Regulatory
In the last 20 years, regulation of the private sector has grown exponentially. Cases involving alleged breaches of regulatory codes or professional discipline demand the best advocates because the stakes are so high. Tom’s experience of prosecuting and defending in some of the most complex and grave criminal cases, has endowed him with the essential skills which clients demand in cases involving regulatory breaches, professional discipline or quasi-crime: premier advocacy; tactical awareness; forensic interrogation of telecommunications, banking, or accounting material; and extensive knowledge of court rules and procedure. He offers the complete package to clients in cases concerning the following matters:
· Prosecutions brought by BEIS, Trading Standards, DWP, SFO, HSE, FCA etc;
· Breaches of Regulatory Codes (Trading Standards, Food Standards, Trademarks, Health and Safety, Noise Abatement);
· Director Disqualification;
· Professional Discipline (Police, Medical professions, Pharmaceutical, Accountancy, etc);
· First Tier Tax Tribunals;
· Data Protection Digital Security;
· Sports law (Tribunals);
· Money Laundering/ Bribery Regulations;
· Motoring law (unfair disqualifications; technical defences to road traffic offences);
· Costs appeals; and
· Inquests.
Investigatory Powers Tribunal
Tom has particular expertise in proceedings before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The IPT is a unique Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to hear certain complaints against the Security Services, the National Crime Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and police forces in respect of covert surveillance, telephone interception, and device interference.
He is currently instructed by one of the lead complainants in the conjoined ‘EncroChat’ case in which complaint is made about the warrants obtained by the National Crime Agency to source communications data intercepted by the French Gendarmerie.
Tom has also been involved in IPT complaints concerning: the obtaining of a search warrant with the alleged ulterior motive of taking the opportunity to place a covert listening device (a probe) in a home, without informing the Court granting the warrant of the ulterior motive; and directed and intrusive surveillance allegedly conducted without appropriate authorisations.