He confidently leads people through difficult and complex proceedings. Richard is a hardworking and dedicated advocate both on his own but also as part of a team. Richard has worked with a variety of expert witnesses, including cell site experts, neurologists and forensic scientists, and has run a series of seminars on the use of expert witnesses in criminal proceedings. He is the author of ‘A Practical Guide to the use of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings’ released in July 2020.
White Collar Crime
Richard has advised a range of businesses and individuals on the implications of account freezing orders, including challenging such orders. He represented Alex Pabon at the third LIBOR trial (led by Tom Allen QC and Catherine Rabaiotti).
Richard joined the Bar having spent several years working at Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP assisting with matters of fraud, bribery and money laundering both on a national and international scale. Richard holds a keen interest in this area and draws on his extensive previous experience when advising and assisting clients faced with these matters. In January 2015 Richard re-joined the firm for six months on secondment. Whilst there, amongst other matters, he assisted with the defence of an individual charged in respect of their role in the Barclays-Qatar funding arrangements. Richard also assisted in advising a client facing allegations of bribery to secure a £5m contract.
Prior to working at Peters & Peters, Richard worked as a paralegal at Birds Solicitors. Richard assisted in the preparation of the case of an individual charged with insider trading in Operation Saturn, at the time the largest insider trading case prosecuted by the FCA. Working closely with Patrick Gibbs QC and Alison Pople QC, Richard assisted in the analysis of financial and communication evidence and general preparation for trial, and subsequently attended the three-month trial.
Fraud, Money Laundering and Confiscation
Richard is regularly instructed to both prosecute and defend allegations of fraud, money laundering and matters involving financial misconduct. He has worked with a range of experts in assisting to build a case, such as forensic accountants to assist with the explanation of transactions and calculation of loss. Richard is familiar with HMRC prosecutions and is instructed to prosecute and defend matters involving evasion of tax and cheating the revenue. He can confidently and quickly gain an understanding of a complex case and the evidential position. Richard is regularly instructed to advise and represent at the stage of confiscation. He is well verse with the complexities of the legislation and practical requirements that come with either seeking or opposing an application for confiscation.
Richard is regularly instructed by a range of local authorities and defendants in respect of regulatory matters relating to use of property, trademark infringements and safety regulations. Previous matters include allegations contrary to the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Richard has a wealth of experience representing individuals at the Court Martial. He has successfully secured acquittals in allegations ranging from sexual assault and assault, to perverting the course of justice and fraud. He understands the importance of his client’s career and future prospects, ensuring cases are fully prepared to trial and advancing the best possible mitigation where necessary.
Richard is regularly instructed by both the Prosecution and Defence in a broad range of general criminal matters. Instructions over the past few years have included large scale drug conspiracies, firearm offences, armed robbery, terrorism and attempted murder. A number of Richard’s cases have involved expert evidence and Richard is well acquainted with the use of cell site, DNA and other forensic evidence, and how best to present these types of evidence. Richard has also been involved in cases involving SOCPA agreements, as well as matters of PII.
Richard has represented a broad range of professionals at disciplinary tribunal hearings. Richard has attended at all stages of the disciplinary proceedings process from interim order applications to fully contested final hearings.
White Collar Crime
Op Limestone: Prosecuting, with James Norman, three individuals for money laundering offences in respect of a central London money service bureau, with criminal property exceeding £6m.
Re: AM (Advisory): Advising AM on how to respond to an account freezing order made in respect of company accounts following the receipt of over £1m in bank transfers from abroad.
R v Alex Pabon – Richard, led by Tom Allen QC and Catherine Rabaiotti, represented Mr Pabon in relation to allegations of dishonestly manipulating the LIBOR benchmark over a two-year period.
R v Lynden Scourfield and others: Instructed by the CPS to assist in a disclosure exercise of extensive banking documents relating to £1bn plus fraud by employees of HBOS. https://www.ft.com/content/ff5aa796-e963-11e6-967b-c88452263daf
Fraud, Money Laundering and Confiscation
Op Kraken (Birmingham CC): Led by Robert O’ Sullivan QC and Stephen Hopper, prosecuting 14 individuals for fraudulently engaging in English language speaking tests on behalf of others.
R v PB (Birmingham CC): Led by Jon Rees QC, advising and representing PB in response to a section 22 application seeking an increase of £1.5m in an amount to be paid by way of confiscation. This case involved extensive argument in respect of the scope of section 22 to cases where civil proceedings had been commenced.
R v TI (Manchester CC): Successful contested application to reduce the available amount to a confiscation order from £225k to £28k. The prosecution alleged fraud on the part of TI which was successfully rebutted.
R v AR and others (St Albans CC): Led by Denis Barry, Richard was instructed to prosecute a seven handed allegation of conspiracy to defraud account holders at Barclays Bank. The case involved fraudulently obtaining approximately £500k from a high net worth individual and the subsequent ‘smurfing’ of the proceeds. Trial estimated to last 7 weeks.
R v LH (Croydon CC): Representing LH, the only defendant on the indictment to proceed to trial, in relation to an allegation of fraud by false representation. It was alleged that LH had attempted to purchase a £21,000 watch using a vulnerable individual’s stolen debit card. LH was the individual who went into the shop and attempted to purchase the card, before their arrest. Following a three-day trial, in which it was advanced LH was duped into using the card, LH was acquitted.
R v DE & SA (Croydon CC): Prosecuting DE and SA at a three-day Newton Hearing in relation to the counterfeiting of over £500k of currency. Investigated by the NCA the case involved extensive telephone data, surveillance logs and footage, and transaction data over a period of 2 years. Following a contested hearing the Defendants’ position was rejected in full.
R v TT (Woolwich CC): Richard prosecuted TT in relation to an offence of cheating the public revenue in respect of over £200,000 of tax. Continuing his instruction in the confiscation proceedings Richard successfully obtained a confiscation order of approximately £200,000 successfully opposing arguments raised by the Defence surrounding the application of the UK-Swiss tax regularisation treaty and schedule 36 Finance Act 2012 following disclosure of the Defendant’s attempts to his regularise tax affairs abroad.
Re: Cpl C (Bulford Court Martial): Representing Cpl C at appeal against sentence from his Commanding Officer. The initial sentence included demotion of rank. Following submissions in sentence, including the preparation of a mitigation bundle, Cpl C was sentenced to a reprimand and financial penalty without demotion of rank.
Re: Ex Kgn MR (Catterick Court Martial): Secured the acquittal of Ex Kgn MR following a four day trial alleging three counts of perverting the course of justice. The case involved cross examination of 15 individuals who appeared on the face of their statements to support the prosecution case. Upon cross examination matters were not entirely what they seemed.
Re: Ex AB NS (Bulford Court Martial): Representing NS who avoided custody for numerous admitted offences of sexual assault against younger recruits.
Re: WO2 P (Bulford Court Martial): Representing WO2 P at trial in relation to an allegation of ill treatment of a subordinate. Following a two-day hearing including extensive cross examination of a vulnerable complainant with mental health concerns, WO2 P was acquitted within 20 minutes.
Re: Sgt C (Catterick Court Martial): Sgt C faced an allegation of sexual assault on a private following a night in his room. The case heavily relied upon telephone communications between the two in the run up to the incident, as well as a section 41 application in respect of the complainant’s previous sexual history in the army. Following a two-day court martial hearing Sgt C was acquitted allowing him to resume his career in the Army.
LBH v AA and ASA Ltd (Wood Green CC): Prosecuting AA and ASA Ltd, Richard secured fines of £100,000 in relation to multiple breaches of enforcement notices, plus confiscation orders cumulatively exceeding £700,000 against the landlord and their company.
ARB v JP (Westminster MC) – Prosecuting on behalf of the Architects Registration Board. JP faced two separate sets of proceedings for holding himself out as an architect without appropriately registering as such with the ARB. Guilty findings in respect of both sets of matters resulting in financial penalties.
WMC v CG Ltd (Westminster MC) – Advising and representing CG Ltd, a property company with a multi-million pound turnover, in respect of allegations contrary to Environmental Protection Act 1990. Following written representations, the private prosecutor agreed to withdraw the proceedings against CG Ltd.
LBE v SM Ltd and three others (Highbury Corner MC) – Richard was instructed by LBE to prosecute two companies and their respective directors in relation to the use of a premises for food production. Following acceptable pleas been entered on the day of trial the matter concluded with financial penalties of over £100k imposed.
R v HR (Isleworth CC) – Prosecuting HR for two counts of facilitating illegal immigration. Following a five day trial involving extensive cross examination of the Defendant, HR was convicted on both matters.
R v WF (Kingston CC) – Representing WF, one of three co-defendants, alleged to have been involved in an affray and racially aggravated common assault at a Burger King following an England rugby match. On day four of the trial, following submitting a written submission of no case to answer the prosecution conceded there was no case to answer against WF on matters that had proceeded to trial.
R v TI (Central Criminal Court) – Richard represented TI at a six-day trial in respect of allegations of stalking her ex-partner. TI was acquitted of the aggravated offence, with the jury unable to come to a decision on the simplicier version of the offence. Following representations in respect of whether the simpliciter offence could be put on the indictment in its own right following the not guilty verdict to the aggravated form of the offence, the Crown conceded they could not proceed to a retrial.
R v MH (Woolwich CC) – MH was originally charged with soliciting murder and possession of material likely to assist a terrorist (copies of Inspire magazine and The Anarchists Cookbook). Following Richard’s representations and the submission of a basis of plea the prosecution accepted a plea to recklessly encouraging terrorism, and therefore avoiding a potential life sentence.
R v CG (Wood Green CC): Representing CG, who was the first defendant, on an indictment alleging possession with intent to supply class A drugs and dangerous driving. CG and another were found in possession of a significant quantity of cocaine, which during the course of a police pursuit was emptied into drains. During the pursuit it was alleged CG purposefully drove at police officers. Following a four-day trial CG was acquitted of both possession with intent to supply and dangerous driving.
R v NA (Bristol CC): Instructed to advise and represent NA who faced three counts of conspiracy to defraud (disputed value of £66k) resulting from allegations of contaminating saliva samples and sending another in his place for a blood test sample to avoid paying child support. After trial, following extensive cross examination of the crown’s forensic scientist the jury acquitted NA of two of the three allegations he faced. At the resulting sentencing hearing the Judge agreed to sentence at the bottom of the range for the alleged value of the fraud resulting in a much-reduced sentence.
HCPC v TW (forthcoming): Instructed to represent TW at a four day hearing involving allegations of incompetence resulting in the death of a patient in his care.
NMC v OD (forthcoming): Instructed to represent OD at a 12 day hearing involving allegations of forcing patients to take medication, whilst with another registrant, when in their care
BAPC v SH: Representing the complainant (the prosecuting regulator not represented) in respect of allegations of sexual misconduct towards her by her counsellor. Following extensive questioning of the registrant, significant allegations were found proven with the result that the registrant was struck off.
NMC v MD: Representing MD at a 5-day hearing involving over 30 separate allegations. Impairment was accepted and following submissions a conditions of practice order was made.
HCPC v DS: Representing DS, a paramedic, at a two days final hearing who admitted posting on social media photographs of a vulnerable individual in a dishevelled state. Following submissions, a caution order was made against DS thereby allowing DS to continue with his career.
HCPC v CR: Richard represented CR at a 7-day final hearing in relation to over 20 separate allegations of malpractice within a social care environment relating to the administration of their practice and poor decision making, including allegations of dishonesty. Following the tribunal found as unproven over half of the allegations including those relating to dishonesty. Following further submissions only two allegations were found to constitute impairment and on the public interest basis. Following final submissions on sanction the HCPC made a caution order.
NMC v AOB: Contested fitness to practice hearing in relation to the maladministration of medication. Following a final hearing, at which the Registrant did not attend, an allegation of intentionally overprescribing medication was dismissed. Those allegations that had been accepted resulted in the imposition of a conditions of practice order.
- CPS List – Level 3
- CPS Specialist Fraud List – Level 3
- CPS Specialist Proceeds of Crime List – Level 2
- CPS Specialist Serious Crime List – Level 2
- Regulatory Panel – C List
- SFO General List – C Panel
- SFO Proceeds of Crime and International Assistance – C Panel