skip to main content

Tarek Heidar


Tarek Heidar
High Court Advocate and Duty Solicitor
Central Court, 25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL
Office: 0208 795 4411
Mobile: 07966 067118


Tarek began his legal career as a lecturer and taught criminal law at university level. Tarek qualified as a solicitor in 2009, as a Duty Solicitor in 2010 and as a Higher Courts Advocate in 2014. Tarek is also a registered supervisor and is involved in the supervision and training of the junior members of our team.

Tarek specialises in trial advocacy and has defended in a large number of trials. His cases vary in complexity and seriousness and include matters of fraud, drugs, sexual offences, armed robberies and serious violence. In addition, Tarek is also a member of our extradition team and represents clients requested by judicial authorities of other countries.

Tarek’s strong academic background provides him with exceptional insight and analytical skills, which lead to a high number of acquittals on both points of fact and law. 


Legal Practice Course: University of Westminster (2002 – 2004).
Postgraduate Certificate in Education: Greenwich University (2000–2001).
Master of Law: University of Westminster (1998 – 1999).
Bachelor of Law: London Guildhall University (1995 – 1998).

Professional Qualifications

Higher Rights of Audience:    Kaplan Altior (2014).
Legal Services Commission   Supervisors’ Course: Datalaw (2014).
Duty Solicitor Accreditation: Cardiff University (2010).
Professional Skills Course:     The College of Law-London (2009).
Police Station Accreditation: Cardiff University (2007).

Notable Cases

R v YK – Isleworth Crown Court.
The Defendant’s friend in this case took the Defendant’s car without consent. Police stopped and searched the vehicle and found a knife therein. The friend admitted taking the vehicle without the Defendant’s consent but denied any knowledge of a knife being present in the Defendant’s car. The friend was charged, and pleaded guilty to, taking a vehicle without consent. The Defendant was charged with possession of an offensive weapon, as the knife was found in his own vehicle.

Tarek advised the Defendant to plead not guilty and to elect Crown Court trial, which he did. Tarek subsequently made successful representations to discontinue with the proceedings on the basis that, by disposing of the friend’s case as a matter of taking the Defendant’s vehicle without consent, the Crown accepted that the vehicle had been taken out of the Defendant’s custody and control and could therefore not be in possession of the offensive weapon. The representations were accepted and the charge withdrawn.  

R v EK and others – Isleworth Crown Court.
The Defendant was alleged to have used a stolen vehicle on false number plates to commit three theft offences. The Defendant was stopped by police inside the vehicle, which contained items from the thefts including a £15,000 designer watch, other stolen items and a number of false registration number plates.

Tarek made a successful application to dismiss before Isleworth Crown Court and all six counts of theft, handling stolen goods and going equipped were dismissed.

R v KSH – Willesden Youth Court.
The Defendant was a youth who was found in possession of an imitation firearm in a public place. Tarek raised a point of law and skeleton arguments were directed by Court. Tarek accordingly successfully argued that the offence is triable either-way but could only be tried summarily in this scenario. This led to the criminal procedure being barred under s.127 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and the charge accordingly dismissed.

R v FC – Harrow Crown Court.
The Defendant was charged with two counts of rape against his Special Constable ex-wife, as well as one count of breaching his non-molestation order. Police were informed by a third party of the Defendant’s presence at the complainant’s house in breach of his non-molestation order. Officers attended the address and the Defendant was arrested as he was leaving the premises. The complainant made two allegations of rape and the Defendant was arrested. The Defendant pleaded not guilty and was acquitted on both counts of rape following a full trial. The charge of breaching his non-molestation order was also discontinued by the Crown.

Tarek had previously represented this client during trial at Willesden Magistrates Court on a previous allegation of common assault against the same complainant which resulted in bruises, swelling and scratches to the right side of her face. Injuries were witnessed by three of the complainant’s police officer colleagues. The Defendant was also found not guilty of this offence following a full trial.

R v KT – Willesden Magistrates Court.
This case involved the hot pursuit of the Defendant’s vehicle by several police units from Central London to Harrow. The Defendant drove home and was followed in by police officers. Upon searching his premises, a bag containing a large amount of class A and B drugs was found concealed in his back garden. The Defendant was accordingly charged with one count of dangerous driving, one count of possession with intent to supply class A and B drugs. 

The Defendant pleaded guilty to the driving offence and not guilty to both drug dealing offences. The Court dismissed both drugs charges half way through the trial following Tarek’s successful legal submissions.

R v TS – Willesden Magistrates Court.
The Defendant stood by a stabbing crime scene and informed a police officer that he knew who did it. Police officers detained the Defendant to question him on what he knew. The Defendant swore at officers and head-butted two as he was being handcuffed, and was charged with assault on police x2, s.4 Public Order Act and subsequently, attempted murder.

Tarek advised the Defendant to plead not guilty. Court directed skeleton arguments to be served and Tarek successfully argued that the Defendant was unlawfully detained, and accordingly, no evidence was offered on all charges on the day of trial.

R v LR – Willesden Magistrates Court.
The Defendant was alleged to have assaulted two police officers upon attending her address on a report of breach of the peace. Three police officers gave live evidence during trial, following which, the Crown withdrew all charges as Tarek had by then established, through cross examination, that the officers had acted outside the scope of their duties. A no case to answer argument was also upheld on a further charge of possession of an offensive weapon.

R v HE – Isleworth Crown Court.
The Defendant was alleged to have been captured on CCTV driving his vehicle into a pedestrian causing life changing injuries, described by the Prosecutor as the equivalent of a GBH. Both the Crown and Magistrates deemed the matter suitable for summary jurisdiction, however, Tarek advised the Defendant to elect trial in the Crown Court, where the case was subsequently dismissed upon Tarek’s successful application.

R v HE – Southwark Crown Court.
The Defendant was alleged to have conspired with another to rob a lone female late at night outside her home address. The entire robbery was covered by high definition CCTV which showed the attack by the co-defendant and the Defendant’s presence. Tarek successfully made representations that there is no evidence of a conspiracy on the part of the Defendant. The Crown offered no evidence regarding Tarek’s client but found the co-defendant guilty.

R v JA – Hammersmith Magistrates Court.
The Defendant was alleged to have been one of six co-defendants fighting with knives on the street. Officers attended the scene and the Defendant is said to have been found hiding behind the wall of a nearby house. Tarek successfully made half way submissions of no case to answer against his client and the charge against him was dismissed.

R v MO – Willesden Magistrates.
The Defendant was charged with obstructing a drug search by disbursing into the wind the contents of a cigarette he was rolling up. The Defendant failed to attend his trial, which proceeded with in his absence. Two police officers gave evidence and Tarek Successfully made submissions that both officers acted outside the scope of their duties. The case was dismissed and no warrant was issued against the Defendant.

Foreign Languages

Tarek is fluent in Arabic, both written and spoken.

Personal Interests

Chess and Sports