Amjad Hussain

[email protected]

Amjad has been a practising Barrister since May 2001, having been called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1999 (Lincoln’s Inn). His primary area of practice is in the criminal law. The types of cases that he defends in, range from large scale drugs conspiracies, money laundering to fraud cases (involving millions of pounds) and serious assaults (GBH)

Amjad’s secondary area of practice is in Immigration and Asylum law, which involves mainly challenges to the decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”), this includes: drafting emergency applications for injunctions against the SSHD in order to prevent the unlawful removal / deportation of non-British nationals from the UK. He has undertaken many cases as Counsel in the High Court and several cases in the Court of Appeal mainly arguing points of law in relation to Article 8 Human Rights Act 1998 and the “best interests” of children resident in the UK.

Some examples of his notable cases are as follows:

Crime:

Complex and large scale fraud:

R v BAA [2024] Leeds Crown Court: “Operation Ramsay” pending yet to be tried instructed as lead Counsel in a 22 handed conspiracy to evade over £69 million of duty on cigarettes and hand rolled tobacco

R v SK [2023] Preston Crown Court: “Operation Merope” led junior in this conspiracy involving 13 defendants. Case concerned fraudulent refunds depriving institutions of amounts to the value of a quarter of a million. Trial lasted 2 months.

R v HUKK [2021] Southwark Crown Court: “Operation Lexes” represented as led junior. There were 9 defendants charged in this conspiracy to defraud the Home Office. In total there were over 50 applications made by migrants (mainly international students) through a bogus UK film company, based in London, that offered false jobs created to ostensibly provide assistance to the “Bollywood” film industry for its part in the production of films in the UK. This trial was run during covid, with strict measures put in place. There were 20 Counsel that appeared in the proceedings and which lasted 4 months. The jury convicted but the defence presented powerful mitigation which resulted in the sentence being suspended.

R v JT [2019] Birmingham Crown Court: “Operation Dardanelle” conspiracy to evade duty on over several million cigarettes and 3 tonnes of hand rolling tobacco. Amjad represented the lead defendant (alone) whereas others in the case were represented by Queens Counsel. This trial resulted in the jury being discharged as it was unable to reach verdicts (retrial pending)

R v MA [2018] Sheffield Crown Court: immigration fraud 2 month trial led junior for D1. The case involved 9 defendants in a conspiracy to defraud the home office by creating false jobs to meet the “Appendix FM” income criteria for applicants entering or settling in the UK on spouse visas (contrary to section 1 and 3 of the Immigration Act 1971). MA was an accountant who prepared false documents to meet the Home Office criteria for numerous applicants.

R v SP and 4 others Derby Crown Court: (Operation Kabella 2017/2018) represented in a complex fraud case concerning a group of severely hearing impaired defendants, who were alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to defraud the Department of Work and Pensions by manipulating the “Access to Work” scheme designed to assist deaf people to access work. The allegations being that the scheme was used to defraud the DWP out of approximately £1.5 million.

R v AK Derby Crown Court: (Operation Twang 2017) represented in a case concerning conspiracy relating to the storage and distribution of non-duty paid tobacco products based in and around the Derby area.  The duty evaded was over £1million. The defendant was acquitted by unanimous verdict.

R v ZA & 14 others Manchester Crown Court: (Operation Maxton 2017) credit card fraud involving the defrauding of banks and car insurance companies.

R v SA and 6 others Minshull St Crown Court Manchester: (Operation Retriever 2016) Multi-handed case: represented in a major conspiracy to facilitate immigration fraud by arranging “sham marriages”. The allegation involved “importing brides” from Eastern European (EEA countries) to facilitate immigration status advantages leading to settlement, for international students from Pakistan. SA was one of the leading defendants in the case charged with being an organiser of the fraud. He was the only defendant to be acquitted unanimously.

R v PSL Blackfriars Crown Court: (Operation Bayweek 2016) led junior in £150 million “inward bound alcohol diversion fraud” which was a duty evasion conspiracy involving a number of defendants. Hung jury in the first trial and acquitted in the second.

Rape and sexual offences:

R v WA [2024] Nottingham Crown Court: Led by Sarah Knight in a case involving kidnap and rape. After a 3 week trial, the jury unanimously acquitted on both charges.

R v AS [2024] Derby Crown Court (sexual assault): the case concerned allegations of digital penetration of a female in a nightclub along with sexual assault on a male. After a 2 week trial, the jury unanimously acquitted.

R v Dr. JF [2023] Leicester Crown Court: historical sexual offences involving child complainants spanning over 30 years prior to trial. Jury convicted majority verdicts but acquitted on 2 charges.

R v GL [2022] Bradford Crown Court: indecent assault. The case concerned a semi-professional rugby player alleged to have sexually assaulted his wife after a night out of heavy drinking. The trial concluded with the jury being unable to reach a verdict. Prosecution did not pursue retrial.

Drugs: a selection of some cases

R v SA [2024] Caernarvon Crown Court: (Operation Blue Equity) this case involved large scale cannabis production in north Wales with 13 defendants and 2 separate organised crime groups operating out of South Yorkshire and Liverpool. The value of the drugs was over £2.5 million and the operation involved setting up cannabis factories in the Rhyl area. Amjad’s client pleaded during the beginning of the trial and, after persuasive submissions, a suspended sentence was handed down.

R v TB [2024] Birmingham Crown Court: (Operation Cognition) TB was charged with money laundering “over 1 million pounds” and conspiracy to supply large quantities of cannabis through a Vietnamese and British crime group based in the West Midlands. TB pleaded guilty 2 weeks into his trial and awaits sentence.  There were 13 defendants in the case.

R v AK [2024] Preston Crown Court: (operation treacle) large scale class A drugs conspiracy concerning supply of drugs along county lines.

R v AN [2024] Bradford Crown Court: large scale Class A drugs conspiracy concerning supply of drugs along county lines

R v NM [2023] Nottingham Crown Court: 3 x separate cases of PWITS Class A and being concerned in the supply of such drugs – NM was found (on 3 separate occasions) to be in possession of drugs and with telephones suggestive of drug dealing. He changed his plea to guilty, days before his trial, and after strong mitigation he was handed a suspended sentence (category 3 significant role).

R v JR [2023] Preston Crown Court: (Operation Superior) this case was a multi handed Class A drugs conspiracy involving over 20 defendants. Defendant pleaded guilty on day 2 of the trial and after strong mitigation he was handed a suspended sentence.

R v AA and 4 others [2023] Preston Crown Court: (Operation Popeye). This was a case involving a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs into the streets of Blackburn. AA pleaded guilty into his trial. There were complex arguments to do with AA’s fitness to plead and analysis of his psychological state when he was said to have committed the offences. Sentence of 4.5 years passed in a Young Offender Institution, given prolonged sole use of drugs line.

R v KA and 6 others [2022] Northampton Crown Court: (Operation City) drugs conspiracy involving 6 defendants and county lines supply into Northampton (from London and Nottingham). KA convicted and sentenced to 4 years 10 months in detention having had a significant role in (Category 3) due to control of the “Blue Line” operated from Northampton by him for a period of several months.

R v SPP and 10 others [2018] Derby Crown Court: (Operation Starbreeze) represented in a multi handed large scale Class A drugs conspiracy involving supply of drugs along county lines from Liverpool into Derby.

R v AH Leeds Crown Court: (Operation Longshot 2017) represented a multi handed class A drugs importation case, involving conspiracy to supply heroin with street value of £100,000 imported from Pakistan, in tracksuits, to the UK.

R v MHR [2013] Nottingham Crown Court: represented the defendant in this case involving conspiracy to supply cannabis in excess of 20 kilos.

Other recent cases:

R v MH [2024] Birmingham Crown Court: case concerned a number of persons charged with affray. After careful negotiations with the Crown, Amjad secured an acquittal due to the prosecutor offering no evidence against his client on the morning of the trial.

R v BC [2023] Leicester Crown Court: 4 week trial involving Romanian nationals who were charged with several robberies of women working as masseuses in London, Birmingham and Leicester. The offences were charged under s 8 (1) and 8 (2) Theft Act 1968 to include assault with intent to rob (reference of a meat cleaver being used in one to the robberies).

R v RM [2023] Birmingham Crown Court: Kidnap and blackmail. The case concerned 3 Kurdish men charged with the kidnap and blackmail of a man over an alleged theft of a large number of cigarettes from a shop. The  West Midlands Police arrived at a forest near Warwick to eventually “rescue” the complainant, after his family reported that he was kidnapped and taken there “to be killed”. After a 3 week trial the jury acquitted RM on both counts by way of unanimous verdicts.

R v CB [2023] Winchester Crown Court: multi handed case involving 5 defendants charges with fraud on unsuspecting elderly victims by “builders” from the travelling community. CB received a suspended sentence having pleaded guilty prior to the trial. Others who also pleaded guilty, at the same time, received lengthy custodial sentences.

R v AL [2018] Bradford Crown Court: this case involved 7 defendants in a conspiracy to steal cars and sell parts generating substantial amounts. AL was charged under 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for almost £100,000 having accrued in her bank account for 7 years connected to the sales of stolen car parts. She was unanimously acquitted.

R v AZ [2016] Nottingham Crown Court: represented a defendant in multi handed very serious assault (section 18 GBH) after negotiations in relation to the matter, the case concluded by way of a lesser offence (section 20) being accepted by the Crown and a suspended sentence passed by the Recorder of Nottingham.

R v AS and 13 others Leicester Crown Court: (Operation Arlen 2014) represented AS in a case concerning a large scale conspiracy in arranging and entering into sham marriages in the Leicestershire area. The defendants were Portuguese and Nigerians. The case received wide coverage in the local media.

R v GA [2015] Nottingham Crown Court: represented a defendant in a multi handed GBH case involving the Kurdish community in Nottingham. Trial lasted 3 weeks with all defendants convicted.

Immigration:

Mehmood (Legitimate Expectation) [2014] UKUT 00469 IAC

Amjad represented the Appellant in this case which considered the application of “legitimate expectation” and determined that: “the first question in every case concerning an alleged legitimate expectation is whether the public authority concerned made an unambiguous representation, promise or assurance devoid of any relevant qualification”.

Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) v Razia Begum [2016] EWCA Civ 122

Amjad in this appeal by the SSHD, represented Mrs Begum in the Court of Appeal. This case reaffirmed, as set out at paragraphs 14-15 and 23, that there is no special rule for extending time for appealing in public law cases.  However, the “importance of the issues to the public at large” can properly be taken into account at the third stage.

In this case the CA refused the SSHD an extension of time to appeal from the decisions of the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, where Amjad represented Mrs Begum. Both courts allowed her appeals, which concerned her residence in the UK with her dependant grandchildren as an “elderly dependant relative”. The appeals were initially allowed according to Article 8 “family life” and then proceeded to be allowed according to 276 ADE (private life).

The case is important in describing the circumstances where private life can outweigh the otherwise almost insuperable requirements within the immigration rules concerning the right of entry to the UK as an “elderly dependant relative”.

Unreported cases

SSHD v DBA [2024] Bradford Upper Tribunal: SSHD’s appeal dismissed original decision of the FTT in allowing the appeal of DBA upheld (Iraqi Kurd lack of CSID / INID identity card)

AW v SSHD [2024] Birmingham Upper Tribunal: AW’s appeal to the UT against the decision of the FTT was successful which dealt with the position of post Brexit spouse, delayed marriage due to covid pandemic. UT found that AW was in a durable relationship and qualified without having to hold evidence of such status prior to making her application.