Tom has considerable experience of and proven track record in defending and prosecuting serious and complex fraud and associated proceedings before the Administrative Court and regulatory tribunals.
He has also developed a reputation for defending in cases of serious crime including homicide and gun crime, drugs and people trafficking and sexual offending. For example, in 2009 Tom has defended in a series of homicides at the Central Criminal Court (CCC).
Tom is described in the Legal 500 (2008 Edition) as “
really good for extremely complicated cases”. In Chambers UK Guide to the Legal Profession (2009 Edition) Tom is noted as an “
up and coming” member of the Bar.
Tom began at the Bar with a mixed practice in both civil and criminal work. However, at an early stage he was involved in criminal cases which were publicly reported; for example,
R. v. Ollerenshaw [1999] 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 65 ( a leading sentencing authority upon prison overcrowding) and
R. v. Plavecz (2002) (a significant ruling on the meaning of section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986). He also received instructions very early in his career in the SFO prosecution of Ian and Kevin Maxwell.
As his practice developed Tom received instructions to defend as a led junior and leading junior in a number of high profile frauds prosecuted by the SFO and HM Revenue and Customs. In 2010 this trend continues as he is due to defend in an important prosecution involving the unlawful export of military equipment to third countries and a high profile FSA prosecution of alleged insider trading.
Tom has also been instructed to defend in prosecutions brought by the HSE and Environment Agency. These cases often involve fatalities and corporate clients.
In 2007 Tom was appointed a Special Advocate to assist in proceedings before SIAC and/or other tribunals where highly sensitive material is in issue.
Tom also prosecutes serious financial crime. For example, in June 2009 at Worcester Crown Court Tom was instructed as a leading Junior in a successful SFO prosecution of a high yield investment fraud. He is currently instructed as Junior Counsel in the SFO’s investigation into BAE Systems.
He undertakes work in both the Administrative Court, normally for respondents, and prosecutes and defends before various disciplinary tribunals including the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Inns of Court. He has been instructed regularly to appear at inquests in Coroners’ Courts.
In addition, Tom undertakes advisory work. For example, he is frequently required to act as independent Counsel and review documentation for the purpose of identifying legally privileged material. He also regularly advises banks, solicitors and companies upon their duties under the anti money laundering measures. He has been asked to advise upon and draft restraint orders by RCPO.
Finally, Tom has developed a reputation for advising in complex civil and criminal asset recovery work. He is also instructed to advise in cases which raise issues concerned with ECHR and has been invited to lecture by the British Institute of Human Rights.
Publications and Seminars
He is a contributing author to “Fraud: Law, Practice and Procedure” (Sweet and Maxwell). Mr Justice Irwin described this as an “excellent work, which will be at my side in future fraud cases” and drew “particular attention to Chapter 17”, which was written by Tom.
He lectures on asset recovery, the proceeds of crime and money laundering in addition to the impact of the ECHR ( seminar providers include CTL Conferences and the British Institute of Human Rights).
Cases of Note
Serious and Complex Fraud
SFO’s investigation into BAE Systems (current) – Tom is instructed as Junior Counsel in this matter.
Regina v. Gardner (2009 Worcester CC) – Tom was instructed by the SFO as a Junior alone to prosecute a high-yield investment fraud which targeted expatriates resident in South-East Asia who worked in the petro-chemicals industry. The defendant was convicted following a contested trial and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
Regina v. Jones and another (current) – Tom is instructed to defend a company director in a prosecution brought by HMRC where it is alleged military equipment was exported to third countries such as Iraq.
Regina v. Elepkwa and others (current) – Tom is instructed to defend in this large case brought by the FPS alleging a conspiracy to defraud mortgage lenders.
Regina v. Ponder and ors (2008 Southwark CC) – He was instructed to defend as a Junior alone in what at the time was the largest MTIC fraud prosecuted by HMRC (Operation Euripius). The case was successfully defended when the Court allowed an application to dismiss the charges. The Prosecution subsequently made an application for a voluntary bill of indictment which, in the light of the Crown Court decision, was an exceptional remedy. These proceedings were successfully resisted and resulted in a authoritative ruling on the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a voluntary bill – [see R. v. Goldstone and ors [2008] EWHC 976 (QB)].
Regina v. Hanne Sayers and ors (2008 Nottingham CC) - He defended as leading Counsel in this wide ranging MTIC fraud. The case attracted the interest of the media as the matter was successfully defended when the indictment was stayed as an abuse of the process of the Court as a result of the failure of the Prosecution to comply with its duties of disclosure.
Regina v. Sthankiya and ors (2007 Birmingham CC) - He was instructed on behalf of the defendant as a led Junior in this SFO prosecution of a £60 million fraud following the collapse of the Ciro Citterio menswear chain. The indictment was stayed as an abuse of the process of the Court as the defence successfully argued that the Prosecution’s selective approach to the investigation prevented a fair trial of the real issues.
Regina v. Beveridge and Gauntlett (2006 Southwark CC) – He was instructed to defend as a led Junior in this multi-million dollar money laundering prosecution. The matter was of interest to both the general public and the legal profession as the defendants were solicitors who it was alleged had laundered the proceeds of fraud through a partnership account. The case was successfully defended and raised important issues about the “know your client” rules under the money laundering regulations.
Regina v. G and ors (2004 Southwark CC) - He was instructed by the SFO as Junior Counsel in this high profile investment fraud. The case involved two notable legal rulings in the Court of Appeal as to the permissible ambit of expert evidence and the interplay between legal professional privilege and the disclosure of sensitive and privileged material (see R . v. G. [2004] 2 Cr.App.R. 38, C.A. and R. v. G. and B. [2004] 2 Cr.App.R. 37, C.A.).
Asset Recovery
Confiscation Proceedings (2008 Kingston CC) – He is currently instructed to defend in a complicated application for confiscation by SOCA which is interesting as the case turns, in part, on his submissions as to the legal approach to the issue of benefit following the quartet of cases -
R. v. Sivaraman [2008] EWCA Crim 1736 ,
R. v. May [2008] 2 WLR 1131 ,
Jennings v. CPS [2008] 2 WLR 1148 and
R. v. Green [2008] 2 WLR 1154.
CPS v. City of London Magistrates Court and Keith Hartley (interested party) [2007] EWHC 1924 (Admin) – He acted for the interested party and successfully resisted the CPS application for an order quashing the decision of Justices to apportion time served in default of payment of a confiscation order. The case was important as the Court clarified the interrelation between an application for judicial review and an application to state a case. It also issued guidance upon the meaning of “promptness” in the context of an application for Judicial Review.
HMRC v. O (CJA No 9) [2006] EWCA (Admin) - He successfully represented the “interested party” in resisting an application to enforce a charging order on the matrimonial home. This case raised fundamental questions about the property rights of a third party on an application to enforce a confiscation order.
Homicide
Regina v. Cartwright (2009 CCC) – Tom was led in this murder trial and is due to defend in a large multi-handed murder trial in 2010 which involves alleged gang violence.
Regina v. Palomeque (2008 CCC) – He was led in this murder trial which was successfully defended in part when the jury returned a verdict of not guilty but guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation. The case was a clear forensic success as defence Counsel undermined the Prosecution by deploying evidence from both an expert imaging analyst and mobile telephone records to demonstrate the production of a deadly weapon by the deceased.
Regina v. Dyce ( 2008 CCC) – this involved a multi-handed trial of 4 men who lured the deceased to his death. The case was of note as it involved Prosecution applications for witness anonymity which were successfully resisted before the decision in the House of Lords landmark ruling in Regina v. Davis [2008] 3 W.L.R. 125 (H.L.).
Regina v. Eastwood (2008 CCC) – He was instructed as Junior Counsel alone to represent the defendant in a case where he killed his foster mother and repeatedly stabbed his foster father as they both lay asleep in bed. The case was notable in that Tom was required to seek an indication as to the “minimum term” on a sentence of life further to the procedure in Goodyear [2005] 3 All ER 117. The tribunal was persuaded to follow the guidance in Goodyear which resulted in an early plea from the defendant and a merciful minimum term.
Double Jeopardy case (2008 CCC) – this case is subject to a reporting restriction in which he is instructed to defend the respondent to an application under section 84 of the CJA 2003 for an order quashing an acquittal and ordering a retrial on production of new and compelling evidence.
Regina v. Dore (2006 CCC) – He was instructed as a led Junior in this case where it was alleged the defendant killed his wife. The case was important as it required Tom to undertake the cross-examination of a blood spatter expert.
Health and Safety and Environmental Protection
HSE v. GA International Ltd (2007 Doncaster MC) – He defended a meat processing company for various breaches of the HSWA 1974 whereby machinery was operated in a dangerous manner and condition. The corporate client’s omissions were successfully mitigated following (a) Tom’s carefully argued written and oral response to the Prosecution “Friskies” schedule and (b) his advice to overhaul specific areas of the client’s safety procedures and policies concerning risk assessments.
HSE v. O’Rourke Scaffolding Limited (2007 CCC) - He defended in this matter which involved multiple fatalities following the collapse of a scaffold on a large construction site. The case was important as it demonstrated how the early instruction of an expert engineer and Health and Safety Consultant was vital to agreeing a basis of plea which substantially mitigated the culpability of a corporate client.
EA v. H Waste Management (2004 St Albans CC) - He defended a large waste management company charged with various breaches of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The case was of interest as it involved a technical legal argument concerning the definition of waste further to the European Directive.
Sexual Offences
Regina v. Tate (2008 Peterborugh CC) – Tom successfully defended this prosecution of a sexual assault of a well known and respected teacher. The case attracted a good deal of public interest and was unusual as the defence were given leave to cross-examine the complainant about alleged lies concerning her sexual history.
Regina v. Tene and ors ( 2008 Snaresbrook CC) - He defended in a multi-handed trial whereby the Prosecution alleged the complainant was the victim of a multi-assailant rape. The proceedings were novel in that the Prosecution wished to rebut the defence of consent by introducing background evidence of the complainant’s sexual and medical history. This also required Tom to undertake a complex cross-examination of an expert physician on the issue of the causes of intra-uterine pain.
Regina v. Smith (2007 Croydon CC) – He defended in this case which involved a mentally and physically challenged complainant and defendant. The case was particularly noted for the use of intermediaries and experts upon the issue of mental and physical capacity.
Offences of Violence
Regina v. Islam (2009 CCC) – Tom defended in this grave case of causing grievous bodily harm with intent which attracted a great deal of public interest in circumstances where the prosecution initially alleged it was an example of a homophobic attack on a defenceless young man who was left as a complete tetra- pelagic. The case was also of interest to professionals as the Court of Appeal was forced to address the tension in sentencing practice between, on the one hand, affording a young man sufficient mitigation in the light of his youth, and on the other, ensuring the most serious attacks receive severe punishment so as to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Regina v. Virdee and ors (2007 Snaresbrook Crown Court) – He defended in this conspiracy to blackmail and kidnap prosecution. The case was notable in the East London area as it involved an enterprise to kidnap and hold to ransom a prominent local businessman. Tom was able to achieve a negotiated basis of plea for his client which avoided a prison sentence. The remaining defendants were all convicted and received lengthy custodial sentences.
Regina v. Grey [2003] EWCA Crim 1001 (Archbold 14-47a) – He prosecuted in a series of armed robberies at the CCC during which the jury was invited to identify the robber with the assistance of a facial mapping expert. The case is important as in the Court of Appeal guidance was issued as to the proper limits of this type of evidence in the absence of a national database or agreed formula from which conclusions as to the probability of occurrence of particular facial characteristics can safely be drawn.
Disciplinary Tribunals
BSB v. PS (2004 Disciplinary Tribunal to the Inns of Court) – He prosecuted this matter before the disciplinary tribunal and successfully resisted the subsequent appeal to the Visitors of the Inns of Court. The disciplinary proceedings were important as they involved the regulation of a non-practising barrister who had effectively perverted the course of public justice in seeking to defend an action in the County Court for forfeiture of a commercial lease and damages following unlawful subletting.
BSB v. P (2004 Visitors to the Inns of Court) - He successfully resisted an appeal against conviction to the Visitors of the Inns of Court. The matter was of acute importance to the Bar Council as the appellant sought to challenge the regime by which barristers are required to obtain a practising certificate on payment of a fee on the basis that the fee represented an unwarranted charge and thereby was a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to property under Article 1 of the Convention.
