A barrister granted compassionate leeway by a judge on the grounds she was looking after her sick mother was in fact appearing in a separate simultaneous murder trial, a bar tribunal found today. Saleema Mahmood, called in November 1999, was disbarred after admitting to professional misconduct.
Mahmood was alleged to have failed to act with integrity in that, while acting in a criminal trial at Nottingham Crown Court, she obtained permission to attend via CVP because of the ill health of her mother. However she failed to inform the judge or other counsel in the Nottingham trial that she was appearing in person that day in a murder trial at Stafford Crown court.
Mahmood was alleged to have improperly taken advantage of the permission given to attend the Nottingham trial remotely to attend the Stafford trial in person, of concealing her participation in the Stafford trial from the court in Nottingham and by absenting herself from each case failing to act in the best interests of her clients.
Mahmood initially denied the charges against her, but this morning, on the third day of her disciplinary hearing, she admitted the charges in full.
His Honour Nicholas Ainley, sitting as chair of the five-person panel, said the panel found all 14 charges proved. Giving ex tempore judgment Ainley said it was ‘clear representations must have been made…by Miss Mahmood to the judge that because of her mother’s illness she would like to appear via CVP. There was no mention of difficulties with Stafford or the case she was appearing in at Stafford’.
Read more
The chair said ‘everybody rallied around’ at Nottingham Crown to help Mahmood ‘acting in the belief that the only reason [Mahmood] was asking to appear via CVP was her mother’s ill health’.
Referring to an occasion where Mahmood told the Nottingham judge hat she wanted to carry on ‘as best as I can’, to which the judge responded that she ‘should not feel under any pressure at this difficult time for you and your family’, the chair said: ‘She was in fact appearing in court that day.’
He added: ‘We consider that her conduct in deliberately concealing the fact she was appearing at Stafford Crown court and simply relying on her mother’s apparent illness [amounted to] dishonest behaviour to His Honour Judge Sampson.’
Referring to charge 10, which accused Mahmood of deliberately or recklessly failing to state that she was at the same time appearing in a Stafford case, Ainley said: ‘We do not consider this was reckless. It was deliberate.’
In mitigation, Mahmood, appearing remotely and who was initially represented but was now representing herself, said: ‘I committed this offence when I was under extreme pressure from external factors which I should have sought help for and discussed more openly with my clients. I made a serious error of judgment and let myself and the profession down. I ask the tribunal to weigh my unblemished record against my actions. This, given my record for the last 26 years, was out of character.
‘I am deeply regretful of my actions and the impact upon my family and the trust the public place in me as a member of the bar. I know sanction will be severe but I ask the tribunal to consider my record which was unblemished until this in 2022.’
Sanctioning Mahmood, the chair said: ‘This persisted as it did over a period of quite a few days. The matter is so serious we cannot come to any conclusion other than she must be disbarred.’
As well as disbarment, Mahmood was suspended for 12 months in relation to nine of the charges and suspended for six months in relation to a single charge. All sentences will run concurrently. Mahmood was also ordered to pay £5,906.79 costs.
