Attended Kazakhstan as part of the English Bar Council. TQ presented a series of seminars on corporate criminal liability.

TQ also conducted two seminars as part of the MLRO’s annual conference. TQ discussed anti-money laundering regulations and the enforcement powers of the FCA.

TQ’s client was charged with an allegation of arson. TQ was privately instructed. There was no dispute a fire had occurred at residential premises. The crown’s case was that this was a revenge attack by the defendant as part of a matrimonial break up. The defendant made no comment during his police station interview and the crown relied on text messages sent by the defendant apparently admitting the arson. During the trial, TQ raised concerns about the disclosure process resulting in the Judge ordering the attendance of the CPS reviewing lawyer. The Judge criticised the prosecution’s failure to disclose important material. The Judge discharged the jury and ordered an urgent review of the case. Following the review, the CPS discontinued proceedings.

Following a covert investigation led by the investigation arm of British Telecom, (BT) three people were charged with fraudulently obtaining over £200,000.00 worth of apple products from BT. The products were ordered and dispatched to premises used by the fraudsters. Following covert surveillance three people were arrested at the premises and duly charged with money laundering offences. Of the three people arrested, two pleaded guilty and TQ’s client contested the matter at trial. Following legal submissions and discussions, the jury were directed to find TQ’s client not guilty.

NOT GUILTY – TQ represented two defendants in a prosecution brought by Trading Standards. Both defendants were found not guilty by the jury of all 7 charges.

The defendants were retailers in the West End of London. As part of their business, they imported and sold hover boards. Trading Standards raided the premises and seized the entirety of the defendants’ stock on the basis that officers suspected the hover boards to be unsafe products. Following expert examination, the products were confirmed as unsafe and as a result, both defendants were charged with 7. The defendants failed to attend the interview but later lodged a defence statement pleading the defence of “Due Diligence”. As part of the defence case, it was also submitted that jury could not be sure that the hover board seized were the same hover boards that the defendants imported. Following 3 hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously acquitted both defendants of all 7 charges.”

Operation Roam: TQ’s client was the only defendant acquitted following a four-week trial in which it was alleged the defendants conspired to breach immigration laws by arranging sham marriages. The prosecution was based on a covert investigation conducted by a television company [Hardcash Productions] for ITV entitled ‘Exposure.UK – the Sham Marriage Racket’ (which was broadcast on the 3rd July 2015).

TQ’s client was described by the prosecution as the ‘fixer of the scam’ and ‘Mr Big’. He was caught on camera introducing a fake bride with a fake name. Although he made no comment in the police interview, TQ told the jury he was not part of any criminal conspiracy. Following trial, the jury convicted all defendants expect TQ’s client who was found not guilty of all counts.

TQ persuaded the Court of Appeal to quash his client’s conviction on the grounds that she did not receive a fair trial. The court agreed and held the trial resulted in “serious unfairness”. The decision is significant development on the extent of judicial intervention, read it here.

Operation Aphrodite. Huge and sophisticated conspiracy to steal high value vehicles, seven defendants charged following a year-long police investigation. TQ was instructed to represent the second defendant. The case against the second defendant was based on text messages from his handset, telephone conversations and association with the co-conspirators. During the trial, TQ successfully excluded bad character evidence. Following trial, the jury took less than one hour to find TQ’s client not guilty. TQ’s client was the only defendant acquitted by the jury.

Defendant jointly charged with allegations of money laundering. Found in possession of £500,00.00 cash. The case involved a cut-throat defence between TQ’s client and the first defendant. Following cross-examination by TQ of the first defendant, the first defendant changed his plea to one of guilty. TQ’s client continued with the trial and was found not guilty.

TQ instructed to act for high-profile professional boxer.

TQ’s client was prosecution for intending to cause grievous bodily harm. The defendant accepted he had caused harm, to the victim, but claimed it was unintentional and he was guilty of the lesser offence of simply causing grievous bodily harm. This was not accepted by the crown. who contended the defendant was guilty of the more serious offence of intending to cause harm. Following the trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty. The client was given a suspended sentence for the lesser offence he had always admitted.