of any criminal conspiracy. Following trial, the jury convicted all defendants expect TQ’s client who was found not guilty of all counts.
NOT GUILTY – TQ represented two defendants in a prosecution brought by Trading Standards. Both defendants were found not guilty by the jury of all 7 charges. The defendants were retailers in the West End of London. As part of their business, they imported and sold hover boards. Trading Standards raided the premises and seized the entirety of the defendants’ stock on the basis that officers suspected the hover boards to be unsafe products. Following expert examination, the products were confirmed as unsafe and as a result, both defendants were charged with 7. The defendants failed to attend the interview but later lodged a defence statement pleading the defence of “Due Diligence”. As part of the defence case, it was also submitted that jury could not be sure that the hover board seized were the same hover boards that the defendants imported. Following 3 hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously acquitted both defendants of all 7 charges.” NOT GUILTY – Following a covert investigation led by the investigation arm of British Telecom, (BT) three people were charged with fraudulently obtaining over £200,000.00 worth of apple products from BT. The products were ordered and dispatched to premises used by the fraudsters. Following covert surveillance three people were arrested at the premises and duly charged with money laundering offences. Of the three people arrested, two pleaded guilty and TQ’s client contested the matter at trial. Following legal submissions and discussions, the jury were directed to find TQ’s client not guilty.
TQ’s client was charged with an allegation of arson. TQ was privately instructed. There was no dispute a fire had occurred at residential premises. The crown’s case was that this was a revenge attack by the defendant as part of a matrimonial break up. The defendant made no comment during his police station interview and the crown relied on text messages sent by the defendant apparently admitting the arson. During the trial, TQ raised concerns about the disclosure process resulting in the Judge ordering the attendance of the CPS reviewing lawyer. The Judge criticised the prosecution’s failure to disclose important material. The Judge discharged the jury and ordered an urgent review of the case. Following the review, the CPS discontinued proceedings.
Attended Kazakhstan as part of the English Bar Council. TQ presented a series of seminars on corporate criminal liability.
TQ also conducted two seminars as part of the MLRO’s annual conference. TQ discussed anti-money laundering regulations and the enforcement powers of the FCA.
Instructed as leading junior. TQ’s client was one of three defendants prosecuted by HMRC for revenue offences. Following a six-week trial, TQ’s client was the only defendant found NOT GUILTY. The jury’s verdict was unanimous. The case had involved ‘cut-throat defences. TQ’s client was alleged to be part of a tobacco smuggling ring, the crown’s case was that he was a “trusted lieutenant” who organised and supplied vehicles used to transport illegal tobacco. During the investigation, TQ’s client was the subject of covert surveillance and he was seen transporting tobacco to and from London. The crown relied on phone interrogation reports, cell site analysis and observation evidence. When arrested, TQ’s client was interviewed but lied about aspects of his involvement. He told the jury he lied out of fear. The jury accepted the defendant explanation that the defendant was merely an innocent courier with no criminal intention.
Awards & Associations
Judges play an essential role in the trial process. In addition to managing the case and directing jurors on the law, Judges also assist by clarifying the evidence of witnesses and/or asking questions of witnesses that a Judge may feel is pertinent to the jury’s...
Mobile: 07951 535 693
Send an email to Tanveer