CRIMINAL LAW

R v B 2024 (Minshull Street Crown Court) -Three 16-year-old males accused of Murder and Manslaughter. B was represented by Naila Akhter, Mark Gatley KC and Stuart Neale of counsel, successful submission of no case to answer made at close of prosecution case. Not guilty verdicts recorded for B.  The other two defendants case continued before the jury.

R v D 2024 (Manchester Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale represented D accused of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, possess criminal property and possession with intent to supply class B drugs to undercover police officers. After lengthy submissions prosecution discontinued the conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and offered no evidence at trial in relation to the other two offences.  D pleaded guilty to simple possession of cannabis.

R v C 2024 (Manchester Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale represented C, accused of Supply class A drugs with another male. Prosecution offered no evidence based on modern slavery.

R v E 2024 (Minshull Street Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel represented E accused of false imprisonment and assault.  E had mental health issues, at trial prosecution offered no evidence.

R v C 2024 Manchester Salford Magistrates Court represented by Roger Lowe for breach of restraining order.  At trial the complainant gave evidence, C was found not guilty.

R v B 2024 (Bolton Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Gwen Henshall of counsel were instructed.  B was accused of s18 causing grievous bodily harm with intent and s20 inflicting grievous bodily harm.  Following a jury trial B was acquitted.

R v K 2024 Tameside Magistrates Court. Roger Lowe represented K, she was accused of a Public Order Act Offence. At trial found not guilty.

R v M 2024 (Court of Criminal Appeal) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel successfully appealed M’s sentence.  The hearing was before Lord Justice Lewis, Mrs. Justice Cheema-Grubb and Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson.  The Court took a starting point of 5 years but then applied a reduction for the M’s mitigation and the unlikelihood of this occurring of 18 months and then applied a full on third credit bringing the sentence down to 28 months.  The Court did its best to reduce the sentence to a level it could suspend but took the view that only immediate custody was appropriate and accordingly allowed the appeal to reduce the sentence from 4 years to 28 months.

R v B 2024 (Court of Appeal) represented by Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel, Bs suspended sentence was successfully appealed for an offence of affray, he received a conditional discharge. B had originally been charged with possessing an imitation firearm with 2 others with the intention of causing fear and violent disorder. B had pleaded guilty to a lesser offence of affray.

R v I 2024 (Manchester Crown Court) represented by Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel. R with others appeared on an indictment contained offences relating to firearm, conspiracy to supply class A drugs and conspiracy to supply class B drugs.  I had previous convictions for supply of class A drugs. I pleaded guilty on a basis to supply class B drugs with no proceeds of crime and received a custodial sentence of 12 months.

R v K 2024 (Minshull Street Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel were instructed by K who was accused with others of witness intimidation.  K a professional man with no previous convictions had been remanded in relation to these matters, he transferred solicitors to Platts. An application to dismiss was submitted with supporting evidence.  Prosecution offered no evidence.

R v C 2024 (Manchester Salford Magistrates Court) Roger Lowe represented C accused of breach of his restraining order. Following a trial found not guilty.

R v F 2024 (Manchester Magistrates Court) Naila Akhter represented F who was accused of failing to provide a blood sample for drugs. The defence was a needle phobia and an expert medical report was submitted. Prosecution offered no evidence on the day of trial.

R v S 2023 (Mold Crown Court)-Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel represented S who was accused of sexual assault.  S was a Bollywood producer.  A week before the trial the prosecution offered no evidence, this was after the defence had persistently requested for further disclosure.

R v Y 2023 (Minshull Street Crown Court).  Naila Akhter and Wayne Jackson of counsel. Y was accused of s18 Wounding offence, at the time of the alleged incident Y was working as a member of door staff at a night club where it was alleged that he fractured the complainants jaw. He was accused of wearing a reinforced metal glove.  Following a jury trial Y was acquitted.

R v C 2023 (Manchester Salford Magistrates Court) represented by Roger Lowe.  C was accused of harassing his ex-partner. At trial the complainant gave evidence, C was acquitted.

R v L 2023 (Minshull Street Crown Court) represented by Naila Akhter and John Kennerly of counsel.  L was accused of causing death by dangerous driving.  The circumstances of the incident were that he had crashed into a bicycle and drove over the victim.  The defence had instructed a reconstruction expert.  Following the trial the jury could not decide and there was a hung jury.

R v S 2023 (Preston Crown Court) accused of rape and possessing indecent images.  He was represented by Naila Akhter and Michael Ivers KC.  S was a vulnerable male, as a child he had sustained brain injury.  The case involved forensic evidence and telephonic evidence.  Following a jury trial S was acquitted.

R v Khan 2023 (Manchester Crown Court) accused of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.  He was represented by Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel.  The defence had obtained an independent forensic report.  On the day of trial prosecution offered no evidence.

R v W 2023 (Manchester Crown Court) accused of s18 wounding and Burglary. He was represented by Naila Akhter and Gwen Henshall of counsel.  The burglary offence was discontinued on the day of trial by the prosecution and following a jury trial, W was acquitted of the s18 Wounding offence.

R v H 2023 (Bolton Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel represented H accused of rape and sexual assault. Following a jury trial F was acquitted.

R V L 2023 Court of Appeal.  Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale successfully represented L on his appeal against sentence. His sentence was reduced by 12 months on the basis that the trial judge double counted whilst sentencing him at Minshull Street Crown Court.  

R v A 2023 (Minshull Street Crown Court) represented by Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel. A was accused of assault x 2 / coercive behaviour/ non-fatal strangulation.  At trial A pleaded guilty to a single count of common assault and the prosecution offered no evidence in relation to all other offences.

R v H 2023 – (Stockport Magistrates Court) represented by Paul Bradbury for possession of offensive weapons in a public place.  H was found in a car park with number of offensive weapons, the car park was used by drug dealers.  Following a contested trial H was found not guilty.

R v D 2023 (Manchester Salford Magistrates Court). Naila Akhter represented D for two common assaults. At trial both prosecution witnesses gave evidence, D was found not guilty.

R v H 2022 (Manchester Crown Court) represented by Naila Akhter accused of an offensive weapon.  H was a lifer acquitted by jury.  

R v D 2022 (Birmingham Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel represented D who was accused of rape. The case was fully prepared for trial, submissions and legal arguments were made on behalf of D. The defence requested secondary disclosure. A week before trial the prosecution offered no evidence.

R v F 2022 (Minshull Street Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale represented F a professional man accused of violent disorder and possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.  The complainant was a neighbour who was former governor number one at HMP Strangeways.  Successful application to dismiss was made in relation to both charges.

R v O 2022 (Manchester Salford Magistrates Court) Naila Akhter represented O accused of supplying class B drugs.  She at an earlier hearing persuaded the court that the case was suitable to be heard in the Magistrates court and if O was convicted, he could be committed for a sentence to the Crown Court.  At trial two police officers gave evidence, O was acquitted.

R v M 2022 (Criminal Court of Appeal) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel were instructed by M to appeal his sentence in relation to offences for a series of armed robberies which were committed nationally.  His sentences were reduced from 9 and a half years to 7 and a half years.

R v C 2022 (Warrington Magistrates Court) Roger Lowe represented C accused of domestic violence assault.  Following trial C was found not guilty.

R v L 2022 (Manchester Crown Court) represented by Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale. The client a youth was accused of others including an adult of S18 wounding, using a knife and violent disorder. The incident took place on a bus whereby two males were badly assaulted on the bus.  Pressure was being placed L to plead guilty by his co-accused to the wounding offence. Legal submissions were made; the prosecution discontinued the wounding offence against L and he pleaded guilty to violent disorder.   L case was remitted to the Youth Court, and he received a referral order.

R v R 2022 (Minshull St Crown Court) represented by Naila Akhter Stuart Neale of counsel.  R was accused of assault/coercive behaviour and rape by his wife. R pleaded not guilty, the case was fixed for trial and the prosecution strongly opposed bailed under the domestic violence provisions. The defence made detailed disclosure requests, prosecution discontinued the case before trial.

R v M 2022 (Manchester Salford Magistrates) represented by Naila Akhter, accused of two assault emergency workers namely two police officers. At trial both officers gave evidence, M was found not guilty.

R v K 2022 (Minshull Street Crown Court) represented by Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel. K, a senior lawyer was accused of stalking, harassment and covid breaches.  A conviction would have serious consequences for her employment. Naila wrote a lengthy letter to the Crown Prosecution Service whilst the case was in the Magistrates Court arguing that the case did not meet the evidential and public interest test, unfortunately the case worker did not really consider the case and said they would proceed with it. Naila tactically elected for the case to be heard in the Crown Court.  Naila uploaded her letter onto the Crown Court Digital Case System.  A few days prior to the Plea Trial Preparation Hearing the prosecution offered no evidence.  The prosecution applied for a restraining order which was successfully opposed.

R v D 2022 (Tameside Magistrates Court) Naila Akhter represented a client who was extremely vulnerable with significant mental health issues, he was accused of having a kitchen knife in a public place.  Naila relied on case law and successfully argued that the knife was not in a public place as he was standing in his own front garden.

R v F 2021 (Minshull Street Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Chloe Fordham of counsel represented F accused of attempted murder.  The case involved shooting the complainant at close range, CCTV evidence capturing the incident, forensic evidence, medical evidence and eyewitnesses which included a witness statement identifying F as the offender.  After repeated requests the defence received crucial disclosure.  The prosecution offered no evidence on the day of the trial.

R v S 2021 (Manchester Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel represented S who was accused of sexual assault.  The police started the investigation when S was a minor but dragged the process out until his 18^th Birthday. S was vulnerable diagnosed with autism.  Following trial S was found not guilty.

R v A 2021 (Manchester Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of Cobden House Chambers successfully represented A who was a taxi driver charged with causing death by driving whilst uninsured. A at the time worked for Uber taxi service and the defence successfully argued that he did have valid insurance even though the passenger had not booked the taxi on the Uber App. The defence argued that A could not be held to be at fault for something which he could not see or have anticipated as even a remote possibility-there needed to be some degree of fault not amounting to driving without due care: – R v Hughes (2014) 1 Cr.App.R.6.

R v K 2021 (Minshull Street Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale represented K accused of s18 wounding offence. K had allegedly repeatedly punched the complainant causing a fractured cheek. After repeated requests for disclosure the prosecution discontinued the case prior to trial.

R v A 2020 (Court of Appeal) represented by Naila Akhter and Stuart Neale of counsel in respect of his appeal against conviction for an offence of rape.  The appeal was heard by Lord Justice Holroyde, Mrs. Justice Andrews DBE and Sir Roderick Evans, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

On the 21^st August 2015 in the Crown Court at Manchester the appellant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of rape of a woman he had an Islamic marriage.  On the 29^{th of} August 2015 he was sentenced to 7 and half year’s imprisonment and he was also required to comply with the Sex Offenders Register for an indefinite period.  At the trial the appellant was represented by solicitors and counsel.  A submitted an appeal against conviction through a second legal team but the single judge refused leave. The appellant then instructed Platts Solicitors, and the Court granted leave to appeal on a ground relating to fresh evidence.

R v M, H, W 2020 (Manchester Crown Court) Naila Akhter represented 3 defendants out of 4 charged with s18 Wounding, Violent Disorder and False Imprisonment.  On the face of it there was strong evidence against the defendants which included CCTV evidence, phone evidence, medical evidence, independent witnesses and the police had arrested all 4 defendants after the complainant had allegedly made secret phone calls

For M the lead defendant, Mr. Stuart Neale of counsel, was instructed.  M had significant previous convictions and had allegedly committed these offences whilst on Crown Court bail for other offences of violence.  Independent CCTV evidence was examined, and numerous disclosure requests were made.  After months of chasing the prosecution for the complainant’s phone records we were able to examine the downloads of the complainant’s mobile phone which resulted in the prosecution offering no evidence against all 4 defendants.

R v K 2020 (Chester Crown Court) Naila Akhter and Craig McGregor of counsel were instructed, K was accused of possession of class A with intent to supply.  Following a jury trial he was acquitted.

R v R 2019 (Manchester Salford Magistrates Court).  R was accused of assault and breach of non-molestation order; he was represented by Naila Akhter. The case was discontinued by the prosecution just before the trial. R was a professional man who had sustained a head injury in 2006 and received over half a million pounds in compensation. From the compensation R brought two properties for him and his family and they also used the money to travel the world. The complainant insisted that she and R married, and the cost of the wedding was paid by R which was in the sum of £30,000, the marriage lasted about a month even though the couple had been together for many years and had two teenage children. The complainant in 2019 made allegation of breach of non-molestation order, R was arrested, and he was driven to the police station by a police officer who enroute to the police station advised him to admit the allegations to save his relationship. Subsequently, R pleaded guilty without the benefit of legal advice. Thereafter, the complainant took over both properties leaving R homeless and applied for divorce and a larger share of the assets due to the breach of non-molestation order that R admitted.  R was accused of further breach of non-molestation order and assault. After careful preparation and investigation instructing solicitors discovered that the police officer was involved in a relationship with the complainant. A formal complaint was made to the police as a result the police officer was disciplined. The prosecution discontinued the proceedings.

IMMIGRATION LAW

HO v KE -Client who is a Palestinian National, but residents of Saudi Arabia had arrived with his family to the UK on a Tier 1 Entrepreneur visa. Client’s business then suffered from a huge loss due to the pandemic. This also impacted on his personal life. Client then wanted to return to Saudi Arabia however, numerous requests to the HO to return original documentations were ignored. Our client and his dependent’s visas to return to Saudi then expired. He had no way of returning to Saudi Arabia to renew the residence identity card which was the only documentary evidence enabling them the right to reside in Saudi Arabia.

Our client and his dependents were left with no status in the UK or anywhere else in the world. Nazrin submitted stateless applications on behalf of the family. The home office made extensive enquiry and request for documentation over a period of two and a half years in order to avoid granting our client leave as a stateless person. Nazrin provided them with thorough information which included evidence from Saudi Arabia official government bodies and also proved to the Home Office how the client is suffering from undue hardship due to no fault of their own.

Our client and his dependents have finally received a successful stateless application decision and are overjoyed that they can finally start living life again. The family are extremely grateful to Nazrin and Platts Solicitors for their hard work.

HO v SHH – Client was being revoked of his British citizenship. The HO believed that he was obtained this by fraudulent information. Nazrin appealed the decision based on no factual evidence to prove their assertion. The appeal was granted in favor of our client. He has now been able to bring his family to the UK and is ever so grateful to Nazrin.  

HO v H – Client had returned to Libya due to a family emergency whilst his further leave to remain application was pending in the UK. He was then not allowed to return to the UK as he had no leave to enter. The client then made several applications by himself which were rejected. Nazrin advised him that he should apply under the spouse visa as he had a British citizen wife. This application was a success, and the client was able to return to the UK after 11 years.

HO v I – Nazrin was instructed after the client was dissatisfied with his previous representatives dealing with his matter. He was a Danish National whose passport was revoked as he did not return to Denmark for over 5 years. Our client was struggling to prove his nationality due to not having any valid ID.  Nazrin managed to get the Denmark embassy to attest that the passport copy was a true copy and also gathered substantial evidence to prove his true identity. Our client struggled to obtain such documents in the past due to language barriers. Nazrin took her time in accessing all the relevant documents by doing her enquiries and submitted the application using her own initiative.  Our client was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain.

HO v G – The client was struggling to find a surety for his bail application. Nazrin drafted in-depth grounds for bail and put what conditions can be placed on the client as an alternative so that he will not abscond. The client was granted bail.

HO v AB – Client’s son was turning 18. She was concerned that he will not be able to satisfy the English language requirement for British Citizenship. Nazrin prioritised his application, and he successfully became British a day prior to turning 18 years old.

HO v SD – Citizenship application was pending for over one year. Nazrin did number of chases and complaints to the HO however, she was unable to get a response. Nazrin then sent a pre-action protocol to this the HO finally responded and the client was granted citizenship.

HO v H – Client’s application (submitted by his previous representatives) as a parent to a British citizen child was refused. Nazrin applied for an appeal putting forward all the reasons why his application should have been granted. His appeal was allowed based on private and family life.  

HO v SHH – Client was being revoked of his British citizenship. The HO believed that he was obtained this by fraudulent information. Nazrin appealed the decision on the basis of no factual evidence to prove their assertion. The appeal was granted in favour of our client. He has now been able to bring his family to the UK and is ever so grateful to Nazrin.  

FAMILY LAW

P v P – Client and her ex-partner separated after 18 years of marriage. They owned a property in joint names. Our client was residing at the property with her 5 children. Client’s ex-partner wanted the house to be sold and proceeds to be split 50/50 However, our client wanted the property to be transferred in her sole name and she was willing to buy her ex-partner out. Client’s ex-partner wanted 50% of the house value, however Nazrin negotiated until a settlement was reached and the client was very satisfied with the offer that was finally agreed. The property was then transferred in our client’s sole name.

T v N – Client wanted contact with his child. The mother of the child had claimed domestic violence and left the property. However, the criminal courts found our client not guilty and took no further action. Nazrin managed to prove to the family court that our client was a caring and loving father and that it is in the child’s best interests that she had contact with her father. She did a thorough position statement and exhibited evidence. Cafcass and the courts agreed that contact should be resumed even if it started with supervised contact. Client was very satisfied with Nazrin’s service.

RG v BA – Client and his family arrived from Italy to the UK. Upon arrival client’s partner decided to leave him. She was influenced by other family members who resided in the UK. She then made an application to court to stop the father from having any contact. We disputed this application stating the reasons for our client wanting contact with the children. After many months, the parties decided to reconcile, however, due to all the allegations made against our client the court required a hearing to take place. During the court hearing Nazrin was able to convince the court that the parties will put the needs of their children first and also will work with the local authority. The court then granted permission for the applicant mothers’ application to be discharged. Our client was then able to reconcile with his family and was extremely pleased.