After a narrow victory over Kent in Round 2 of the ESU-Essex Court Chambers National Mooting Competition 2022, Aberdeen lost out on a place in the Quarter-Finals following a defeat at the hands of London Metropolitan in Round 3 of the competition. Third-year and Second-year accelerated law students, Syed M. Humaid Adil and Cameron Fox respectively, faced off against two London Met GDL mooters in a UK Supreme Court case concerning a Confiscation Order requested under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
In representing the appellant, the Aberdeen team had the unenvious position of arguing against the confiscation of the remuneration received by a fraudster, who after lying on his CV about his education and previous employment, landed a lucrative appointment at a charity in a managerial position. In a case that had striking parallels to CV-fraudster Mike Ross in the hit legal drama Suits, the Aberdeen team successful won on the law, having their appeal allowed on their 2nd Ground of disproportionality but lost on the advocacy to an impressive display by the London Met team.
The judge, Christopher Kessling (Vice-Dean at the Inns of Court College of Advocacy), had this to say about Syed's performance in the moot:
Your advocacy was really excellent. I’ve got to say that. [Y]our preparation was exceptional and preparation is the foundation of good advocacy, anything that is built upon rocky foundations is, as we know, crumbles and falls away and your preparation I thought was extraordinarily good. I thought your analysis was extraordinarily good. You started off very professionally, with a nice clear voice, and I thought you dealt with the preliminaries very well, asking if I wanted a summary of the facts, asking - and I was thankful for this - if you could dispense with case citations. [Y]our eye contact was excellent throughout. [...] I thought you dealt with questions really well. I felt you considered them, you took time to think about your answers, your brain was clearly ahead of your mouth and you were very helpful and I felt you were being helpful and that is a good thing for a judge. [...] In terms of your right of reply, I think your analysis was excellent, so I have got to say a huge congratulations to you.