• R v Shekibullah Naqshbandi [2024] – This case was amongst a number of prosecutions that concerned allegations of fraudulently benefitting from the emergency financial help that was provided for the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire. The defendant was alleged to have fraudulently claimed to have been residing in the tower at the time of the fire which allowed him to receive financial assistance. The heart of the matter concerned who the council deemed to be a resident under its Grenfell Tower rehousing policy. After a seven-week trial, the defendant was unanimously found not guilty.

• R v Ashaanth Sounthararajan [2024] – Gulam Ahmed and Mumin Hashim secured an acquittal for a former Nat West bank Senior Personal Banker after a retrial. It was alleged that the defendant abused his position by facilitating fraudulent transactions against genuine customers who were victims of fraud. The defendant was alleged to be part of a team of fraudsters who used the identities of genuine customers to steal their funds and redirect bank cards. There was no evidence of communication and transfer of monies between the fraudsters and the defendant. The trial demonstrated that the defendant was targeted by the fraudsters and that he had acted innocently and followed the bank’s procedures. The jury unanimously found the defendant not guilty.

• R v FA [2023] – Mumin Hashim was led by Zacharias Miah in a case of historic grooming going back 20 years. The defendant who was a school boy at the time, was alleged to have carried out serious sexual assaults along with other members of his family.

• R v Khan [2023] – This case arose from a Metropolitan Police investigation into a county lines drugs gang that was supplying Class A drugs to the south coast using minors as couriers. The drug supply was controlled in and around London and Birmingham and supplied in Bournemouth-My London News.

• R v Salih [2023] -This was a multi-handed case investigated by the National Crime Agency where the defendant was alleged to have been part of an organised crime group involved in the smuggling of migrants into the UK. The aim of the operation was to secure the entry of ethnic Kurds into the United Kingdom (UK) who would then claim asylum. It was alleged that the motivation of those facilitating their entry into the UK was a commercial one thereby making substantial profits from people smuggling-National Crime Agency, Yorkshire Post

• Z & Z [2022] – This was a case that involved allegations of domestic violence and coercive control. The case also involved non-molestation orders and Children Act Orders.

• R v Hakim & others [2021] (St Albans Crown Court) – The defendant was charged with Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice in a multi-handed case where the other defendants were charged with causing grievous bodily harm under s.18 of the Offences Again the Person Act 1861. The incident involved an attack on a person at the Jamie Mosque on Hatfield Road in St Albans. The defendant was acquitted after a successful application for no case to answer-The Herts Advertiser.

• R v Gulzar & others [2021] (Snaresbrook Crown Court) – Gulam Ahmed and Mumin Hashim represented the second defendant in a £34 million multi-handed money laundering trial. The trial which was envisaged to last 12 weeks collapsed almost 6 weeks later when the trial judge, HHJ Falk, refused the prosecution’s application for an adjournment to remedy disclosure failings which the judge described as ‘’systemic and catastrophic”. Mumin Hashim was instructed by Ashmans Solicitors. –The Times.

• R v Chowdhury [2020]-was led on a terrorism trial concerning the failure to disclose information that one knew or believed might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism contrary to Section 38 B of the Terrorism Act 2000-BBC report.

• Y & Y [2019] – A divorce settlement was successfully negotiated concerning property valued at over £1 million.

• R v Karim [2018] – Successful defence in a large-scale immigration and tax fraud. This was a 35-week trial that involved fraudulent applications of Tier 1 general and entrepreneur visas. Seventy-nine bogus companies providing fake payslips were used to facilitate 900 fraudulent visa applications by Bangladeshi nationals featuring the recycling of cash. In addition, hundreds of bogus tax repayment claims were submitted-Daily Telegraph Report

• Mather and Aviva [2018] –Fundamental Dishonesty application- successfully fought of an application by the Respondent to establish that the Claimant was Fundamentally Dishonest in withdrawing his claim for personal injury three weeks before the start of the trial.

• R v Pendyala [2016] Large scale Immigration fraud following the same pattern as the case of Lattupally.

• R v Lattupally [2016] was led on Large scale immigration fraud centred on the abuse of the previous Home Office’s Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. This policy allowed highly qualified foreign nationals to work in the United Kingdom (UK), either employed or self-employed. The method used by the defendants was simple yet complex in execution. Payments received by the alleged organisers of the fraud from visa applicants were administered through shell companies before being recycled back to applicants in the guise of income from bogus self-employment-Daily Mail report.

• R v K – Snaresbrook Crown Court [2014] – An allegation of under aged grooming that involved an anonymous tip off and a non-existent victim.

• R v M [2013] – Swindon Crown Court – Allegations of rape and false imprisonment involving an under aged complainant and older male.

• R v Juber Ahmed [2013] – Manchester Crown Court (Crown Square) – This was an important case that lasted six months long concerning immigration offences involving money laundering, the alleged production of false passports and false passport stamps. Central to defending the case were the methods employed by the Home Office in keeping records and detecting fraudulent applications. This case was a precursor to the Windrush affair that emerged in 2018. The problems facing the Windrush generation in proving and establishing their right of abode was first faced by the same of Bengali clients in this case. During the duration of this trial, information was disclosed by long term Home Officials that the then Labour government had ordered the destruction of around 25 million files effectively erasing records that could have established the right of abode of commonwealth citizens who had migrated to the United Kingdom after the war-BBC report.

• R v B [2012] – Liverpool Crown Court – This case involved a multi-handed conspiracy to bring drugs into the United Kingdom from abroad. The allegations involved the onwards supply of heroin and cocaine from London the North East of England. This part of a wider operation conducted the Serious Organised Crime Agency-report.

• R v I [2012] – Birmingham Crown Court – An allegation rape against a young male that was undermined from evidence given by the complainant’s friends.

• Lumenica v Government of Albania [2012] EWCA 2589 – A reported case that concerned the Extradition Act 2003 and the imposition of strict time limits when filing a notice of appeal. The court held that where, through no fault of the appellant, there was a late filing and service of notice, the court had a discretion to extend time for both filing and service despite the strict statutory time limits giving effect to article (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

• R v Gray [2012] – Birmingham Crown Court – This was one of a serious of trials that arose from the nationwide riots that took place the previous year in protest at the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police in London. This particular case involved the targeting of the police by firearms and the attempted shooting of a police helicopter by gang members-BBC report.

• British Transport Police v Soods Solicitors [2012] EWHC 3780 (Admin) – This case involved successfully resisting the application of the BTP for a wasted costs order against the Respondent solicitor.

• R v Bajramaj [2011] – Basildon Crown Court – A multi-handed firearms and sophisticated underground drugs factory case.

• Sternaj v DPP (2011) EWHC 1094 – Canterbury CC/High Court – A reported case concerning facilitating a breach of immigration law. The defendants were convicted of smuggling ES’s son into the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum. The decision to prosecute was challenged on the basis that Article 31 of the Refugee Convention offered a remedy against prosecution. In addition, it was argued that the scope of section 31(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should be construed to comply with Article 31. This case gave rise to a novel point of law concerning the relationship between Article 31 and section 31(3) of the 1999 Act namely whether a genuine asylum seeker can be prosecuted for assisting another genuine asylum seeker (whose claim is subsumed into his own by virtue of their parent/child relationship and especially where the Home Secretary has accepted them as presumptive refugees) to enter the UK in breach of immigration law.

• R v Choudhury [2010]– Winchester CC – Complex mortgage fraud involving buying and reselling properties between family and close friends.

• R v G [2010] – Chelmsford CC – Represented a young male accused of rape by a female whose case was undermined by the existence of CCTV footage.

• R v C [2009] – Blackfriars CC – Sophisticated car insurance fraud carried out by dishonest claim handlers that ensnared unwitting victims.

• R v Khan [2008]– Old Bailey/CA – Was led on a murder trial that featured an anonymity order. The case was one of the first ones heard after the decision in R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36 and the subsequent Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008-BBC report.

• R v A [2007] – Croydon CC – Involved a large-scale internal bank fraud organised by bank employees working in call centres with access to customer details.

• R v A [2006] – Bournemouth CC – Allegation of sexual offence against a minor made against a member of the same family.

Email: mumin.hashim@hayfieldlaw.com
Phone: +44 (0)20 7702 8468

Email: uzair.shah@hayfieldlaw.com
Phone: +44 (0)20 702 8468

Email: tuoyo.eruwa@hayfieldlaw.com
Phone: +44 (0)20 7702 8468

Email: info@hayfieldlaw.com
Phone: +44 (0)20 702 8468

Email: ashfa.dar@hayfieldlaw.com
Phone: +44 (0)20 7702 8468