Naeem Mian QC

Naeem Mian QC

"A highly accomplished and persuasive advocate able to communicate effectively with clients."

Legal 500 2019
Year of call: 2002 QC: 2017
For enquiries please call: 020 7353 5324 or email vcard cv save

Criminal Defence


Naeem is one of the foremost lawyers specialising in defending suspects charged with terrorism offences. Having acted in over 25 major high profile terrorism cases to date, his experience and success in this field is second to none.

Notably, as leading counsel he secured the acquittal of his client in the first case to be heard in the UK courts concerning the funding of terrorism in Syria (R v Msaad, 2014). He defended in the first terrorism related trial to be held largely in ‘secret’ (R v Incidal & Rarmoul-Bouhadjar, 2014-15), and secured acquittals in the second ever prosecution for breach of a Control Order (R v CD, 2011); as well as the acquittal of his client charged with involvement in the 7/7 tube bombing, the most serious terrorism incident in the UK resulting in the deaths of 52 people (R v Saleem & Others).

Naeem is usually instructed at a very early stage from resisting applications for warrants of further detention, through every stage of the case to its conclusion at trial. He has a wealth of experience in dealing with the multiple legal, evidential and factual complexities that arise in such cases. From dealing with ‘mindset’ material, highly sensitive and secret material, and complex disclosure issues; through to conducting the cross-examination of scientific experts and Security Service witnesses. In addition, his involvement in representing clients in IRA related terrorism cases prior to coming to the Bar add to his wealth of experience.

National Security, Control Orders & TPIMS

Naeem is one of the handful of counsel who act for individuals subject to Control Orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and later TPIMs under the Terrorism Prevention And Investigation Measures Act 2011.

These cases involve individuals who are not charged with any specific offence but whom the Home Secretary considers to have been involved in terrorism or terrorism related activities. Heard exclusively before judges of the High Court at the RCJ, they involve the extensive use of secret or closed evidence by the Home Secretary and are a hybrid of both civil and criminal procedure. They invariably require extensive cross-examination of security service personnel and complex written submissions.


R v Rashid (2018)

Rashid was charged with six terrorism offences including preparing to carry out offences of terrorism in Syria, assisting others to commit acts of terrorism and encouraging others to commit acts of terrorism on the UK mainland including calling for Prince George to be targeted at Thomas’s Battersea primary school in south-west London.

R v Dodd (2018)

19 year old James Dodd was acquitted of murder, manslaughter and violent disorder, following a trial lasting 11 weeks. Dodd was one of 7 defendants charged with murder and violent disorder arising out of a fatal attack on February 2017, which resulted in the death of 17 year old Liam Hunt. Naeem’s client was the only defendant to be acquitted of all charges.

R v O (2018)

O was prosecuted at the age of 16 for terrorism offences that he was alleged to have committed when he was 14. This case was only the third occasion on which a terrorism trial has been conducted in the Youth Court. Following detailed written submissions, Naeem’s client was offered a conditional caution (after 1 year) thereby avoiding a trial and potential terrorism conviction.

R v L (2018)

Naeem secured the acquittal of L after he was alleged he had been planning a bomb attack on UK mainland. The evidence against L included extensive communications with a number of individuals based overseas, various documents on bomb making and messages from L to others suggesting that he wanted to die as a martyr.

SSHD v E (2016)

Naeem is one of a handful of barristers nationally who acts for individuals subject to TPIM Notices- the new form of Control Orders. TPIM Notices are issued by the Home Secretary against individuals whom the Home Secretary suspects of being involved in terrorism or terrorism related activity. Heard in both open and secret session, they invariably concern matters of national security and human rights. The TPIM Notices are imposed initially for one year and can last up to two years. Individuals against whom such Notices are imposed, are subject to anonymity, strict Measures and relocated away from their usual place of residence and family.

R v Diini (2016)

Diini had been charged under s. 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which makes it an offence to engage in conduct in preparation for giving effect to an intention to commit acts of terrorism. He was alleged to have attempted to travel to Syria to fight for so-called Islamic State. He had been found attempting to leave the UK in the back of a lorry in April 2015 with three other men, one of whom later pleaded guilty to an offence under s. 5. Naeem secured an acquittal for Diini after a 5-week trial.

R v Z (2015)

Allegation of being concerned in the preparation of a terrorist attack. Allegation is that the defendant was planning to attack a member of the armed forced at an army barracks in the UK.

R v S (2015)

Allegation that the defendant was travelling to Syria in order to fight with IS.

R v S & Others (2014)

Allegation that the defendant and others were travelling to Syria to commit acts of terrorism.

R v M & Others (2014)

Allegation of being engaged in terrorist funding. The defendant was a British student studying at University. She was stopped at Heathrow with €20 000 in her underwear which was allegedly destined for terrorists fighting in Syria.

R v AB & CD (2014)

Unprecedented terrorism trial held mostly in secret. Involved appeal by the press to the Court of Appeal.

R v A & A (2014)

Multiple allegations of offences contrary to section 58 and conspiracy to attend a training camp. Defendants were two young brothers whom the Crown accepted had been ‘groomed’ and radicalised by their older brother in law. Case involved extensive use of surveillance evidence.

R v AA (2014)

Multiple allegations contrary to section 58. Case concerned the Defendant being a member of a proscribed organisation and possessing material likely to be of use to a terrorist.

R v B (2014)

Multiple allegations of inciting terrorism overseas and ‘glorifying terrorism’. The case involved extensive use of media including Facebook and focused on glorification of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.

R v A & Others (2013)

Allegations of planning a terrorist attack and conspiracy to attend a training camp. The defendant was an ex-special constable. Case involved extensive surveillance evidence.

R v K & Another (2012)

Husband and wife alleged to have been planning a terrorist attack in the North of England.

R v A & Others

Allegations of being engaged in terrorist funding. The defendants were alleged to have been involved in funding their brother and others who were alleged to have been fighting with Al Shabab in Somalia.

R v CD (2010-2012)

Control Order/TPIM -High Court

Allegation of involvement in an attempt to launch ‘Mumbai style’ attack in UK. Involved use of secret evidence.

R v K & K (2011)

Allegations of preparing for acts of terrorism and possessing terrorism related material. The prosecution sought to prove a ‘terrorist mind-set’ by relying on a vast amount of literature and other material found in the possession of the defendants. Coupled with extensive probe material, the prosecution alleged that the defendants were in the early stages of planning a terrorist attack.

R v CD (2011)

Allegation of breaching a Control Order. In only the second contested prosecution of its type ever to be brought, the defendant was charged with 15 counts of breaching a Control Order contrary to the PTA 2005. An Old Bailey jury unanimously acquitted the defendant on counts 1 and 2. They were unable to reach verdicts on the remaining 13 counts and were discharged. The prosecution chose not to seek a re-trial on the 13 counts.

R v BG (2009-2011)

Control Order/TPIM

Alleged attendance at terrorist training camp.

R v S & Others (2008), Retrial (2009)

The defendant’s were jointly charged with Conspiracy to Cause Explosions With Intent To Endanger Life (the 7/7 bombings of the London transport system which resulted in the deaths of 52 people – Operation Theseus). The jury having been unable to reach a verdict in 2008, at the retrial in 2009, ‘S’ was acquitted.

R v A & Others

Allegations of preparing for terrorist attacks contrary to section 5. The case involved a number of individuals allegedly planning a terrorist attack on the UK mainland. Whilst the specific target had yet to be identified, the level of preparation was well advanced. The case involved extensive use of evidence from the security services.

R v M & Others (2008)

Allegations of possessing terrorist related material. The defendant had what amounted to a library of prohibited material including various editions of Inspire Magazine and lectures from a variety of extremist ideologues.

R v K & Others

Allegations of being engaged in fundraising for a terrorist purpose. The case against the defendants involved fund raising for individuals allegedly involved in terrorist acts in the Middle East. The case relied on the extensive use of surveillance and banking evidence.

R v K & Others

Allegations of inciting terrorism overseas. The defendant was alleged to have been involved in inciting individuals from the UK to join ‘jihad’ in Iraq. The case involved the extensive use of Facebook and other social media.

R v H & Others (2008)

Multiple allegations of being engaged in fundraising for a terrorist purpose. The defendants were alleged to be members of a proscribed organisation. The case involved the extensive use of ‘mind-set’ evidence illustrated by reference to publications and other media.

R v O & Others

Murder of a car driver in rush hour traffic. The case involved multiple young defendants allegedly linked to a gang based in the Hackney area of London who mistakenly identified the victim as a rival. The case involved the extensive use of cell site and forensic evidence.

R v R & Others

Revenge murder with gang related background. The case arose out of a long running feud between rival gangs involved in drug dealing and engaged in a ‘turf war’.

portfoloo Barrister Portfolio [10]
Barrister Portfolio close
Barrister Call CV Email

Remove All

Click here to email this list of barrister to a colleague.