Barnaby has a range of experience in international asset recovery, POCA, financial crime, extradition and professional discipline law, particularly in healthcare, accountancy and sports law matters. He is regularly instructed in tax tribunal matters (in a POCA context) and civil recovery. Barnaby's international asset recovery and financial crime practice includes experience of dealing with corruption, money laundering and fraud offences which have an international angle and recovering the proceeds of these offences.
He has experience of all areas of the Proceeds of Crime Act both domestically and Internationally. In addition to his busy practice, Barnaby writes the chapters on International Asset Recovery and Terrorism Finance for Millington and Sutherland Williams on POCA and recently completed a series of seminars and articles on changes to POCA under the Criminal Finance Act 2017.
Barnaby also has a range of experience in professional discipline cases, particularly in healthcare and sports law matters. He has experience of the NMC, GDC, ACCA, ICAEW and GMC and experience of appearing in a number of leading Anti-Doping cases. Barnaby recently completed 16 months working in the Caribbean seconded to the CPS Proceeds of Crime Unit dealing with asset recovery matters of all types. He also has experience dealing with regulatory matters that have a proceeds of crime element and extradition matters.
Chambers & Partners says: "He's a good academic thinker and a very bright star of the future." "Barnaby is extremely thorough in his preparation. The contents of his written arguments are detailed and persuasive and he always responds to enquiries speedily".
The Legal 500 recommends Barnaby, quoting: "Extremely knowledgeable across the full range of POCA matters"."He has extensive knowledge of the POCA field". "He appears on either side of confiscation proceedings".
Areas of practice
Asset Recovery, a how to guide: putting Asset Recovery laws to work
The New Poca Frontier: Bitcoin And Electronic Currency, Shaping Asset Recovery In The 21st Century
Training In International Asset Recovery: How To Do It Well
Tax Evasion – As The Government ‘Cry Wolf’, Is It Anything More Than A Hollow Complaint?
Taking The Profit Out Of Killing Animals – Is Asset Recovery The Answer To Poaching?
Confiscation Orders: Can They Live For Ever? There Has To Be An End, But Drawing The Line Will Be A Long Debated Issue.
How To Deal With The Corporate Veil In Confiscation Cases
Civil Recovery And An Overview Of The Criminal Finances Act 2017
New Offences Of Tax Evasion Under The Criminal Finances Act 2017
The Role Of Section.10a In The Enforcement Of Confiscation Orders – A Useful Tool For Local Authorities To Get It Right First Time
Enforcement Of Confiscation Orders – How To Clear The Final Hurdle
Section 10a Proceeds Of Crime Act – Determining And Protecting Third Party Assets
Reinforcing The Veil – Defending Cases Where The Corporate Veil Is Threatened
Changes To The Seizure Provisions Under The Criminal Finances Act 2017
The Judgement Of Others – How Should A Disciplinary Panel Deal With The Findings Of Another Professional Disciplinary Tribunal’s Decision: Analysis And Comment On Peckitt V Gdc  Ewhc 1803 (Admin)
A Change Is Coming – The Criminal Finance Bill And The Changes It Will Bring To The Asset Recovery Landscape.
Associations and memberships
- Criminal Bar Association
- Proceeds of Crime Lawyers Association
- Administrative Law Bar Association
- Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers
- Bar Standards Board Prosecutions Panel
- Called to the Bar 2006 (Middle Temple)
- LLB – University of East Anglia
- BVC – College of Law
- SFO Panel C Counsel
- CPS grade 2 prosecutor
- Panel member of RFU anti-doping panel
- Elected member of the Bar Council: 2013-2016
- South Eastern Circuit junior: 2012-2013
- NCA Consultant Barrister
- Specialist Advocate Panel Counsel, Health & Safety Executive.
- Harmsworth Scholarship
- The Blackstone Entrance Exhibition
- Accommodation Award
- South Eastern Circuit Florida Advocacy Scholarship
- Dutch-Anglo Bar Exchange (2012 – Bar Council)
- Keble Advanced Advocacy Course (2012 – Middle Temple)
ASSET RECOVERY AND INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CRIME
His international asset recovery and financial crime practice includes experience of dealing with corruption, money laundering and fraud offences which have an international angle and recovering the proceeds of these offences. He has experience of all areas of the Proceeds of Crime Act both domestically and Internationally. He recently completed 16 months working in the Caribbean seconded to the CPS Proceeds of Crime Unit dealing with asset recovery matters of all types. He also has experience dealing with regulatory matters which have a proceeds of crime element. Confiscation and Forfeiture matters form a large part of Barnaby’s practice. He is regularly instructed in the full range of Confiscation and Forfeiture matters. These matters have ranged in size up to benefit figures of £6million. He has assisted in the recovery of money from overseas, and has a large amount of experience in other jurisdictions Proceeds of Crime Legislation. He is also experienced in contempt of court proceedings, section 11 applications, section 23 applications, and restraint orders. He also has experience dealing with Confiscation and Forfeiture matters in and insolvency context, and regularly appears for Insolvency Practitioners.
Barnaby has also provided mentoring and training to Lawyers and Judges in other jurisdictions. He is happy to be instructed to provide training services on Asset Recovery, Financial Crime and Advocacy. As well as having knowledge of the practical aspects of international asset recovery and financial crime, he has experience of working with jurisdictions to enforce the law better. This experience was enhanced by his time on secondment with the CPS. In a domestic setting he has a particular interest in financial crime and has dealt with a number of Fraud and Money Laundering cases. He has experience in a variety of different types of financial crime, including benefit fraud and MTIC fraud. Barnaby has been selected to be on the Serious Fraud Office C panel and has gained further experience of high profile fraud through this appointment.
INVESTIGATORY POWERS & PHONE HACKING CASES
Barnaby has developed particular expertise in cases involving the use of investigatory powers. He has prepared chambers seminar program on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”), the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Data Protection Act 1998. He is able to advise on what powers different governmental organisations have and what methods private individuals are able to use. This is particularly topical with the rise of private investigators using intrusive, and mostly illegal, methods to gain information.
BRIBERY ACT AND DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTS
Barnaby has a good working knowledge of the Bribery Act, and is able to advise on the criminal and regulatory aspects of the Act. He has written two articles for chambers newsletter on the subject. One provides an overview of the subject, while the other gives guidance on ways in which organisations can protect themselves from prosecution. Barnaby also has experience and knowledge of Deferred Prosecution Agreements. He has particular interest in how these will be used in connection with Bribery Act prosecutions.
HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATION
Barnaby has experience in regulatory work, and has written in Chambers Newsletter on Corporate Manslaughter and its relevance to health and safety regulation. He has a particular interest in the licensing of multi occupation houses, environmental regulation and trading standards matters. He is also able to advise on ways in which companies can comply with the Bribery Act 2010.
Barnaby has extensive experience of professional discipline hearings in front of Healthcare regulators. He has acted in matters heard before the General Medical Council (GMC), the General Dental Council (GDC), and Nurse and Midwifery Council (NMC). Barnaby completed a 6 month secondment with the NMC. He represents both the regulators and registrants. He has extensive experience of substantive hearings, interim orders, substantive order reviews and all other form of regulatory hearings. Barnaby has dealt with a number of complicated legal issues, such as bias, abuse of process and half time applications. He has also dealt with vulnerable witnesses and a variety of expert witnesses. Please see the notable case section for more details. Barnaby sits on regulatory panels and is an elected member of the Bar Council. He sits on the Professional Practice Committee, which provides guidance on to barristers on the Bar Code of Conduct. Through his other regulatory work he has a wider range of experience in all aspects of professional disciplinary law.
Barnaby has wide range of experience in sports disciplinary hearings and a particular interest in Anti-Doping work. Barnaby has advised athletes and clubs accused of breaching there governing bodies rules, and has provided training on Anti-Doping legislation to a variety of bodies. Barnaby’s experience in Anti-Doping was recognised by the Rugby Football Union when they appointed him onto their Anti-Doping judicial panel. Barnaby has also dealt with a number of cases in front of the National Anti-Doping panel. The cases have dealt with the full range of legal issues under the World Anti-Doping Code. Notable cases include UKADA v Offiah where he secured the maximum reduction in ban for tampering with the Doping Control Process. In UKADA v Six he dealt with a ‘Compelling Justification’ argument under article 2.3 of WADA code.
Barnaby also provides training to professional sports clubs and athletes on the full range of sports law issues.
DEATH PENALTY WORK
Barnaby has a particular interest in death penalty work. He has worked for the death penalty charity Amicus as an investigator, researcher, and legal assistant In the Capital Defender’s office of North Carolina, working on fourteen death penalty murder trials, and one death row appeal. The issues involved in these cases included; various types of mental incapacity, DNA evidence, ballistics, jury selections, racial prejudices, and prosecutorial abuses. Barnaby continues to be involved in death row work in America and throughout the world.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Before qualification Barnaby gained experience in different legal environments in order that he could approach life at the Bar as a more rounded practitioner. He spent a year working for the Treasury Solicitor exclusively on immigration judicial review cases, and latterly worked at the Insolvency Service within the Serious Non-Compliance team as a Case Examiner, investigating various tax frauds, including a number of carousel (MTIC) and contra-trading cases.
- S v NMC – November 2013
Barnaby appeared in an on-going 30 days case where I am prosecuting the Director of Care of a Nursing home accused of vitiating the consent of a terminally ill child in her care. The case has attracted national attention. The case involved abuse of process arguments and bias applications which he successfully opposed.
- DG v NMC – August 2013
Barnaby successfully prosecuted a nurse for 8 counts of serious professional misconduct. During the hearing I successfully responded to a half time application and an abuse of process argument. The hearing lasted 12 days and my opponent was a 30 year call barrister who has now been sworn in as a High Court Judge in Guyana.
- A v NMC – June 2013
Barnaby successfully prosecuted a nurse, over an 8 day hearing, which involved three vulnerable witnesses, and a mentally ill Registrant.
- FX v NMC – June 2013
Barnaby successfully prosecuted a school nurse accused of harming children. Case involved issues of admissibility of evidence and anonymous witness issues.
- AL v NMC – March 2013
Barnaby dealt successfully with a conviction case, where the nurse had been criminally prosecuted for child cruelty.
- F v NMC – January 2013
Barnaby successfully prosecuted a Director of Care of a nursing home for dishonesty offences over a 5 day hearing. The Registrant was unrepresented.
- UKADA v SK – National Anti-Doping Panel – December 2013
Barnaby is currently instructed to represent a rugby player accused of anti-doping rules violations.
- UKADA v Six – National Anti-Doping Panel – September 2012
Barnaby represented a cyclist charged with failing to take his doping test. The legal argument was over the definition of article 2.6 of the Anti-Doping rules. He was successful in the argument and the ban was reduced substantially from 2 years.
- UKADA v Offiah – National Anti-Doping Panel – July 2012
Barnaby represented a basketball player charged with tampering with a positive doping test. The defendant received the maximum discount for his admission of guilt. Furthermore his ban started two months before the hearing began. This was the lowest ban he could receive. His co-defendant received the maximum ban of two years effective immediately.
- Regina v M – Snaresbrook Crown Court – October 2013
Barnaby successfully defended in a multi handed s.18 GBH.
- Regina v O – Aylesbury Crown Court – March 2013
Barnaby successfully prosecuted a multi handed armed robbery;
- Regina v N - Amersham Crown Court – January 2013
Barnaby successfully appeared in this multi handed burglary, which rested on forensic evidence and cell site evidence;
- Regina v S – Winchester Crown Court – November 2012
Barnaby successfully prosecuted a complicated International Multi Handed Fraud;
- Regina v F – Cambridge Crown Court – August 2013
Barnaby represented a defendant charged with producing cannabis. He was found with 80 cannabis plants in his house. He was sentenced to a suspended sentence order, with a single supervision requirement.
- Regina v N – Snaresbrook Crown Court – July 2012
Barnaby represented a defendant charged with Robbery. The defendant suffered from mental health difficulties and one of the witnesses required an intermediary.
- Regina v Ryan Bailey – Court of Appeal Criminal Division – June 2012
Barnaby represented Mr Bailey in his appeal against conviction for Robbery. He was acquitted after the Court of Appeal found that the Trial Judge’s Summing up had been severely flawed.
- Regina v O – Inner London Crown Court – April 2012
Barnaby represented a defendant for possession of class A drugs with intent to supply. He managed to pursue the case in such a way that the defendant ended up with a two year prison sentence rather than the four year sentence which would be standard in a case with this amount of drugs.
- Regina v N- Aylesbury Crown Court – February 2012
Barnaby prosecuted two defendants for ABH and possession of bladed articles. Both men were found guilty and are serving length sentences of imprisonment.
- Regina v B – Luton Crown Court – December 2011
Barnaby defended in this four handed Robbery. The defendant was charged with a series of Robberies across a month long period and was acquitted of the majority of the charges.
- Regina v Ishraz Iqbal – Aylesbury Crown Court – October 2011
Barnaby successfully prosecuted this £86,000.00. fraud. Mr Iqbal was working as a personal banker for Barclays Bank. He targeted a number of vulnerable customers and used his position to remove money from their accounts. Mr Iqbal was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
- Regina v John Livesey – Peterborough Crown Court – August 2011
Barnaby successfully prosecuted Mr John “Jack” Livesey who was charged with perverting the course of justice. Mr Livesey was found guilty after trial, and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Mr Livesey had presented references to Cambridge Crown Court, when he was being sentenced for £30,000 worth of benefit fraud, which stated falsely that he had served in the Parachute regiment for 25 years. He received a more lenient sentence because of this false military career. This was a high profile case reported by BBC News, the Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Mirror.
- Regina v L – Luton Crown Court – July 2011
Barnaby defended a 3 week long five handed money laundering case. Dealt with complicated inter jurisdictional and financial issues.
- Regina v D – Ipswich Crown Court – June 2011
Barnaby was instructed to prosecute a Robbery where there were complicated issues of identification.
- Regina v B – Peterborough Youth Court – April 2011
Barnaby was instructed to defend an ABH. This involved cross examining the complainant who had learning difficulties and was assisted by an intermediary. The defendant was acquitted.
- Regina v C – Isleworth Crown Court – October 2010
Barnaby was instructed to represent a son who is charged with Robbery, False Imprisonment, and ABH. The charges were dropped on after a defence application on the day of trial.
- Regina v C – Northampton Youth Court – July 2010
Barnaby successfully defended an 11 year old boy charged with shooting a Baby with a BB gun.
- Regina v S – Peterborough Crown Court – November 2013
Barnaby successfully defended a confiscation order, by using the case of R v Waya to persuade the court that an order was not proportional.
- Regina v D  – Norwich Crown Court
Barnaby successfully prosecuted a contested confiscation hearing where the defendant had been part of international confidence fraud.
- Regina v T – Southampton Crown Court – July 2012
Barnaby successfully defended who had been convicted of defrauding her employer. The court found a benefit figure which was a quarter of that submitted by the prosecution. The available mount was also suitable reduced.
- Regina v A – Harrow Crown Court – April 2012
Barnaby successful represented a defendant at an application to extend the period of time she had to fulfil the order after she had failed to take any steps realise her assets. An extension of 3 months was granted.
- Regina v H – Snaresbrook Crown Court – April 2012
Barnaby was instructed in a matter where the defendant had realised all his assets, but the CPS were refusing to agree to a variation of the available amount. The amount was varied and the defendant was released.
- Regina v A – Southwark Crown Court – February 2012
Barnaby was instructed in this matter where the Defendant had pleaded guilty to contempt of court after the Defendant had breached their restraint order. After Barnaby had mitigated on her behalf the Defendant received a suspended sentence rather than immediate imprisonment which is the normal sentence in cases such as this.
- Regina v T – Portsmouth Crown Court – January 2012
Barnaby was instructed in a matter arising with from a £3,000,00.00 Drugs conspiracy. After lengthy preparations the defendant was found to have a benefit of a benefit of £30,000 and a nominal available amount.
- Regina v B – Birmingham Crown Court – December 2011
Barnaby was instructed in this confiscation hearing, which arose from a long running mortgage fraud. The case involved a range of issues including inter jurisdictional issues, and third party interests. Barnaby negotiated a favourable settlement to the Defendant.
- Regina v C – Wolverhampton Crown Court – October 2011
Barnaby was instructed in a confiscation hearing, arising from a £8 million pound Drugs conspiracy, where the crown sought a benefit figure of £524,000. The case involved complicated legal and factual issues as the defendant had agreed to give evidence for the crown in the Drugs conspiracy. Barnaby dealt with these issues and after litigation the benefit figure was agreed as £264,000.00
- Regina v A – Bournemouth Crown Court – March 2011
Barnaby was instructed as Junior Counsel to Rebecca Fairbairn during the confiscation proceedings in this matter which arose from a £12 million drugs conspiracy. This matter involved inter jurisdiction and hidden assets issues.
Immigration, and Public Law
- UKBA v SB – Court of Appeal – November 2013
Barnaby advised the appellant on appealing the Upper Tribunal’s decision on the basis that the First Tier Tribunal Judge was wrong in law. He advised that it was clear that the Upper Tribunal’s was wrong in law as Article 8 had not been considered. Once a skeleton argument was filed in the Court of Appeal, the government conceded the appeal.
- UKBA v AT – Upper Tribunal – September 2013
Barnaby successfully argued in front of the Upper Tier Tribunal that his applicant met the Tier 1 post study work visa criteria even though she only had one set of financial documents.
- UKBA v SD – Hatton Cross First Tier Immigration Tribunal – March 2013
Barnaby successfully appeared in this Tier 4 Student Visa case.
- UKBA v TN – Hatton Cross First Tier Immigration Tribunal – February 2013
Barnaby successfully appeared in this asylum matter where the issue was whether the appellant was at risk of return to Iran.
- UKBA v S – High Court – January 2012
Barnaby successfully advised a mother and child on appealing a decision from the Upper Tribunal, on the basis of Art 8 and section 55.
- UKBA v JH and others – Hatton Cross First Tier Immigration Tribunal – September 2012
Barnaby appeared in this matter where the issue was whether the SSHD had failed to take into account the Appellants child’s interests under s.55 and Art 3, when she rejected their application for indefinite leave to remain. The child was suffering from Leukaemia.
- UKBA v SW – Hatton Cross First Tier Immigration Tribunal – August 2012
Barnaby appeared in this Sri Lankan Asylum matter. This is one of 13 Sri Lankan Asylum matters he has appeared in. He is well versed in the relevant case law.
- FH v SSHD – Administrative Court – August 2012
Barnaby drafted summary grounds in defence of a claim by an overstayer to have Article 3 and 8 rights due to his time in the United Kingdom and his medical condition. The Claim was rejected by the Court.
- UKBA v DA – Hatton Cross First Tier Immigration Tribunal – August 2012
Barnaby appeared in this matter were the issue was whether the Appellant fit under the EEAA regulations.
- (Middleton) v Cambridge Magistrates’ Court  QBD Admin 3 July 2012.
Barnaby appeared in this Judicial Review where the issue was the reasonableness of a Magistrates’ order for costs.
- UKBA v AA – Hatton Cross First Tier Immigration Tribunal – July 2012
Barnaby appeared in this matter where the issue was whether the Appellant would be at risk from persecution due to his Christian faith if he was returned to Pakistan.
- MN v SSHD – Administrative Court – May 2012
Barnaby drafted summary grounds in defence of a claim by an Appellant who claimed that the SSHD’s decision to remove her and her daughter was contrary to the best interest of her child contrary to section 55. The Claim was rejected by the Court.
Specialist Areas In Magistrate Courts
- RSPCA v V – Brent Magistrates’ Court – March 2012
Barnaby represented a defendant charged with killing his dog through negligence. The defendant was found not guilty.
- Civil Aviation Authority v B – BW
Barnaby represented a Helicopter Pilot charged with Negligence. After a guilty plea he was sentenced to a conditional discharge. This was one of the first times a sentence of a conditional discharge has been passed for this type of matters.
- Regina v W – Aldershot Magistrates’ Court – February 2011
Barnaby successfully opposed a Crack House Closure Order being made against Mr and Mrs Wayne family house, on the basis that the order was not necessary as the households main user of Class A drugs was currently imprisoned.
- Regina v L – Alton Magistrates’ Court – August 2010
Barnaby successfully opposed a Crack House Closure Order being made against Mr and Mrs Lewis family house, on the basis that the crown failed to show that Class A drugs were being used in the house, and that there was any link between drug use in the house and any anti-social behaviour.
- News@one, Issue 1 Bribery Act overview)
- News@one, Issue 2 (Closure Orders, and POCA Update)
- News@one, Issue 3 (Bribery Act, Gang Injunctions, & POCA Update)
- News@one, Issue 4 (POCA update)
- News@one, Issue 5 (POCA update, RIPA Seminar, Corporate Manslaughter, S.27 Preventive Orders)
- News@one, Issue 6 (POCA update)
- News@one, Issue 7 (POCA update)
- News@one, Issue 8(POCA update)
- News@one, Issue 9 (POCA update)
- News@one, Issue 10 (POCA update)