Jane Bewsey is an experienced advocate at all levels in the higher courts and prosecutes and defends over the whole range of criminal cases. In the last ten years she has been instructed as counsel both leading and junior for the CPS, RCPO and the SFO in cases concerning money laundering, VAT frauds, duty evasions, large-scale drugs offences and in the prosecution of national and international multi-handed commercial frauds. She is thoroughly familiar with all aspects of disclosure, public interest immunity and confiscation issues. 

 

She particularly welcomes instructions in any case of financial and / or factual complexity.

 

 

She has been instructed by the CPS as both leader and junior in a range of cases including money laundering, the importation and supply of Class A drugs investigated by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, immigration cases, local authority corruption and conspiracy to defraud. The nature of the cases prosecuted mean that she has dealt with a range of public interest immunity issues and other sensitive material.

 

Many of the cases have required consideration and achievement of confiscation, the arrest of suspects overseas and the procurement of material from foreign jurisdictions.

 

See in particular Re Kanaris  (HL) [2003] UKHL 2; [2003] 1 WLR 443; [2003] 1 All ER 593; [2003] 2 CAR 1; [2004] Crim LR 69  Arch 1-270.

The commencement of a preparatory hearing has the effect of bringing a custody time limit to an end. Accordingly a judge who was minded to order such a hearing should be careful not to deprive a defendant in custody of the protection of the time limit until it became necessary to do so and should bear in mind the power to make orders in advance of the hearing under s9 of the CJA 1987 and s32(2) of the 1996 Act. 

 

She has been instructed by RCPO as both leader and junior in a range of cases including money laundering, the importation and supply of drugs, VAT fraud, duty evasion and international gun running.

 

See in particular R v El-Kurd [2001] Crim L.R.234. Arch 34-9a. Conspirators who agree to pursue a course of conduct may not have the commission of a specific offence in mind . It may not be necessary to prove that the carrying out of the agreement will necessarily result in the commission of a specific offence, provided that it can be shown that it would , or was intended to result in the commission of at least one or two identified offences.  

 

She  has acted as Independent Counsel in privilege disputes.

 

She has been instructed by the SFO since the early 1990’s. Most recently, she has been instructed in cases involving corporate fraud and money laundering. All involved working with expert witnesses including forensic accountants.

 

She  has been instructed to defend in cases prosecuted by the SFO including the Balfron Pension Fraud case.

Chambers and ors (2008): Instructed by SOCA as leading counsel for the prosecution of a five-handed case arising from the discovery of the largest ever amphetamine warehouse. Convictions secured of four of the accused.

 

R v Otusanya and Ugoh (2008): Instructed by SOCA as leading counsel in successful prosecution of a conspiracy to import cocaine. Over 60 importations had taken place over a period of 18 months.

 

R v Harris and ors (2007): instructed by SOCA in a “heritage case” initiated by NCS, as junior to John Black QC. A 10-handed case that occupied her for all of 2007 and for some of 2006, in a series of 10 trials of allegations of importing cocaine into the UK from Mexico, all but one of the accused were convicted.

 

Khurtisev and ors (2006): leading brief for the prosecution in an 8-handed series of heroin importation trials.

Co-authored The Law of Investor Protection (Sweet & Maxwell) with Jonathan Fisher QC.