The sentence handed down to Samreen Akhtar, a barrister who conspired with a gangster client to orchestrate a violent revenge attack, represents one of the most severe breaches of legal professional ethics in recent British legal history. Jailed for three years and three months at Manchester Crown Court, Akhtar was convicted of encouraging or assisting the infliction of grievous bodily harm with intent after she was recorded on a prison telephone call proposing a plan to find and seriously injure the person who had shot her client, Tabish Ali. The case sends an unequivocal message about the absolute boundaries of a barrister’s duty and the severe consequences when those boundaries are crossed.
The Fall of Samreen Akhtar: From Social Mobility Advocate to Convicted Criminal
Samreen Akhtar was not a marginal figure in the legal profession. In 2020, just one year before she committed the offence, the Bar Council had selected her as one of ten Social Mobility Advocates, a prestigious initiative designed to increase representation at the bar among people from state-educated and deprived backgrounds. Her trajectory had been one of steady upward mobility: before becoming a barrister, Akhtar had built a career in banking and insurance, and she later worked at the City of London Police’s Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department. She secured pupillage at the Crown Prosecution Service, a highly competitive pathway that typically signals a deep commitment to the integrity of the criminal justice system. Her background made her an inspirational figure for aspiring barristers from non-traditional routes. That narrative of professional achievement and social progress now stands in stark contrast to the criminal conduct that has ended her legal career and sent her to prison.
The Trigger: A Gangland Shooting and a Barrister’s Fateful Decision
The chain of events that led to Akhtar’s downfall began on 14 September 2021, when her client, Tabish Ali, was shot and injured. The shooting was part of a violent feud between rival drug gangs, a conflict that police later described as including the brutal execution of a rival, for which Ali himself was subsequently convicted. What happened the following day is the core of the criminal case against Akhtar. During a telephone call with Ali, which was recorded by prison authorities, Akhtar was heard proposing a plan to find the person responsible for the shooting with the specific intention that they “could be caused serious injuries.” The recording captured a barrister not merely discussing legal strategy or case management, but actively plotting a serious violent crime with a client who was a known career criminal.
What Did Samreen Akhtar Do and Why Was She Convicted?
Samreen Akhtar was convicted of encouraging or assisting the infliction of grievous bodily harm with intent, an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. This charge applies when a person does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence, intending to encourage or assist its commission. In Akhtar’s case, the act was the prison telephone call in which she proposed the plan to Tabish Ali. The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of facilitating serious violence. Akhtar pleaded not guilty, but a majority jury at Manchester Crown Court convicted her following a five-day trial in June 2025. She was sentenced in September 2025. The conviction required the jury to be sure that Akhtar intended serious harm to be inflicted on the target of the revenge plot, not merely that she made comments in the heat of a conversation.
The Mechanism of the Offence: How a Professional Obligation Became a Criminal Conspiracy
To understand the full gravity of Akhtar’s conduct, it is essential to examine the mechanics of how the offence unfolded. The telephone call was recorded by the prison service, a routine procedure in custodial settings. The prosecution’s case did not rely on ambiguous language or interpretation of coded phrases; the recording captured Akhtar explicitly discussing a plan to locate the shooter and inflict serious injuries. The fact that the plan was not ultimately carried out is irrelevant to the charge, which criminalises the act of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence, regardless of whether the substantive offence is committed. What makes this case particularly egregious is the professional context. A barrister owes a duty to the court that overrides their duty to the client. They must not mislead the court, and they must not abuse their professional position to facilitate criminal activity. Akhtar did the opposite: she used her privileged access to a client and her knowledge of the criminal justice system to plot a violent crime.
The Sentence: Three Years and Three Months in Context
The sentence of three years and three months reflects the serious nature of the offence but also the limits of the charge as it applied to the facts. The judge at Manchester Crown Court would have considered a range of factors: the seriousness of the intended harm, the degree of planning, Akhtar’s role as a legal professional, her previous good character, and the fact that the plan was not executed. The sentencing guidelines for encouraging or assisting serious violence set a starting point that can vary widely depending on the level of involvement and the foreseeability of harm. In Akhtar’s case, the sentence means she will serve approximately half of the term in custody before being released on licence. For a barrister who once worked within the criminal justice system, the experience of imprisonment carries a particular irony and a stark message about the equality of all persons before the law.
Detective Inspector Paul Hutchinson’s Statement: A Profession’s Betrayal
Detective Inspector Paul Hutchinson of West Yorkshire Police provided a statement that captured the institutional betrayal at the heart of this case. He said: “As a professional working in the criminal justice system, Samreen Akhtar would have been acutely aware of her legal and moral responsibilities, but she chose to act outside of those to plot revenge with a dangerous criminal involved in a violent gang feud which included the brutal execution of a rival, for which he was later convicted.” The detective’s words underscore that Akhtar’s knowledge of the law and her professional training did not, in this instance, prevent her from crossing the line; rather, they made her conduct more reprehensible. He added: “In doing so, she became a criminal herself and showed a complete disregard for the standards that are expected of those in the legal profession, and also for the significant negative impact that gang-related violence and criminality have on our communities.” This statement reflects the view that Akhtar’s actions were not just a personal failing but a breach of the public trust placed in legal professionals.
Who Was Tabish Ali, the Client at the Centre of the Plot?
Tabish Ali, Akhtar’s client, was not a typical defendant. He was a career criminal deeply embedded in a violent gang feud that had already resulted in bloodshed. According to police, Ali was later convicted for his involvement in a feud that included the brutal execution of a rival. The shooting of Ali on 14 September 2021 was itself an act of retaliation or escalation within that conflict. Ali’s criminal profile is critical context because it underscores the danger of Akhtar’s actions. She was not dealing with a person who might have been pressured into violence by circumstances; she was actively aligning herself with a dangerous individual and proposing a plan that would have escalated an already deadly feud. The fact that Ali was shot first does not mitigate Akhtar’s conduct; it does the opposite, because it shows she was aware of the violent context and chose to participate in it rather than maintain professional distance.
The Bar Council’s Social Mobility Advocate Programme: A Case Study in Contradiction
The Bar Council’s selection of Akhtar as a Social Mobility Advocate in 2020 adds a layer of complexity to this story. The programme was designed to promote diversity and inclusion at the Bar by highlighting role models from non-traditional backgrounds. Akhtar’s background, including her work in banking, insurance, and at the City of London Police’s Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department, made her a compelling candidate. The programme aims to inspire people from state-educated and deprived backgrounds to pursue a career at the Bar, a profession that has historically been dominated by privately educated individuals from privileged families. Akhtar’s conviction does not invalidate the importance of such programmes, but it does serve as a cautionary tale. It demonstrates that professional achievement and a commitment to social justice do not immunise a person against serious ethical failures. The Bar Council will undoubtedly face questions about whether its selection process should consider not just professional competence but also character and judgment in a more rigorous manner.
The Recorded Telephone Call: How Evidence Unravelled a Barrister’s Career
The prosecution’s case hinged on a recorded telephone call that took place on 15 September 2021, the day after Ali was shot. Prison telephone calls are routinely recorded for security and monitoring purposes, and the prosecution was able to present the recording as evidence of Akhtar’s criminal intent. The existence of this recording is a reminder that prison communications are not confidential in the way that legal professional privilege might protect certain communications between a barrister and client. However, the call in question was not a privileged legal conversation; it was a discussion about committing a violent crime. The recording captured Akhtar taking the lead in proposing the plan, which means she was not merely a passive participant or someone who failed to discourage a client’s violent fantasies. She was the instigator. This distinction is crucial for understanding why the jury convicted her despite her not-guilty plea.
Why Did Samreen Akhtar Plead Not Guilty and Still Get Convicted?
Akhtar pleaded not guilty, which meant the case went to trial at Manchester Crown Court. The trial lasted five days, and the jury returned a majority verdict of guilty. The decision to plead not guilty is a common strategy in cases where the defendant argues that their words were misinterpreted, or that they did not have the requisite intent. In Akhtar’s case, the defence may have argued that her comments were made in the heat of the moment, that she did not genuinely intend for harm to be caused, or that the recording was ambiguous. However, the jury was not persuaded. A majority verdict means that at least ten of the twelve jurors agreed on the guilty verdict, which indicates a strong consensus among them. The conviction demonstrates that the jury accepted the prosecution’s interpretation of the recording: that Akhtar did intend to encourage or assist the infliction of grievous bodily harm.
The Broader Implications for the Legal Profession
This case raises fundamental questions about the ethical obligations of barristers and the adequacy of professional oversight. Barristers operate with a degree of independence that is essential for the administration of justice, but that independence comes with a corresponding responsibility to uphold the law. The Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers in England and Wales, will now have to consider whether Akhtar’s conduct warrants being struck off the roll of barristers, which would permanently end her legal career. Such a sanction is almost certain given the severity of the offence. Beyond the individual case, the Akhtar affair may prompt a broader examination of how barristers are trained in professional ethics and how their conduct is monitored, particularly when they are dealing with clients involved in organised crime or gang violence. The case shows that the current system, which relies heavily on individual integrity and post-hoc disciplinary action, can fail to prevent serious misconduct.
What Are the Consequences for a Barrister Convicted of a Serious Crime?
A barrister convicted of a serious criminal offence faces multiple consequences beyond the prison sentence. First, the conviction itself will be reported to the Bar Standards Board, which will initiate disciplinary proceedings. The BSB has the power to disbar a barrister, meaning they are permanently removed from the profession. Second, the conviction will be a matter of public record, effectively ending any future career in law, including roles in legal academia, policy, or advisory positions that require trust and integrity. Third, the conviction may affect any ongoing or future legal cases in which Akhtar was involved, as defendants may seek to appeal their convictions on the grounds that their barrister was herself a criminal. Fourth, there may be financial consequences, including confiscation proceedings if the offence is deemed to have been motivated by financial gain, though in this case the evidence does not suggest a financial motive. Finally, the reputational damage extends beyond Akhtar herself to the legal profession as a whole, which must now work to restore public confidence.
The Gang Feud Context: A Violent Feud with a Brutal Execution
The feud between rival drug gangs that led to the shooting of Tabish Ali was not a minor skirmish. Detective Inspector Hutchinson specifically referenced the fact that the feud included “the brutal execution of a rival,” for which Ali was later convicted. This context is essential for understanding the seriousness of the environment in which Akhtar chose to involve herself. The feud involved firearms, serious violence, and a complete disregard for the rule of law. By proposing a plan to find and seriously injure the shooter, Akhtar was offering to escalate a conflict that had already claimed at least one life. Her actions were not those of a naive or misguided professional; they were the actions of someone who, at least momentarily, aligned herself with the values of the criminal world rather than the values of the legal profession. The fact that she was acting as a barrister, a officer of the court, makes the betrayal more profound.
The Role of the Crown Prosecution Service Pupillage in Akhtar’s Career
Akhtar’s career path included a pupillage at the Crown Prosecution Service, the very institution responsible for prosecuting criminal cases in England and Wales. A CPS pupillage is a prestigious and rigorous training programme that instils a deep understanding of the criminal justice system and the ethical standards expected of prosecutors. The CPS is the gatekeeper of criminal prosecutions, and its lawyers are trained to exercise independent judgment and to act in the public interest. That Akhtar went through such training and then committed a serious criminal offence is a stark reminder that professional training, however rigorous, cannot guarantee ethical behaviour. It also raises uncomfortable questions about whether the CPS and other legal institutions adequately screen for character and integrity during the recruitment and training process.
The Sentencing Hearing: What the Judge Considered
At the sentencing hearing at Manchester Crown Court, the judge would have considered a range of aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors are substantial: the offence involved planning a serious violent crime; the intended victim was a person involved in a drug gang feud, meaning the potential for further bloodshed was high; Akhtar was a legal professional who should have known better; and the offence was committed while she was acting in her professional capacity. Mitigating factors may have included her previous good character, her contributions to the community through the Social Mobility Advocate programme, and the fact that the plan was not carried out. The sentence of three years and three months suggests that the judge took a serious view of the offence but also recognised that the harm was not ultimately inflicted. For an offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the sentence of 39 months indicates that this case fell at the lower end of the spectrum for such offences, but still within the range reserved for serious criminality.
How Does This Compare to Other Cases of Legal Professionals Turning to Crime?
Cases of barristers or solicitors committing serious criminal offences are relatively rare, but they do occur. In recent years, there have been cases of solicitors involved in money laundering, mortgage fraud, and even drug trafficking. When a legal professional is convicted of a serious crime, the sentence tends to be higher than what an ordinary member of the public might receive for the same offence, because of the abuse of trust and the damage to public confidence in the justice system. Akhtar’s sentence of three years and three months is comparable to sentences given to solicitors who have defrauded clients or assisted in criminal enterprises. However, the nature of her offence, plotting violent revenge with a gangster client, is unusual even in this category. The case is likely to be cited for years as a cautionary example in legal ethics training and in judgments involving professional misconduct.
The Aftermath: What Happens to the Case and the Profession
With the sentencing concluded, the immediate focus shifts to the disciplinary process that will determine Akhtar’s future in the legal profession. The Bar Standards Board will almost certainly seek to disbar her, and she will have the right to make representations before any such decision is finalised. Separately, the cases of any defendants who were represented by Akhtar may come under scrutiny, particularly if they were convicted of serious offences. Appeals could be lodged on the grounds of ineffective representation or a conflict of interest, given that Akhtar’s own criminal conduct may have affected her judgment or her ability to act in her clients’ best interests. The Crown Prosecution Service will also have to review other cases in which Akhtar was involved to determine whether any miscarriages of justice occurred. The case will also prompt a broader discussion within the legal profession about the need for better support and oversight for barristers who work with clients involved in serious organised crime, and whether additional safeguards are needed to prevent similar breaches in the future.
A Profession Confronting Its Own Shadow
The Samreen Akhtar case is not just a story of one barrister’s fall from grace. It is a reflection of the pressures and temptations that exist at the intersection of the legal profession and the criminal underworld. Barristers who defend clients involved in gang violence, organised crime, or terrorism operate in an environment where the lines between professional representation and personal involvement can become blurred. The vast majority of barristers maintain their professional distance and uphold their ethical duties, but cases like this show that the system is not foolproof. The legal profession must now ask itself whether its training, oversight, and culture are sufficient to prevent such breaches, and whether more proactive measures are needed to identify barristers who may be at risk of crossing the line. The answer will determine whether this case remains an isolated tragedy or becomes the catalyst for meaningful reform.
The Public Trust Dimension: Why This Case Matters Beyond the Courtroom
Public trust in the legal profession is essential for the functioning of the rule of law. When a barrister is convicted of plotting a violent crime with a gangster client, that trust is damaged. The public may reasonably ask: if a barrister can do this, what other legal professionals might be involved in criminal activity? This is not a fair or accurate inference, but it is a natural one. The legal profession must therefore respond not just by punishing the individual but by demonstrating that the system can police itself effectively. The Bar Council, the Bar Standards Board, and the Crown Prosecution Service all have a role to play in restoring confidence. Transparency about the disciplinary process, clear communication about the steps being taken to prevent recurrence, and a commitment to ethical education are all necessary components of that response. The case also serves as a reminder that the privilege of practising law carries with it a corresponding obligation to be beyond reproach, and that the consequences of failing to meet that obligation are severe and permanent.
