(Image: Newsquest)
Barristers defending some of the men charged with conspiracy to murder an uncle and his nephew in a ferocious and targeted machete attack have said the victims would not have been able to identify them as the attackers.
A trial at Bradford Crown Court has heard how Zayad Khan was “left for dead” after being chased and attacked by several men wielding bladed weapons on May 11 last year.
He suffered multiple serious injuries and had his left hand hacked off at the wrist.
His nephew Usamah Khan was able to climb into a car and escape the same level of violence but not before he was slashed on the back of the neck.
The court previously heard that the attack on Zayad and Usamah was in revenge for their suspected involvement in an assault in March 2025 on a man called Mohammed Rizwan, known as “Rizzy”.
The prosecution said that “Rizzy” was either related to, or friendly with, the five male defendants in the trial.
In the aftermath of the May 11 attack, Zayad and Usamah identified the men they said arrived in a Mitsubishi Shogun, a BMW X3, and a Vauxhall Antara and who then embarked on the brief but brutal assault.
Mohammed Waqqas Khan, Rahees Khan, Hanzalah Saladin, Adam Takolia, and a fifth man who cannot be named for legal reasons, all deny conspiracy to murder.
It is alleged that Mohammed Waqqas Khan was the driver of the Shogun.
In his submission to the court Christopher Tehrani KC, representing Mohammed Waqqas Khan, said the primary issue was one of identification or recognition but that the evidence of the victims was “tainted and worthless”.
He said: “The attack happened. It was planned. On one view, it was savage. It was certainly ferocious.
“Those who took part in it agreed to do so. What their intent was will be a matter for the court to decide in due course.”
Mr Tehrani told the court that, other than being identified by the victims, “no other evidence connects him” to being the driver of the Shogun.
He said the dark conditions and very limited streetlighting on the night would have “severely handicapped one or both victims in making their identifications.”
He said CCTV from the scene showed the Shogun’s sun visors as being down, which restricted the view of the car’s occupants.
He said the driver was wearing a full-face ski mask with a narrow slit for the eyes.
He said that the victims would also have been looking into the glare of the Shogun’s headlights, casting doubt on whether they would have been able to identify anyone inside the vehicle.
He told the court that, following the incident, Usamah Khan told the police that the attackers wore balaclavas “and that he didn’t know who they were.”
He added: “Putting together the evidence of the identification against Mr Khan, the court cannot be sure that it is reliable, accurate, and/or honest.
“The identification evidence was provided by two men who were victims of a dark, fast, terrifying attack by masked men who had merely seconds to look into the lights of an oncoming car.”
Philip Bennetts KC, representing Rahees Khan, said “compelling” evidence showed that his mobile phone was sited “consistently” at his home address on the night of the attack, which excluded him from being a passenger in the Shogun.
He said the case against Rahees Khan, allegedly the passenger in the Shogun, was principally based upon recognition evidence but that the victims had not been able to accurately describe the height, build, or hairstyles of the men in the car due to their faces being covered with masks.
And he described as “nonsense” the suggestion that the Shogun, which had been circling the area around Tickhill Street prior to the attack, would “pop round” to pick up Rahees Khan and then drop him off afterwards.
He said: “What puts Rahees Khan in that car? Let’s look at the scientific evidence: nothing.
“Is that just good luck? [There is] not a single shred of forensic evidence.”
He told the court: “If Your Honour is unsure of the identity of the passenger [in the Shogun], there is no more of the case against Rahees Khan.”
Barrister John Ryder KC, representing the alleged driver of the BMW Hanzalah Saladin, said everyone involved in the attack was wearing a disguise.
He said the occupants of the BMW “were disguised ready for action” and that CCTV of the attack showed a masked man “lashing out” at Usamah Khan within three seconds of the BMW colliding with the Tiguan.
He said: “The quality of the identification evidence is such as that it is incapable of supporting a safe conviction.”
Mohammed Waqqas Khan, 27, of Folkestone Street, Bradford, Rahees Khan, 42, of no fixed abode but formerly of Granton Street, Bradford, Hanzalah Saladin, 27, of no fixed abode, Bradford, Adam Takolia, 29, of no fixed abode, Bradford, and a fifth man who cannot be named for legal reasons, deny conspiracy to murder.
In addition, they all deny conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm to both alleged victims.
Rahees Khan and Alice Dobson, 30, of Nether Hall Road, Baildon, both deny perverting the course of justice by accessing confidential material related to the attacks, which Dobson allegedly passed on to Rahees Khan and others.
The trial, which began in July but was paused after the jury was discharged following allegations of jury tampering, continues with His Honour Judge Jonathan Rose presiding alone.