Shahnawaz has developed a diverse and varied practise. He has been involved with and defended in several high-profile cases, such as grooming gang cases, intra familial child sexual abuse cases, county line cases and financial fraud. He has developed a reputation of quickly and diligently analysing a case, methodically preparing it and then fearlessly defending his client. He has the skill to be able to connect with and listen to his clients, whilst also sensitively dealing with vulnerable clients with special needs or mental health issues. He has developed a speciality in serious sexual offences, fraud, violence, firearms and drug offences.
Shahnawaz is also specialised in areas of Immigration Law, Asylum and Deportation Law, Human Rights law and Judicial Review. He has a considerable amount of experience in appearing before the Immigration Tribunals, The Upper Tribunal and The High Court. He also has considerable experience in representing clients on a direct access basis, working closely with them to properly prepare their cases, thereby ensuring that they are effectively represented at their hearing.
Shahnawaz’s core ethos, as a barrister, is that for every client their case is of the utmost importance to them, regardless of its perceived seriousness. Therefore, it is his guiding belief that every case must treated with respect, professionalism and due care. It is his practise to not only work closely with his instructing solicitors but also with the client, in the preparation of a case, to ensure that the client obtains the best possible representation.
Crime Barrister
Notable Cases
Sexual Offences
R v. MM (2017)- Durham Crown Court- Represented defendant who was accused of raping his stepdaughter
R v. AS (2022) Bradford Crown Court – Defended in a large multi-handed grooming gang case. The case involved historic rape allegations against a group of men, who were accused of raping the complainants at a time when they deemed as highly vulnerable due to their age and personal circumstances. The allegations date back to the 2000s.
R v. RE (2023) Wolverhampton Crown Court- Defended in a case involving 23 defendants. Case involved systematic intergenerational abuse of children within the family. The case involved allegations of sexual abuse against children by grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts and cousins. The trial was particularly tricky as the complainants were suffering significant trauma because of the abuse they had suffered. The trial lasted for over 5 months
R v. AM (2023) Bradford Crown Court- – Represented the defendant in a case involving historic allegations off rape made by his sisters. The allegations dated back to the 1990s.
R v. JP (2023) Woolwich Crown Court- Represented a defendant who was accused of sexually abusing and raping two of this daughters, aged 8 and 10, at the time of the offence. The defendant was also accused of arranging the commission of a child sex offence, where he was encouraging a know paedophile to commit sexual offences against his daughters.
R v. RV (2024) Bournemouth Crown Court- Defended in a case involving the rape, false imprisonment and assault of the defendant’s partner. It was described that the complainant experienced ‘24 hours of hell’, when the defendant trapped his partner in their home, for a 24 hour period, during which time he proceeded to rape, beat and threaten to kill her. The case was particularly tricky because he had similar previous convictions against his previous partner.
R v. MZ (2024) Snaresbrook Crown Court- Represented a defendant involved the sexual abuse of his niece. The case involved targeted grooming of the complainant, who was the defendant’s wife’s niece. The defendant was also convicted of similar offences committed against his ex-wife’s niece.
R v KB (2025) Manchester Crown Court- This was a large multi-handed case grooming gang case, based in Rochdale, which lasted for over five months. The involved allegations of historic child sexual abuse, rape, trafficking and prostitution. The case was both complex and difficult, especially as it involved complainant’s who were highly vulnerable and who were testifying about incidents which occurred over two decades ago.
Drugs Offences
R v. BS (2019) Teeside Crown Court- Defended in a multi-handed, county lines, conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The defendant was alleged to be a leading figure in a criminal organisation which was involved in the importation and distribution of a significant amount of Class A drugs in the northwest of England
R v. DB (2023) Lincoln Crown Court- Represented defendant who was the lead figure in a nine handed, multimillion pound, conspiracy to supply class A drugs in the Lincolnshire area. The case involved over six months of police surveillance of the defendant, including his movements to Liverpool, where he would purchase class A drugs wholesale, for the purpose of distribution in the Lincolnshire area. The defendant is alleged to have been the head of a complex organisation, involving a significant number of distributors in the Lincolnshire area..
Financial Offences
R v. MD (2015) Southwark Crown Court- Represented a defendant, who was a restaurateur, accused of evading VAT for a period of over 20 years. The defendant was alleged to have evaded over £1.5 million of VAT. The case involved over 20,000 pages of exhibits, including accounts, bank statements and other financial documents.
R v. SP (2016) Blackfriars’s Crown Court- Represented a defendant who was alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to money launder and alcohol diversion fraud. The case involved a significant period of police surveillance, including the tapping of the defendants’ phones and following the movements of the defendants
R v. AG (2018) Newcastle Crown Court- Represented the defendant who was involved in a conspiracy to defraud. The case involved a group of solicitors who conspired together to register false land charges on the land register, with the aim to extort victims.
R v CP (2022) Portsmouth Crown Court. The defendant was alleged to have been laundering proceeds from prostitution. The Crown established a case to show that the defendant’s stepson and partner were involved in the running of brothels in the Portsmouth area, and the defendant then used the banking system to help launder the proceeds and transfer it abroad.
R v. XS (2023) Snaresbrook Crown Court. Represented a defendant involved in a multimillion pound money laundering scheme, which involved members of Chinese criminal gangs, both in the UK and abroad. The defendant was involved in the collection of proceeds of crime. The cash would then be sold to members of the Chinese community, who would then transfer the equivalent Chinese Yuan into designated bank accounts in China. The case was a multi handed case, involving people who were alleged to have been members of Chinese organised crime.
R v. SM (2025) Manchester Crown Court. Represented a defendant who had received over £350,000 of cash deposits in his bank accounts in over two years. The prosecution claimed that the cash deposits were proceeds from the control of prostitution. The defendant received a large number of deposits from all over the UK and the prosecution also produced text messages from his phone to show that he was involved in the control of prostitution. However, the defendant claimed that he was running an export business, where he was selling luxury items in Myanmar. Thus, it was claimed that the cash originated from the sale of luxury items in Myanmar.
Firearms/ Violent cases
R V. P (2011) Snaresbrook Crown Court. The case involved the rivalry between two rival gangs, who were involved in the sale of smuggled alcohol. The defendant, with another unknown person, entered the warehouse of a rival gang, armed with a firearm and a samurai sword. Though the defendant had managed to injure his target, he was subsequently overpowered by others and later arrested, whilst his companion managed to escape.
R v. ED (2023) Woolwich Crown Court. Represented a defendant who was in possession of a shotgun and shotgun cartridges. The defendant was stopped by police, where the firearm was found. It was alleged that the defendant was on his way to a rival gang’s cannabis factory, with the aim to raid and attack it. The police had intelligence and surveillance on the defendant, and alleged that he is was very significant Albanian gang member.
COURT OF APPEAL
R v AP (2011)- The defendant appealed against his conviction- Primary issue argued was the drawing of adverse inference because of failing to mention something in interview, which he later relied on during his trial
R v. AL (2013) – The defendants appealed against their sentence- Primary issue argued before the Court of Appeal was, on what factual basis could the sentencing judge sentence the defendants.
SSHD v. AY (Somalia) (2015)- Appeal against the finding of the Upper Tribunal in an asylum matter
R v. TB (2020)- The defendant appealed against her conviction. The primary issue argued before the Court of Appeal is the direction given to the jury when considering whether to draw an adverse inference because the defendant failed to mention a fact in interview, which she later relied upon.
R v. JP (2025)- The defendant appealed against his sentence. The primary issue argued before the Court of Appeal was the totality principle and whether the sentence was in accordance with the totality principle.
