Haseeb is regularly instructed to represent clients in the Crown, Magistrates' and Youth Courts in a wide range of criminal matters such as serious violence, public order, dishonesty and drugs offences. He acts for both the Crown and Defence.
Haseeb is often instructed on a privately funded basis, particularly in relation to road traffic matters, and has recently secured acquittals for clients charged with failing to provide information, drink driving and careless driving.
Before joining Cobden House Chambers, Haseeb had been a tenant at a set of chambers in London, where he had a busy practice in both crime and extradition law.
In the past Haseeb has worked for various solicitors' firms in their criminal and civil litigation departments. This has provided him with an invaluable insight into the solicitors' profession and the ability to understand the expectations of those instructing.
Haseeb has been appointed to the list of specialist Regulatory Advocates, and accepts instructions from the Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency, Office of Rail and Road, Natural Resources Wales, Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Care Quality Commission.
He is able to appear in a range of courts to defend and prosecute regulatory cases.
Haseeb deals with personal injury matters. He has provided representation at Stage 3 hearings, small claim and fast track trials. He is also able to advise on quantum.
R v M and R – Manchester Minshull Street CC - Prosecuting mother and daughter who were drunk on a Thomas Cook aircraft which was headed for Antalya, Turkey. Both had threatened members of staff on the plane and were incredibly disruptive towards other passengers. The abuse directed at the crew was so serious that the captain turned around while taxiing to the runway. R continued the aggression when the police arrived and assaulted three police officers as well as using racial abuse. She was given a sentence of 10 months’ immediate custody and M was given a 2 month term of imprisonment.
R v AM - Preston MC - The defendant was facing a charge of possession of a controlled drug of class A (cocaine). His case was that he went to buy cocaine and sniffed the white powder that he was given. However, it could not possibly have been the drug because he did not get a high nor feel the side effects associated with cocaine use. In court, the Crown offered no evidence; despite the fact that a field test of the substance was carried out at the police station using the BDH Marquis test kit, no formal SFR/1 report had been obtained.
R v B – Acted on behalf of the Local Authority, making a successful application for the destruction of two dogs which were classed as the ‘pit bull terrier’ type, and therefore a banned breed under Section 1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
K.D v Hyndburn Borough Council (2018 at Preston CC) - Represented the Appellant in a case in which his private hire taxi licence had been revoked because he had not informed the Borough Council about penalty points that had been given to him as a result of speeding. In addition, it was alleged that he had overcharged two fare paying passengers.The witnesses were cross-examined about their allegations, the policy of the council was reviewed as well as the Appellant’s previous driving history.
R v SJ – Birmingham CC – Defended a man accused of being involved in group-related section 18 and robbery offences.
R v C – Birmingham CC – Defended in a POCA case in which the benefit figure exceeded £1 million.
R v H – Preston CC – Defending a male who had been accused of sexual misconduct in a taxi licensing appeal.
R v K – Manchester CC – Prosecuting two defendants who had committed around 40 offences, most of these being gang-related robberies in the Greater Manchester area.
R v F – Manchester MC – Defending in a drink driving case in which the defendant’s case was that he was medically unfit to have been breathalysed by the police.
R v C – Wigan MC – Prosecuting for the National Probation Service in a case which involved the law on double jeopardy.
R v A – Liverpool MC – Prosecuting in a serious domestic violence case which involved an application to rely on the complainant’s evidence as hearsay under s.116(2)(e) CJA 2003.
R v T – Bolton CC – Defending in a section 20 trial of issue, where the defendant’s case was that his actions were because of the complainant shouting racial abuse towards his friend.
R v Y – Inner London CC – Defending a Syrian born immigrant who had been accused of knifepoint robbery at Southbank.
R v K – Isleworth CC – Defending an Asian woman who had been accused of assaulting her husband and breaching a non-molestation order. The case involved a complex background, as the defendant had suffered years of abuse at the hands of her husband and his family.
R v D – Canterbury CC – Defending a Lithuanian national accused of unlawfully assisting the entry of a non-EU national into the country.
2009 - 2010 Bar Vocational Course - Manchester Metropolitan University (Very Competent)
2006 - 2009 Law, LLB (Hons)- University of Liverpool (2.1)
Bury Grammar School