Saleema Mahmood disbarred after admitting she misled judge to attend separate murder trial
A barrister who told a court she needed to appear remotely to care for her sick mother was in fact appearing simultaneously in a separate murder trial, a disciplinary tribunal has found.
Saleema Mahmood, called to the Bar in November 1999, was disbarred after admitting multiple counts of professional misconduct. The Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS) ruled that Mahmood had acted dishonestly by misleading a judge at Nottingham Crown Court about her whereabouts while conducting another criminal trial at Stafford Crown Court.
The tribunal heard that Mahmood, acting in a criminal case at Nottingham, obtained permission to appear via video link (CVP) after telling the court her mother was unwell. In reality, she was physically present at Stafford Crown Court for a separate murder trial. She did not inform the Nottingham judge or other counsel that she was simultaneously appearing in another case.
Mahmood was accused of taking advantage of compassionate dispensation granted by the court, concealing her participation in the Stafford trial, and failing to act in the best interests of both clients by absenting herself from proceedings in each matter.
Embed from Getty Images
Initially, Mahmood denied the allegations, but on the third day of her disciplinary hearing she admitted all 14 charges in full.
Delivering judgment, His Honour Nicholas Ainley, sitting as chair of the five-person panel, said it was clear that Mahmood had obtained permission under false pretences. “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,” he said. “There was no mention of difficulties with Stafford or the case she was appearing in there.”
Ainley described how “everybody rallied around” at Nottingham Crown Court, believing Mahmood’s request was motivated solely by family hardship. On one occasion, the judge reassured her that she should not feel under pressure “at this difficult time for you and your family” — unaware that she was appearing in person in Stafford the same day.
The chair concluded: “Her conduct in deliberately concealing the fact she was appearing at Stafford Crown Court and relying on her mother’s apparent illness amounted to dishonest behaviour.” He added that her failure to disclose her involvement in the Stafford trial was “deliberate, not reckless.”
In mitigation, Mahmood appeared remotely, representing herself after initially having legal representation. She told the panel she had been under “extreme pressure from external factors” and should have sought help earlier. “I made a serious error of judgment and let myself and the profession down,” she said. “This 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.”
Mahmood asked the tribunal to consider her previously unblemished 26-year record. However, the panel concluded that her deception was so serious that disbarment was the only appropriate sanction.
“This persisted over a period of quite a few days,” the chair said. “The matter is so serious we cannot come to any conclusion other than she must be disbarred.”
In addition to being disbarred, Mahmood was suspended for 12 months in relation to nine of the charges and for six months in relation to one charge, with all suspensions running concurrently. She was also ordered to pay £5,906.79 in costs.
The ruling marks a dramatic fall from grace for a barrister once regarded as a respected criminal advocate. The tribunal’s decision underscores the Bar’s strict standards on honesty and integrity — and the severe consequences of misleading the court, regardless of motive or past record.