Rabah specialises in judicial review, terrorism and national security cases. His practice encompasses public law, civil liberties and human rights, terrorism and murder trials, sanctions, public international law, criminal appeals, asset recovery, and data protection and media law. He is experienced in high-profile and politically sensitive cases.
Public law:
Judicial review challenges on terrorism and national security issues;
Acting for the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights as intervener in the Divisional Court and in the Court of Appeal in a challenge to a proscription decision;
Terrorism prevention and investigation measures (TPIMs), temporary exclusion orders (TEOs), and terrorism notification orders in the High Court, as well as SIAC proceedings;
Disclosure arguments in respect of CLOSED material pursuant to AF (No 3);
Challenges to the use of Schedule 3 or Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000;
Judicial review of categorisation or Parole Board decisions, including for “terrorist offenders” and “high-profile” prisoners;
Expedited or urgent claims for judicial review, including an urgent claim against the refusal of the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue an arrest warrant for war crimes and an out of hours application for a writ of habeus corpus;
Rabah acts in a claim for judicial review before the Divisional Court, led by Edward Fitzgerald KC, on the jurisdiction of the Crown Court to rule on foreign conspiracy offences. He also acts for comedian and TV star Reginald D Hunter as an interested party resisting a claim for judicial review of a senior district judge’s decision to quash a prosecution summons for failures to comply with the duty of candour.
Terrorism and murder:
Allegations of support for or membership of a proscribed organisation;
Journalists and academics charged under terrorism legislation;
“Foreign fighter” case, where a confession was obtained by ill-treatment overseas;
The Gray’s Inn Bomb plot, Bomb hoax at the US Embassy in London, Parole case for London Stock Exchange bomb plot conspirator;
Murder trials, including joint enterprise torture-killings, stabbings and multiple casualty shootings;
Rabah regularly advises organisations and individuals, including public figures, on terrorism legislation;
Rabah previously assisted in the representation of two Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Sanctions:
Compliance and enforcement advice for corporates and law firms, including on counter-terrorism, Russia and Syria sanctions regimes (domestic and EU);
Challenge to an alleged breach of EU sanctions regulations by Russian businessman resulting in an acquittal in Norway;
Rabah also advises on the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act 2023.
Public international law:
Advice on immunities;
Proceedings before UN bodies to challenge the arbitrary detention of a former Prime Minister of a Gulf State;
Representation for a US national who waived diplomatic immunity.
Criminal appeals:
Court of Appeal judgment taking the law “one step further” on the right to a fair trial and permissible comment by a trial judge;
Appeals against conviction and sentence including overturning a finding of dangerousness in a terrorism case;
Interlocutory appeal allowing evidence on neurodevelopmental limitations to address mindset material in a terrorism case.
Financial crime and asset recovery:
Advice for high-net-worth individuals and corporates on cross-border investigations;
Terrorist account freezing orders;
Restraint and civil recovery proceedings.
Data protection and media:
Advice on complaints of data misuse;
Advice on journalistic activity that may engage Official Secrets Act;
Actions for defamation related to allegations of extremism.
Rabah is ranked in the directories in administrative and public law and human rights, sanctions, and crime. Recent comments include:
“Rabah is one of the very best. Constantly in demand by clients, solicitors and silks. His star has risen rapidly for good reason. Frighteningly good on the law with a work ethic that puts others in the shade. A phenomenal talent” – Legal 500, 2026
“An excellent barrister who always fights tooth and nail for his clients. He has a depth of knowledge and experience, and presents submissions with great clarity and persuasion... He is a bright star. He is really hard-working and switched on” – Chambers and Partners, 2026
“His grasp of the law and facts is just unrivalled. He is exceptional” – Chambers and Partners, 2026
“Rabah is a fierce advocate both orally and in writing. He does not shy away from fighting for his clients” – Chambers and Partners, 2026
“He is bright, articulate and very hard-working, as well as thorough and insightful. Rabah is sought after in cases of the utmost gravity... He is also easy to work with and excellent on his feet” – Legal 500, 2025
"He is really excellent and meticulous in presentation... very precise and methodical" – Chambers and Partners, 2025
"Rabah is a fabulous barrister who is very likeable and clicks with clients very easily” – Chambers and Partners, 2025
“An outstanding advocate with a strategic mind, adept at dealing with the most complex cases” – Chambers and Partners, 2024
“A very powerful advocate, whose command of the law is incredibly impressive. He fights fearlessly for clients” – Chambers and Partners, 2024
“Rabah has a very sharp intellect and comes from a very strong academic background, which shows in his approach to cases and his analysis of the evidence” – Chambers and Partners, 2024
“One of the best juniors around... He works incredibly hard and leaves no stone unturned. His knowledge of the law is second to none” – Legal 500, 2024
“Superb on the law... someone with excellent client care skills” – Chambers and Partners, 2023
“One of the outstanding talents of his generation... hugely sought-after” – Legal 500, 2023
Rabah has a BCL (master’s degree) from the University of Oxford, with a specialism in terrorism and national security, human rights, and public international law.
Rabah was the Oxford Bonavero Institute Fellow and then the Bertha Justice Fellow at Reprieve. He worked on terrorism and national security cases, such as the Third Direction litigation at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
Rabah was also Judicial Assistant to Mr Justice Swift when he was the judge in charge of the Administrative Court. Rabah worked on judicial review and media cases in the High Court, and appeals in the Court of Appeal.
Rabah practises in all areas of public law, in particular judicial review cases on terrorism, national security, prison law, and criminal justice issues. He is experienced in proceedings that give rise to sensitive material, including challenges to TPIMs, proceedings in SIAC, and cases concerning the use of intrusive surveillance or data retention powers.
Rabah has a track record of successful public law challenges. He is regularly instructed to challenge decisions made by police forces, the security service, government departments, first instance courts, the prison service, the Parole Board, and other public bodies.
Rabah has advised clients including international and non-government organisations, corporates, politicians and public figures, and charities on statutory obligations and powers under terrorism legislation and sanctions regulations.
A v Chief Constable of North Wales Police & Home Secretary – Appeal against decision on AF (No 3) disclosure raising an important point of law on whether there is a “spectrum of disclosure” or a “stark dividing line” for the purposes of balancing Article 6 of the Convention with national security considerations, and whether policy considerations should play a part. Ongoing
R (Ellison) v Liverpool Crown Court – Permission granted on claim for judicial review of a failure by a Crown Court judge to declare a preparatory hearing when deciding a question of law on dual criminality under s. 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The claim for judicial review raises important points of law on s. 29 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and statutory construction of s. 1A(10) of the Criminal Law Act. Ongoing
G4 and G5 v Secretary of State for Home Department – Permission to appeal granted in SIAC deprivation case, raising important points of law on procedural fairness in SIAC deprivation appeals. Ongoing
CAA v Westminster Magistrates’ Court (and Reginald D Hunter) – Junior counsel to Reginald D Hunter as interested party resisting claim for judicial review. Ongoing
R (Jama) v Secretary of State for Justice – Claim for judicial review against decision to refuse an oral hearing for a high-profile Category A prisoner during re-categorisation decision. Permission granted and judgment awaited. Ongoing
R (FA) v Chief Constable of North Wales Police & Home Secretary [2025] EWHC 2764 (Admin) – Junior counsel for the Claimant in this application for urgent interim relief and judicial review against the North Wales Police's use of powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain a practising solicitor and seize and copy his work mobile phone. Ongoing
R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin) – Junior counsel to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights (the UNSR) in this claim for judicial review of the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, a direct-action protest group, as a terrorist organisation. The UNSR was the only intervener granted full intervener status in the claim for judicial review. The UNSR was also granted permission to intervene in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ([2026] EWCA Civ 721).
X v Secretary of State for Defence – Claim for judicial review on basis of unlawful and procedurally unfair refusal under Afghan Relocations and Assistance scheme for counter-terrorism officer who worked with MI6. Following expedition ordered by Jay J, Ministry of Defence withdrew refusal.
G4 v Secretary of State for Home Department – Junior counsel in SIAC appeal against Home Office decision to deprive G4 of his UK nationality on grounds raising national security issues.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v MH – Leading counsel for MH, opposing the Commissioner’s application for a terrorism notification order under Schedule 4 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The case raised issues of statutory construction, fair trial rights in an autonomous foreign jurisdiction, and reliability of a “confession” to being a member of ISIS in the context of ill-treatment and lack of mental capacity. MH was successful in resisting the application made by SO15 and MI5.
A (A Charity) v Charity Commission – Successful public law challenge to Charity Commission finding of misconduct/mismanagement in relation to alleged offence under s. 19 Terrorism Act 2000. Finding of misconduct withdrawn by Charity Commission.
R (Ford) v The Parole Board – Claim for judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision not to release a music artist following his recall on licence. The Claimant was alleged to be a gang member on the basis of the music he made. The claim for judicial review succeeded on grounds of rationality of the Board’s decision.
R (CF) v Kingston Crown Court [2025] EWHC 2569 (Admin) – Represented a music artist in this expedited rolled-up hearing for judicial review of a decision of the Crown Court to withdraw bail. Fordham J confirmed judicial review on all conventional public law grounds is available against a bail decision by the Crown Court.
R (GG) v Secretary of State for Justice – Two claims for judicial review issued against failure to re-categorise Category A prisoner. Claim conceded twice by the Secretary of State for Justice. Re-categorised from Category A to Category B on second concession.
R (OAF) v Director of Public Prosecutions – Junior counsel for the Claimant, a charity, in this urgent out of hours claim for a claim for judicial review of the refusal of the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue an arrest warrant for war crimes. The Claimant secured a hearing at 9pm to argue their case before the lead judge at the Administrative Court.
R (HF) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – Represented the Claimant in this challenge to a decision to stop a religious leader under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and seize, download and fail to return his mobile phone. HF’s data was deleted.
HG v CPS – Challenge to prosecution of journalist on grounds of improper purpose and interference with Convention rights. Successful outcome for HG.
JNM v Governor of HMP Lewes – Application for writ of habeus corpus granted by out of hours judge.
SM v Secretary of State for Justice – Parole Board hearing. Successful release of SM, a high-profile (rehabilitated) “terrorist offender.”
SM v Secretary of State for Justice – Successful challenge to refusal to recommend downgrade of security categorisation for high-profile Category A “terrorist offender.” SM was downgraded to Category B.
PCR – Junior counsel in advice on whether a change in law concerning complex competition law and litigation funding provisions is human rights compliant. Opinion used in House of Lords.
PA v West Midlands Police – Judicial review of unlawful police caution issued to political protestor. Caution quashed.
DF v Metropolitan Police – Judicial review of unlawful police caution issued to young man alleged to have assaulted his father. Caution quashed. Metropolitan Police apologised and implemented individual learning points for all officers involved.
NVT v Secretary of Station for Justice – Successful challenge to the Probation Service’s decision to recall a victim of human trafficking.
X v SRA and Y – Represented the Interested Party, Y, in challenge related to Solicitors Regulatory Authority investigation for alleged disclosure of sensitive information to a client convicted of murder. Successful outcome for Y.
Vitalis v SRA and AH – Represented AH, the Interested Party and a practising solicitor, in Claimant’s judicial review of Solicitors Regulatory Authority decision not to investigate misconduct. Claim was dismissed.
GMC v Surrey Police – Challenge to police failure to properly investigate a half million-pound fraud within an NHS medical practice by an employee. Investigation re-opened.
LL v CPS – Judicial review of decision to prosecute a 15-year-old for possession of a kitchen knife when found self-harming outside her foster home. Prosecution discontinued.
CL v CPS – Judicial review of decision to prosecute 14-year-old for supply of Class C drugs at her School which resulted in hospitalisation of several pupils. Prosecution discontinued.
Rabah is routinely instructed in high-profile and complex terrorism, national security, and murder trials. He is instructed in significant cases as leading counsel or as sole counsel. Ranking him as a leading barrister, the Legal 500’s most recent directory highlighted “Rabah Kherbane is regularly involved in major cases at the Old Bailey.”
Rabah advises organisations and individuals on terrorism and national security legislation. He has advised journalists and media organisations, authors and publishers, performers/artists and their agents, politicians and public figures, lawyers and law firms, academics, trade unions, charities, and non-governmental organisations.
R v ZS (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel for ZS, charged with membership of a proscribed organisation and attendance at terrorist trainings. Ongoing
R v ED (Old Bailey) – Leading counsel for ED, charged with inviting support for a proscribed organisation. Ongoing
R v SG (Old Bailey) – Leading counsel for SG, charged with multiple counts of making or placing explosive substances with intent to endanger life or damage property, at locations alleged to be linked to political motivations. Ongoing
R v AB (Westminster MC) – Leading counsel for AB, charged with a breach of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Following cross-examination of border force agent, and application at trial, disclosure of reasons for stop triggered. Ongoing
R v AA (Old Bailey) – Leading counsel for AA, charged with multiple breaches of his TPIM. Ongoing
R v AJ (Old Bailey) – Leading counsel for AJ, charged with terrorism dissemination offences for his social media activity on the situation in Palestine. Ongoing
R v MS (Old Bailey) – Leading counsel for MS, charged with “terrorist connection” offences in relation to protest activity. Ongoing
R v PD (Old Bailey) – Leading counsel for PD, charged with planting a false improvised explosives device outside the United States Embassy in London. After a six-week trial, PD was acquitted.
R v CC (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in terrorism trial on alleged dissemination of terrorist materials on Telegram Channels and possession of explosives manuals. CC was acquitted.
R v AA (Westminster MC) – Represented taxi driver arrested for multiple offences of incitement to commit acts of terrorism in Sudan under s. 59 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Case discontinued.
R v JB (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in Gray’s Inn Bomb plot terrorism trial, where hoax bombs were planted outside a deputy high court judge and King’s Counsel’s barristers chambers. Case involved covert surveillance evidence and substantial disclosure issues. After a four-month trial, JB was acquitted.
R v SH (Winchester CC) – Junior counsel in terrorism trial on dissemination of terrorist publication offences based on social media use. SH was acquitted.
R v KA (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in terrorism trial where young defendant charged with having a machete for terrorist purposes and dissemination of terrorist publications. Complex legal arguments on admissibility of mindset material concerning five proscribed organisations, including ISIS, Taliban, and Al Qaeda. Called expert evidence on theology. After a three-week trial, KA was acquitted.
R v AA (Newcastle CC) – Terrorism trial (Newton) on dissemination and collection of terrorist materials. Successful outcome.
R v AH (Manchester CC) – Terrorism case raising complex/novel issues of law on management of Registered Terrorist Offenders under Pt 4 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. Following interlocutory appeal, “exceptional” community order imposed for previous member of proscribed organisation.
R v TP (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in murder trial concerning triple shooting outside of a church. Ongoing
R v MS (Old Bailey) – Murder trial where defendant suffering from dementia alleged to have killed his mother. Complex fitness and causation issues. Ongoing
R v TD (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in missing body murder trial. Ongoing
R v YG (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in murder trial for music artist turned wildlife conservationist. YG was accused of being involved in an “unsolved” murder of a YouTube personality six years ago. After a six-week trial, YG was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.
R v MI (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in murder trial on joint enterprise shooting involving eight defendants. Alleged planned execution. MI was acquitted on murder.
R v MT (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in seven-handed murder trial; alleged joint enterprise shooting outside a music studio. MT was acquitted.
R v MR (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in murder trial where 14-year-old charged with joint enterprise stabbing at a birthday party. After a trial of 19 weeks, MR was acquitted.
R v HS (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in murder trial where 17-year-old charged with stabbing of local drug dealer. HS asserted self-defence. Complex medical, pathologist, and toxicologist evidence. HS was acquitted.
R v IR (Cambridge CC) – Junior counsel in murder trial where 16-year-old charged with murder. IR was acquitted.
R v PMK (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in murder trial concerning torture-killing of celebrity Turkish DJ. PMK was acquitted on murder and manslaughter.
R v MI (Reading CC) – Leading counsel for MI, charged with assisting an offender in murder investigation, where his brother stabbed a boy in an ongoing feud in Slough. MI arranged a safehouse, tickets to Somalia, and transport to airport for his brother. Case featured in Channel 4 documentary Catching a Killer: A Stab in the Dark. Dubbed one of Thames Valley Police’s “largest murder investigations.” MI was acquitted.
R v CB (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in murder trial where CB charged with murder and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. CB was the first defendant on the indictment in a seven-handed case, with cutthroat defence from a co-defendant. After a three-month trial, CB was acquitted.
R v HN (Old Bailey) – Leading counsel in three-month murder and attempt murder trial. HN, a music artist, was charged with perverting the course of justice by assisting in disposal of vehicle used in the double shooting. Complex legal arguments on alleged gang membership and prosecution reliance on rap music as evidence. After a three-month trial, HN was acquitted.
R v KK (Old Bailey) – Junior counsel in attempt murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life trial. Alleged group hunt of victim, and point-blank shooting with sawn-off shotgun, captured on CCTV. Complex legal arguments under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and on confession and ID evidence. KK was acquitted.
R v JG (Old Bailey) – Joint enterprise attempt murder trial. Arrest operation involved 65+ counter terrorist specialist firearms officers. Framed by a dishonest complainant. JG was acquitted.
Rabah has also successfully represented clients in other high-profile and complex cases.
R v CK – Represented Brighton woman prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003 for alleged persistent emails to the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and her local MP about a political issue. CK was acquitted.
R v GG – Represented a journalist prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 for an alleged offensive Twitter post about his local MP and a former government minister. GG was acquitted.
CAA v Reginald D Hunter – Represented comedian and TV star in attempted private prosecution by campaign group. Successful application to quash summons as an abuse of process for failure of the prosecutor to comply with duty of candour in an ex parte application and improper motive. The case was featured in The Times Lawyer of the Week.
R v NN – Represented high-profile music artist charged with drugs trafficking offences. NN was acquitted.
R v SD – Represented man charged with stabbing the Finsbury Park Mosque terrorist in alleged revenge attack in prison. Ongoing
R v IM – Represented defendant charged with organising the gunpoint armed robbery conspiracy of the celebrity and former boxing world champion Amir Khan. Prosecuted by KC and Junior. IM was acquitted.
R v CM – Represented defendant charged with transfer of firearms linked to several contract killings in seven-handed trial. Prosecuted by KC and Junior. CM was acquitted.
Rabah has considerable expertise in civil liberties and human rights cases, in particular those involving national security issues.
BB – Advice and applications for disclosure on false imprisonment in claim where false allegation (and arrest) instigated by peer in the House of Lords.
GP – Civil action on behalf of charity with funds frozen following input from police. Issues under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Dr AB – Academic at London university alleged to have made social media posts in breach of the Terrorism Act 2000. Civil claim issues on procedural fairness on disciplinary process.
BB v Secretary of State for Justice – Civil claim against probation service for unlawful recall of alleged ‘extremist’ prisoner.
Ammori v Home Secretary – Represented UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights as intervener in challenge to proscription decision by the Home Secretary.
KK v Metropolitan Police – Civil claim against police for repeated Schedule 7 detention.
FA v South Wales Police and Home Secretary – Represented solicitor in challenge to Schedule 7 stop, detention and seizure of privileged mobile phone data.
HH – Advice on civil claim for Schedule 3 detention.
X v Secretary of State for Defence – Represented former counter-terrorism officer who worked for MI6 in Afghanistan seeking to resettle his family in the UK. Following claim for unlawful and procedurally unfair decision, and expedition ordered by Jay J, Ministry of Defence withdrew refusal.
A (A Charity) v Charity Commission – Successful public law challenge to Charity Commission finding of misconduct/mismanagement in relation to offence under s. 19 Terrorism Act 2000. Finding of misconduct withdrawn by Charity Commission.
Metropolitan Police v MH – Represented MH, who was coerced into ISIS confession during ill-treatment in Iraq, in this application for a terrorism notification order under Schedule 4 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.
IH v Metropolitan Police – Represented NGO seeking to challenge ban on protest activity by Metropolitan Police.
X v Metropolitan Police – Challenge to Schedule 7 stop of religious leader.
Ford v Parole Board – Successful challenge to Parole Board decision to recall prisoner.
Rabah advises individuals (including lawyers) and corporate entities on sanctions compliance, including those facing enforcement for alleged sanctions breaches. Rabah has experience of UN and EU sanctions regulations, counter-terrorism sanctions, and the sanctions regimes relating to Russia and Syria.
Rabah has been instructed in sanctions-related challenges both in the UK and abroad. Rabah has also been instructed in petitions for de-listing. He has challenged UN and EU listings for individuals sanctioned on the basis of alleged membership to proscribed organisations.
Rabah is also instructed to advise on compliance with the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act 2023.
AH – Advice for high-profile international organisation on humanitarian aid delivery and sanctions compliance.
HL – Compliance advice for counsel and solicitors’ firm on representation of a proscribed organisation.
LR – Compliance advice for law firm. Counter-terrorism sanctions.
AM – Compliance advice for law firm. Counter-terrorism sanctions and proscription.
LL – Company directors. Cryptocurrency transactions allegedly traded with companies in Russia and other listed companies. Russia sanctions.
GG – Licence advice for individual. Russia sanctions.
AY – Russian businessman prosecuted for breach of EU sanctions regulations for flying a drone whilst on holiday.
Case 97 – Petition for de-listing at the UN on behalf of alleged member of international proscribed organisation.
UJ (1) – Advice on Magnitsky sanctions related to activities in Syria.
Rabah has a strong background in public international law, having both taught and assisted on research at the University of Oxford on issues of state responsibility and immunities.
Rabah regularly advises on the interpretation and application of public international law. He has advised individuals (including high-net-worth individuals), NGOs, international organisations, and foreign government officials.
Rabah is experienced in the use of international law mechanisms to progress a case, including applications before UN bodies and Special Rapporteurs, and proceedings in international, regional, and overseas/domestic courts.
Rabah also has experience in international humanitarian law and international criminal law, including in proceedings before international criminal courts, for example having acted in the Karadzic case at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
CT – Represented high-net-worth individual in foreign proceedings concerning alleged money laundering where fair trial rights were not complied with.
Case of President X – Arrest warrant in war crimes case; heard in claim for judicial review before Administrative Court, High Court.
Case of LH – Arbitrary detention in North Africa.
Case of ZI – Acted for Ambassador arbitrarily detained.
Case of AA – Acted for US diplomat who waived immunity.
Case of AS – Acted for a former Prime Minister of a Gulf State.
Case of YA – Acted for company director linked to Russia officials in EU sanctions prosecution.
Case of GG – Acted for UK national challenging her arbitrary detention in a Gulf State.
TA v UK – Acted as amicus in extradition proceedings in Italy on whether detention at HMP Wandsworth in London complied with international human rights standards.
A v France – Acted for French lawyer seeking to challenge prohibitions on practice under Articles 6, 8, and 10 at the European Court of Human Rights.
M v UK and US – Acted for US national seeking to challenge his extradition under Articles 2 and 3 by seeking injunctive relief at the European Court of Human Rights.
Rabah is regularly instructed to advise on fresh appeals against conviction (including CCRC referrals) and sentence. He is experienced in appeals to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the Privy Council, and the European Court of Human Rights.
Rabah has obtained exceptional results in appeals and has advised on miscarriages of justice for historic convictions.
R v FC – Fresh appeal against conviction in jury irregularity case. CCRC referral. Investigation officer appointed. Ongoing
R v XY – Fresh appeal against terrorism conviction for offence of preparation of terrorist acts. Ongoing
R v CD – CCRC application on historic murder conviction. Ongoing
R v AL – Fresh appeal against murder conviction based on new medical evidence. Ongoing
R v TPD [2026] EWCA Crim 16 – Guidance authority on sentencing in terrorism prevention and investigation measures (TPIM) breaches.
R v Wheeler [2025] EWCA Crim 558 – Significant case for defendants with autism spectrum disorder charged with terrorism offences. Court of Appeal overturned finding of dangerousness and reduced sentence for teenager with ASD.
R v Smith & Ors [2025] 2 WLR 215 – Leading authority on statutory public nuisance offence under s. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
R v Stokes [2025] 4 W.L.R. 14 – Reported authority on jury irregularity arising out of fresh appeal against murder conviction.
Findlay [2024] EWCA Crim 313 – Successful fresh appeal against sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment after trial judge wrongly categorised offence. The court confirmed “elevated risk” is required for higher harm in sentencing firearms offences.
R v AH [2024] 9 WLUK 582 – Reported authority on interlocutory appeal in terrorism case. Appeal concerned statutory construction of new notification requirements in terrorism legislation.
R v BNN [2024] EWCA Crim 991 – Fresh appeal against conviction for victim of trafficking.
R v MO [2023] EWCA Crim 1021 – Fresh appeal against murder conviction for 18-year-old who was sexually assaulted by the deceased at time of stabbing him.
J v Greece [2023] – Successful appeal against conviction in Greece, for UK national convicted of murder and manslaughter. Applying international law standards on children’s rights and right to a fair trial.
Davidson [2022] EWCA Crim 895 – Applications for a sexual harm prevention order must not “go through on the nod” and must be properly presented and properly considered. Full reasons must be given for the imposition of any such order.
Brown [2022] – Successful appeal against sentence in the Court of Appeal for sexual offences; ex tempore judgment.
White [2021] EWCA Crim 141 – Successful appeal against sentence for supply Class A drugs, resulting in immediate release. Novel point on use of licence conditions to allow immediate release on sentence reduction.
Awil [2020] EWCA Crim 1802 – Recently released judgment. Significant case on the right to a fair trial and permissible judicial comment. Court agreed there had been a failure of fair process and quashed conviction for firearms offences. Court of Appeal agreed that, “an appearance of advocacy on behalf of the prosecution is never appropriate... No judge should appear to enter into the arena. They should be seen to remain the impartial arbiter throughout. That is the essence of being a judge.”
Omar [2020] EWCA Crim 684 – Successful appeal against sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. Court confirmed correct approach to offer to supply offences.
Thomas [2019] EWCA Crim 2426 – Appeal on a point of law in relation to use of untested hearsay evidence during an assessment of dangerousness.
Rabah is experienced in proceeds of crime cases, including restraint, confiscation, and civil recovery. He has experience of POCA/asset recovery cases engaging multi-jurisdictional and multi-million-pound criminal investigations. Rabah is regularly instructed in cases concerning all assets orders, account freezing orders and terrorist account freezing orders.
Rabah has advised on high-profile and sensitive investigations concerning bribery, corruption, sanctions, and terrorism allegations.
GP – Freezing of bank accounts based on an allegation of association with proscribed organisation. Ongoing
BA – Challenge to a terrorist account freezing order raising issues of PII and non-disclosure. Ongoing
MR – Challenge to an account freezing order based on allegations of bribery and corruption in Egypt/Gaza. Ongoing
TT – Acting for company director and company in forfeiture proceedings. Ongoing
DD – Acting for company director and company in forfeiture proceedings concerning cash-based business. Ongoing
RS – All assets restraint order. Successful application to vary to permit access to personal accounts.
T Ltd – Account freezing order proceedings. Discharged.
SS – All assets restraint order including company accounts. Discharged.
AF – All assets multi-jurisdictional restraint order. Successful application to vary to permit access to personal accounts.
NU – Advice on internal corruption, bribery, and money laundering for regulated public body.
Rabah accepts instructions in all media and information law cases, including defamation, privacy, data protection, and open justice matters.
Rabah has advised on journalistic activity that may engage the Official Secrets Act. He has expertise on issues related to reporting restrictions and in contempt proceedings.
Rabah has advised on high-profile and complex data breach complaints, including where large organisations and public figures are involved.
