Mohammed Nawaz QC

Call To The Bar: 1995

Mohammed Nawaz was called to the bar in 1995 and has specialised in serious crime and fraud throughout his career. He became a QC in 2021.

In recent years Mohammed has defended in cases of murder, terrorism, major fraud, sexual exploitation of children, drug trafficking, bribery and confiscation proceedings – the vast majority of these cases have been of significant complexity and have received national media attention. The trials have required extensive, meticulous preparation and Mohammed always provides a tailored and specialised service to his professional and lay clients.

Current instructions include a HMRC prosecuted VAT fraud trial of 4 months, people trafficking conspiracy involving 3000 asylum seekers, a substantial “grooming” case featuring multiple allegations of rape and sexual assault, offences under the Modern Slavery Act, major drugs and money laundering offences, firearms offences and Encro prosecutions.

Some of Mohammed’s notable cases from the recent past are:

R v X: Defence Counsel in a case of inciting terrorism. D was 15 years old. Using an alter ego of a Jihadi Commander he was alleged to have incited murder. His age/psychiatric vulnerabilities required vigilance. This was a difficult, voluminous and complex case. D was brainwashed by ISIS terrorists and the press made strenuous attempts to report his identity. A very favourable plea and sentence was negotiated and press attempts to report his name were successfully resisted.

R v Anwar: Defence counsel in a trial of sexual exploitation of 14-year-old by 300 men. Cross-ex of the complainant presented many challenges and was commended and adopted by all other defence counsel. A vast body of information required streamlining to enable tightly defined and effective cross-examination.

R v Ansari: Defence counsel in a £2m fraud trial involving hacking of company emails and creation of bogus online businesses to defraud customers on Black Friday. This was a complex and large-scale fraud and involved a three-way cut-throat defence.

R v Tafham: Defence Counsel in a murder trial described as an “honour killing” of D’s mother-in-law for her complicity in wife’s affair.

R v Khalid: Defence counsel in a trial involving alleged conspiracy to import 400kg of cannabis.

R v Dedek: Defence counsel in a murder. D a foreign national and unfamiliar with Justice System had consumed large quantity of alcohol at the time of the stabbing. Using the defence of loss of control, the case was favourably resolved with the Prosecution accepting a plea to manslaughter.

R v Reynolds: Defence counsel in a trial of supply of large quantities of Class A drugs.

R v Akhtar: Defence counsel in a trial involving fraud/immigration offences. D was an Immigration Advisor with own practice and had serious medical conditions. A number of Counts were dismissed at the outset of the case. In relation to other counts submissions at half time were successful. The case required sensitive, careful and detailed cross-examination of professional witnesses and an extremely vulnerable lay witness over many hours.

R v Rathod: Defence counsel in trial of fraud and laundering criminal proceeds. D and his family were alleged to have set up fake Sikh Temples to flout immigration laws.

R v Smith: Defence counsel in murder trial. D (20) and deceased both drug dealers. D ran conjoined defences of self-defence/loss of self-control.

R v Iqbal: Defence counsel in trial of conspiracy to defraud. D owned colleges with Home Office licences to run an international English test. Extensive, detailed cross-examination of witnesses based on large volumes of material. The case also required detailed legal arguments to exclude Prosecution evidence.

R v Jamshaid: Defence counsel representing an International Cricketer in a spot-fixing/bribery case with the Prosecution being brought with the use of under-cover NCA agents.

R v Patel: Defence counsel in an ongoing case of complex VAT/Counterfeit Fraud. 250,000 pages of evidence. Value of fraud – £85m. The allegations span 7 years and have extensive international dimensions. The case contains many legal and factual complexities incl. abuse of process, GDPR, European Law, trial in absence/extradition and exclusion of evidence.