Andrew Marshall is a committed and experienced advocate, whose practice principally relates to large-scale, organised crime cases requiring a strategic overview, normally concerning complex fraud or drugs. Other areas of work include wide-ranging advisory and review work on criminal and quasi-criminal matters (with a particular speciality in disclosure), appellate work and asset forfeiture and restraint.
Appointed to the Attorney General’s list of Prosecuting Counsel in about 1990 and in 2005 appointed Standing Counsel and therefore undertaking the most important, serious and complex work for those prosecution agencies under the superintendence of the A-G, principally:
- Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO) prosecuting HMRC organised fraud and SOCA organised crime
- Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Revenue (BERR, formerly DTI): major company and insolvency frauds
- Department for Work Pensions
- Department of Health
- Health and Safety Executive.
Complementary practice with
- high-level CPS work
- complex defence work
- asset forfeiture and restraint
Appointed as a Recorder of Crown Court in 2003 and sits as a part-time Judge in various London Crown Courts.
Some Notable Cases
R v Izzigil and ors
Court of Appeal - Criminal Division; [2002] EWCA Crim 925; 2002-04-25
The three appellants were convicted in 1998 of involvement in the important of heroin into this country on a massive scale and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of between 18 and 22 years.
Held on appeal:
1. When determining an application to admit evidence under ss. 25 & 26 Criminal Justice Act 1988, the decision as to whether it was practicable to secure the attendance of a witness depended on all the facts at the time the application was made.
2. Where an undertaking had been made in the magistrates' court to reduce the charge, to justify a stay on the ground of abuse, it was necessary to find that there had been an injustice, or an affront to justice.
R v. Gonzalez
08.04.2008
John Gonzalez, 42, was convicted for fraud and forgery, and sentenced to 16 months in prison. The defendant was the founder of the world's first website selling sperm to lesbians who wanted children. He launched "mannotincluded.com" in June 2002, and arranged for the delivery of fresh sperm to women who paid to register with the site. After 36 months, the company went into liquidation with debts of more than £220,000. An investigation found Gonzales had forged documents and falsified debts in order to avoid handing over assets when the company was wound up. He falsely told the liquidator that "mannotincluded.com's" website and trademark were owned by a company in Cyprus, and forged a document to attempt to prove it. He fraudulently diverted £185,000 for personal use from the company accounts, and invented a £125,000 debt to make the business seem more insolvent than it was.
R v Gargreen Ltd, Euro’s (London) and Vijay Kara
18.12.2007
A prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive in which two construction firms were found to have breached Health and Safety Regulations. This breach resulted in a construction worker being left permanently disabled when a two-ton concrete slab he was trying to place on a steel frame in the floor fell on him.
Developer Gargreen Ltd and its associated contractor Euro's (London) were ordered to pay £275,000. Gargreen was also ordered to pay costs of £10,000 for failing to appoint a Planning Supervisor to oversee the safety requirements on the construction site. The judge also found Euro's (London) guilty of failing to ensure a safe system of work was in place and for adequate training and supervision of the work. The company also pleaded guilty to a breach of reporting Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 as it did not report the incident as required.
A director of both companies who played a direct role in managing the construction work was convicted of an offence under s37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 becauses breaches by both companies were the result of his personal negligence. The court found him guilty and he was ordered to pay costs of £150,000.
R v Knight
23.11.2007
This was the first prosecution under the Trade in Goods (Control) Order of a British arms dealer for conducting an illegal sale of 130 MPT 9 machine guns in the Middle East. The order came into force in May 2004 and was designed to prevent the uncontrolled movement of arms by British nationals outside the UK.
The defendant was an established arms dealer who had brokered a deal between an arms manufacturer based in Tehran and an agency in Kuwait. The $120,000 deal was arranged after his application for a licence was turned down in November 2006. It transpired that he had laid a paper trail to make it look as though he had pulled out of the deal but it went ahead and was intercepted in Kuwait.
R v Takkar
17.04.2007
This case was successfully prosecuted by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office concerning the evasion £4.5 million in VAT. Between May 2004 and August 2004, the defendant, trading as a business, made purchases of mobile phones and computer chips from France and being imports they did not attract VAT. The phones and chips were then sold on, usually the next day, to a further company who, in turn, sold the items on to numerous other companies. These companies exported the phones and chips, usually to Dubai. This resulted in a further loss of revenue, as tax was being reclaimed by the exporter. In one instance an export was traced to a German company from whom Takkar's suppliers had allegedly purchased phones. The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to cheat the public revenue and fraudulent trading.
