Notable Cases

This client was arrested and charged with possession of a bladed article in a public place. The client had left his supported accommodation with a kitchen knife in fear for his safety from local gangs. He was reported, stopped and found with the knife in his possession by police. Mr Masood represented the client for his sentencing and convinced the Magistrates to sentence the client to a community order rather than the custodial sentence he was facing. Mr Masood was able to skillfully mitigate on behalf of the client, citing his mental health conditions to the Court.

R v AS - Possession of a bladed article in a public place

This was a case in the Crown Court in which Mr Masood worked alongside Counsel to secure an acquittal for his client. The charges consisted of assaults, false imprisonment and controlling and coercive behaviour. There was extensive evidence that was analysed including mobile phone evidence and media recordings. Adeptly challenging this evidence, the complainant’s account was scrutinised and the jury returned a not guilty verdict to all counts.

R v MA - Controlling and Coercive Behaviour, False Imprisonment and Assault

This case involved a client who had assaulted ten police constables whilst in police custody. Mr Masood methodically analysed the offence and convinced the Magistrates for the matter to remain in the Magistrates Court where the sentencing powers were limited. With expert mitigation and exploration of the client’s circumstances, Mr Masood secured a suspended sentence for this client. Such an offence would usually be sent to the Crown Court where a single assault on an emergency worker can result in a 2 year custodial sentence alone.

R v RN - Assault on an Emergency Worker

This client appeared before the Magistrates Court for a charge of “drug driving”. The client had a history of driving offences and had previously been disqualified on two occasions. Due to this and other previous convictions the client was facing not only a significant disqualification from driving but the threat of a custodial sentence. Mr Masood was able to highlight his client’s current circumstances, his new employment and progress since being arrested and secured a lighter sentence in the form of a community order for the client alongside a driving disqualification.

R v RR - “Drug Driving”

Mr Masood represented a client facing a serious charge of wounding with intent under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and Robbery. The incident involved the alleged stabbing of a teenager over a potential “gang-war”. Expertly challenging the Crown’s evidence and through negotiation, a lesser plea to unlawful wounding was accepted with the robbery charge dropped. The client, a teenager himself, was released from custody on an intensive youth rehabilitation order.

R v TY - Wounding with Intent

The client in this case was charged to Court along with a co-accused for burglary of a dwelling where a number of high value items were stolen. Mr Mahmood represented the client at the police station and subsequently worked alongside Counsel at the Crown Court to defend the client. With expert representation at the Crown Court and analysis and scrutiny of the evidence against the client, the CPS evidence was challenged and eventually the client’s role in the offence was reduced. The client successfully pleaded guilty to the lesser roll and with detailed mitigation, the client received a community order sentence.

R v SB - Burglary Dwelling

Mr Mahmood was requested by the client in this case to represent him at the police station for an offence of S.18 wounding. The client in this case was present outside a pub when a fight broke out between a number of people and the complainant in this case suffered blunt force trauma to the head which subsequently left him in a coma and with permanent brain damage. Mr Mahmood’s client was accused of having hit the victim, knocking him to the floor and delivering a blow to the head. Mr Mahmood defended the allegations made against the client by the Homicide Major Enquiry Team (HMET) during lengthy interviews. Mr Mahmood analysed and dissected witness testimony and CCTV evidence provided by the police officers to support their case; which in fact proved that our client had no involvement in the offence. The client was eventually released with no further action.

R v AN - S.18 Wounding

This case involved a client who was arrested and interviewed at the police station. Mr Mahmood was asked by the client to represent him at the police station to defend the client against the allegations. The client presented evidence of text messages which casted doubt on the statement and account put forward by the complainant. Mr Mahmood, used this evidence and challenged the police case during the interview under caution and defended the client against the allegations put to him. The matter was subsequently reviewed by the police and no further action was taken against the client.

R v JH - Rape

Mr Mahmood was requested to represent a client at the police station for the offence of possession of a firearm. A firearm was located in close proximity to the client’s home address and it was alleged that via ‘intelligence’ the client was linked to the firearm. Mr Mahmood’s strategic approach at the police station and scrutiny of the police evidence meant that the client could not be linked to the firearm in any way. The client was released without charge.

R v PC - Possession of a Firearm

Is this case Mr Mahmood was requested by 3 co-accused to represent them at the police station for murder. A murder investigation was launched when the remains of a dead body were located in Leeds and the three co-accused were key suspects. Mr Mahmood represented the accused at the police station over a period of several days during intense interviews with the Homicide Major Enquiry Team (HMET). Mr Mahmood’s tactical approach during the interviews along with scrutiny of the evidence put forward by the police officers meant that the police officers were not in a position to charge the suspects with murder. All 3 suspects were released pending investigations. Mr Mahmood continued to communicate with the police investigators over several months. All 3 accused were eventually released with no further action.

R v JZ, AB and AC - Murder

The client in this case requested Mr Mahmood when arrested on an allegation of conspiracy to blackmail a politician. He was arrested alongside a number of co-accused and was interviewed by the Homicide Major Enquiry Team (HMET). Mr Mahmood represented the client through several intense interviews with the police whilst furthering the client’s defence throughout the interview; refuting the allegations put to the client. With the involvement of cell site analysis Mr Mahmood was able to prove the client had no involvement as the police alleged. No further action was taken against the client.

R v AZ Conspiracy to Blackmail