Year of Call 1999

Jabeen
Akhtar

Tenant

jabeenakhtar@millenniumchambers.com

View Privacy Notice

Areas of Practice

  • Criminal Defence
  • Public Prosecution | Grade 3, RASSO Accredited
  • Private Prosecution
  • Business Crime & Financial Services

Professional Memberships

  • Midland Circuit | Midlands Circuit Women’s Forum (Mentor)
  • Criminal Bar Association
  • The Honourable Society of Grays Inn

Expertise

Jabeen is a criminal barrister specialising in cases that require expert advocacy skills. She has experience in complex drugs conspiracies, firearms, homicide, serious sexual offences including lengthy grooming cases, fraud and all forms of dishonesty. Successfully defending a range of clients.

Jabeen is instructed by both the prosecution and defence in a wide variety of criminal matters.

Jabeen is a Grade 3 prosecutor and a member of the approved panel of advocates who can deal with rape and other serious sexual offences.

Jabeen is a specialist criminal practitioner who has particular expertise in cases involving vulnerable witnesses and clients. She has extensive experience in cases involving young witnesses and defendants, or those vulnerable because of mental illness or learning disability. She is regularly instructed to represent those charged with rape and other serious sexual offences against adults and children (historical and recent, familial and non-familial).

Jabeen has a varied practice and represents both individual and corporate clients, respectively. Jabeen is called upon to advise professional clients at an early stage of proceedings in respect of strategy and to achieve the best outcome for lay clients. 

Jabeen has a reputation for being a highly-skilled, measured, forceful and persuasive advocate. As such, Jabeen is regularly instructed to appear as a leading advocate, both domestically and nationally. 

Jabeen has successfully represented clients appearing before major hearings at the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Jabeen speaks fluently in Urdu, Mirpuri and Punjabi.

Notable Cases

  • Represented one of 5 defendants charged with people trafficking offences. Women were brought over from Europe for the purposes of prostitution.
  • Instructed in an eight-handed “grooming” case which involved serious sexual complaints by a large number of victims.
  • Successfully represented defendants in several separate cases involving allegations of rape and other serious sexual offences against adults and children.
  • Represented a 60-year-old man charged with rape and other serious sexual offences against an eight-year-old girl. Thus careful cross-examination of young witnesses was required. The Jury could not agree after the first trial: the defendant was acquitted at the re-trial.
  • Represented a young man who had joined the army and had a successful career, charged with rape of his neighbour when she was a young girl. Defendant unanimously acquitted after 20 minutes of jury deliberation.
  • Represented a young man charged with the rape of his sister. It was a compassionate case. It required careful and thorough cross-examination of the complainant whom it was alleged was making up the allegation as all her family members had fallen out with her and this was her attempt to gain “sympathy” from them. The jury acquitted very quickly.
  • Recently instructed in a six-handed conspiracy to rob and assisting an offender. It was the prosecution case that the defendant deliberately and intentionally hired a vehicle in which an armed robbery was later carried out.  There was extensive phone evidence, which had to be challenged. The defendant was acquitted.
  • Leading counsel in a multi-handed drugs conspiracy. The defendant was the son of the Head of an Organized Crime Group (OCG). He denied being involved in the conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution.  The case involved extensive legal arguments on multiple conspiracies and also whether the prosecution was entitled to amend the indictment at a very late stage.
  • Junior counsel instructed in a gang-related murder. It was alleged by the prosecution that this was a revenge attack.  There were extensive legal arguments and PII application and the defendants were acquitted following an eight-week trial.
  • Instructed in a police corruption trial where it was alleged that the defendant was involved in obtaining confidential information from a corrupt police officer. The defendant was acquitted after a four-week trial.
  • Defended a young man charged with a grave section 18 offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, where a young man was left with life-threatening and permanent injuries. The client had already pleaded guilty when represented by previous counsel, and an application was made to vacate his plea, which was successful.  During the trial, a half time submission was made, successfully, and not guilty verdict entered against the client.

Immigration and asylum

Jabeen has appeared at Immigration Tribunals and dealt with a variety of matters, for example :

  • Advice on completion of student visa applications, preparation of documents for submission on student visa appeals, and throughout the whole appeal process
  • Settlement and spouse appeals
  • Family visitor appeals

DRUGS CASES

R V G  currently instructed in a 11 handed drugs and firearms case.  Miss Akhtar appears for the first defendant on the indictment.  The defendants are all said to be part of an organised crime group involved in a large scale conspiracy to supply class A drugs.  It is said that they keep their operation going by using various methods of control and intimidation.  The gang is said to be heavily involved with firearms and involved in a number of shootings.  Miss Akhtar’s client is alleged to be the “holder” of the guns and a trusted member of the group to  supply class A drugs and firearms to the group as and when required.

R V M   instructed in a 30 handed drugs conspiracy spanning over many months involving class A and B drugs conspiracies across the country.  The case involved covert recordings, surveillance evidence, ANPR, cell site evidence and cross referencing of numerous phones that were involved.  The defendant had a previous conviction for supply of class A drugs and was still on license when caught with a kilo of drugs on arrest.  Miss Akhtar was able to achieve a very favourable outcome for the client.

R v Z  This case involved the importation of class A drugs.  There were a number of defendants involved.  The defendant and his associates were under surveillance and were seen to receive the couple who returned with a suitcase full of class A drugs.  They were all arrested and pleaded not guilty to the charges.  After a six week trial Mr Z was the only defendant to be acquitted.

R v S   The case involved importation of class A drugs secreted and sewn into leather jackets.  The drugs were intercepted at the airport but the police allowed the drugs to be delivered to its destination to enable them to find out who was behind the operation.  The defendant along with another male were seen to be waiting in a car nearby and as soon as they saw the delivery van, they got out to receive the package.  Police surveillance operations were being carried out and both men along with a number of others were arrested.  The defendant was acquitted after trial.

R v R The case involved a conspiracy to supply class B drugs.   The defendant was arrested when a vehicle he was travelling in was stopped by the police.   A search of the vehicle was carried out and drugs and a large number of phones  were found within the vehicle.  Prosecution experts were instructed and attributed a number of telephones to the defendant.  One of the telephones said to be the clients was extremely damaging as it contained evidence of drug dealing.  Miss Akhtar focussed her attention on the phone evidence and having done so was able to confidently assert to the prosecution that the “damaging” phone cannot be attributed to her client.  Prosecution reviewed their position and offered no evidence against the client three weeks into the trial.

R v K  The case involved a stabbing.  The prosecution asserted that the defendant was responsible for stabbing a male multiple times in a carpark.  There was CCTV evidence showing the stabbing.  Prosecution relied on identification evidence from both the complainant and a number of police officers.  The identification evidence was challenged and a successful application made to exclude the evidence.  The defendant was unanimously acquitted at trial.

If you have any legal problems in your life…We are here to Help

Free Consultation