Zayd has represented a number of people charged with an array of criminal offences from serious violence and sexual offences to drug conspiracies and low level thefts. Zayd accepts instructions in criminal matters at all levels. Zayd is commended for his attention to detail and his jury advocacy and ensure no corner is left unturned.
Notable Crime cases
R v SK – Luton Crown Court – s.18 GBH
Zayd’s client was accused of stabbing her partner with a kitchen knife. After cross examining the complainant and raising issues with automatism, the client was acquitted of s.18.
R v AK - Snaresbrook Crown Court - s.18 GBH
Zayd’s client and others were alleged to have detained and seriously assaulted the complainant with a knife and metal pole causing a fracture of the skull, resulting in life changing injuries. Zayd was able to convince the jury that this was not a case of joint enterprise as the prosecution had alleged. After a period of deliberations, Zayd client was found not guilty of grievous bodily harm with intent and wounding.
R v LL – Wood Green Crown Court - s.18 GBH
Zayd’s client was accused of stabbing the complainant with a piece of glass and hitting him with piece of wood. After cross examining the crowns witnesses, Zayd was able to demonstrate self-defence and his lay client was acquitted.
R v VP - Wood Green Crown Court - s.18 GBH
Zayd Ahmed Successful in s.18 Grievous Bodily Harm Case. Zayd Ahmed, having considered the Crowns case, drafted a detailed basis of plea for a client charged with wounding with intent. It was alleged by the Crown that the defendant, with others, stabbed the complainant unprovoked. This basis of plea resulted in the Crown offering no evidence on the charge of wounding with intent. The client subsequently pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding and after thorough mitigation, received a suspended sentence of 18 months.
R v SA - Central Criminal Court - s.20 GBH
Zayd was instructed to defend his client who was charged with assault which caused serious injuries including a fractured hand. The complainant alleged that the defendant had punched, kicked, hit him with a metal pole and threatened to stab him with a knife. Zayd was able to illicit numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and the eyewitnesses. After less than an hour of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
R v DD - Maidstone Crown Court – s.20 GBH
Zayd Ahmed secures acquittal in record time for an offence of violence during a football match which caused the complainants teeth to fall out requiring surgery. Zayd Ahmed successfully argued self-defence in a trial at Maidstone Crown Court where 11 witnesses were called to give evidence of a “vicious and deliberate assault” during a football game. Zayd argued the accused held an honest and genuine belief he was going to be attacked and struck the complainant causing the injuries including a tooth falling out and another tooth being dislodged. The jury found the accused not guilty after only 19 minutes.
R v MK – Portsmouth Crown Court – Human trafficking
Zayd is currently instructed in a case where the defendant is accused of smuggling, two people into the United Kingdom via the ferry. Trial ongoing.
R v FN – Isleworth Crown Court – bomb hoax/ bank robbery
Zayd is currently instructed in a case where the defendant entered a bank with a fake bomb and robbed the bank of a vast quantity of money. Trial ongoing.
R v BB – Luton Crown Court – escape lawful custody/ violent disorder
Zayd is currently instructed in a trial where the defendant escaped an immigration detention centre. Trial ongoing.
R v L – Croydon Crown Court – Firearm with intent
Zayd was instructed as led junior in a case where the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm with intent. After submissions on gang evidence, Zayd’s client was acquitted of possession of a firearm with intent. He was convicted of possession of a firearm.
R v SL - Harrow Crown Court - imitation firearm
Zayd Ahmed secures acquittal for his client at Harrow Crown Court. His client allegedly conspired with two others to commit a robbery where an imitation firearm was used in a nightclub. The item stolen being an expensive piece of jewellery. Zayd was able to argue the case having drafted a lengthy and complex defence statements, obtained expert reports and having made submissions to the crown about the weaknesses in their case. The crown, two weeks before the trial, confirmed that they would be offering no evidence against his client and subsequently was found not guilty.
R v LK – Snaresbrook Crown Court – conspiracy to supply class B
Zayd was instructed to represent the defendant charged with a conspiracy to supply cannabis. After challenging the phone evidence, client was acquitted of conspiracy but convicted of possession of cannabis.
R v AR - Southwark Crown Court – Possession with intent to supply class A and B
Zayd Ahmed successfully represents defendant charged with possession with intent to supply Class A and B drugs at Southwark Crown Court. The defendant was stopped in a vehicle where a large quantity of cocaine, heroin and cannabis were found on the defendant and in the vehicle. Zayd made a successful submission after the service of his client’s defence statement. Additionally, he made an application to introduce non-defendant bad character material. This triggered a review by the CPS which resulted in early not guilty verdicts prior to trial. This approach confirms the importance of continual review of the evidence.
R v MR - Snaresbrook Crown Court - Possession with intent to supply class A and B
Zayd Ahmed was instructed in a multi handed case where the defendant had been charged with possession with intent to supply class A and B following a pursuit in east London where drugs were found in the car. Zayd drafted a careful defence statement and made a non-defendant bad character application which resulted in the Crown offering no evidence a week before the trial. The Crown advocate commented “it was down to your persistence and submissions”.
R v TB – Nightingale Court, Central Criminal Court - Possession with intent to supply class A and B
Zayd was instructed to represent the defendant charged with possession with intent to supply. His client was acquitted as Zayd demonstrated to the jury that there was no evidence of an intent to supply.
R v DR – Isleworth Crown Court – fraud
Zayd represented the defendant charged with fraud of £80,000 where it was alleged, he impersonated a member of bank staff. The defendant was acquitted after Zayd demonstrates holes in the identification evidence.
R v MA – Inner London Crown Court – fraud/ Money laundering
Zayd represented one of three defendants charged with numerous fraud offences and money laundering. Zayd was able to show no dishonesty and the defendant was acquitted after a majority verdict.
R v RA – Snaresbrook Crown Court - robbery
Zayd successfully defends client for robbery where the issue was ID. After the close of the prosecution case, Zayd made a submission of no case to answer on the basis that the evidence taken at its highest was insufficient. The judge accepted the submissions, and his client was found not guilty.
R v IH – Snaresbrook Crown Court - robbery
Zayd was instructed to defend a client for robbery. The issue for the jury was ID by a police officer. The defendant was acquitted by the jury.
Hackney BC v MA - Snaresbrook Crown Court
Zayd Ahmed is Successful in Arguing Thames Magistrates Court was Acting “functus officio” in HMO Licensing Prosecution. Zayd was successful in arguing that Thames magistrates court was acting functus officio, i.e., with no legal standing, in an HMO licensing prosecution. He submitted that the magistrates court had no standing to adjudicate the matter and was acting functus officio. The prosecution incorrectly asked for the case to be remitted from the Crown Court to the Magistrates’ Court to rectify a mistake. The prosecution conceded that Zayd’s written argument was correct and his client was subsequently found not guilty. Zayd was instructed by Legit Solicitors.
R v AS Northampton Crown – dangerous driving
Zayd Ahmed successful in legal argument under s.78 of PACE to exclude identification evidence. Zayd Ahmed was instructed on a case at Northampton Crown Court involving multiple serious offences including dangerous driving. Zayd made a successful s.78 application on the basis of numerous breaches of the codes of practise under PACE Code D. The Judge allowed the application and excluded the identification evidence. This resulted in the Crown offering no evidence and the defendant was subsequently acquitted of all charges.