Criminal barrister Samreen Akhtar has been convicted of intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence after a trial concerning efforts to trace a gunman who had tried to kill her client. Akhtar, 37, was found guilty at Manchester Crown Court in June and is due to be sentenced on 7 September 2026. The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The case centred on a telephone conversation between Akhtar and her client, Tabish Ali, on 15 September 2021, the day after Ali was shot. The prosecution alleged that Akhtar suggested finding the person responsible and causing him serious harm.
She was also accused of using professional contacts to help establish the gunman’s identity. The court heard no evidence explaining why she became involved.
For chambers and criminal practitioners, the conviction has consequences beyond any sentence Manchester Crown Court may impose. The Bar Standards Board suspended Akhtar from practice with effect from 3 July through the chair of its Independent Decision-Making Body.
Under the regulator’s enforcement rules, an Interim Suspension Panel must consider the measure at a hearing within four weeks. That review is separate from any further regulatory proceedings or sanction arising from the conviction.
The Bar Standards Board’s register records that Akhtar was called to the Bar by Lincoln’s Inn in July 2010 and practised as a self-employed barrister specialising in crime. She completed her pupillage with the Crown Prosecution Service before returning to West Yorkshire and practising on the North Eastern Circuit. Akhtar later established Aventus Chambers in Huddersfield, where she continued to undertake criminal defence work.
Akhtar had previously received national recognition from the Bar Council, which selected her as one of ten new social mobility advocates for its 2020 #IAmTheBar campaign. The initiative profiled barristers from non-traditional backgrounds and sought to improve access to the profession.
Akhtar, who studied law at the University of Huddersfield, was presented as an example of someone who had overcome social and economic barriers to enter the Bar. That recognition has no bearing on her sentence or the Bar Standards Board’s consideration of her professional position.
The proceedings underline the boundary between representing a client fearlessly and becoming involved in conduct intended to advance a client’s criminal purpose. Chambers should have procedures for reporting concerns about barristers’ dealings with clients and third parties while protecting legal professional privilege and avoiding prejudice to active proceedings.
Chambers and instructing solicitors should respond promptly to an interim suspension by reviewing current instructions, informing clients where necessary and arranging alternative representation.
Manchester Crown Court’s sentence on 7 September and the Bar Standards Board’s review of Akhtar’s suspension will determine how chambers and instructing solicitors manage her existing cases and any further regulatory action.