Edward Henry KC

Able to master the most complex of cases and with incredibly astute strategic judgement, Edward Henry KC continues to be amongst the best in the field of corporate crime; his instruction makes a difference.

Edward Henry is known for his enormous intellect and sharp judgement. He is able to digest vast amounts of complex material and to efficiently communicate accessible advice and arguments, whether to a client or jury. He is frequently instructed in the most complex and high-profile cases within the field of corporate and financial crime, from investigation stage through to the highest level of appeal. He is highly respected for his mastery of complex legal issues such as expert evidence and has a proven track record in developing procedural arguments (Abuse of Process, Disclosure and PII) which have repeatedly stopped major prosecutions. His client care is exceptional, and his advocacy is revered; he is the full package and absolutely what a client should expect from a senior barrister at the top of their game.

Edward Henry has a formidable track record in the field and is frequently instructed in the most difficult and high-profile cases at all stages of proceedings, from their inception to their ultimate appeal. In recent years his work has included: drafting written submissions that successfully persuaded the Crown Prosecution Service to drop a tax fraud prosecution brought against a high profile client; the successful defence of a former CEO of the The Money Portal who faced a £60m pension fraud allegation brought by the SFO; appearing for the first appellant in the Supreme Court in a landmark test case for trade mark owners concerning whether the trade in ‘grey goods’ was criminalized by s.92 Trademarks Act 1994. Edward’s current corporate crime defence instructions include: an alleged £12.5 million fraud on a Russian oligarch; representing the CEO of a renowned charity, who is accused of fraud and large-scale theft; and representing a senior executive in the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation into bribery and corruption at Rolls Royce. Edward also regularly advises on the Proceeds of Crime Act and whether Suspicious Activity Reports should be or ought to have been made.

Edward is a regular contributor to various publications, writing on a wide range of topics within the field. Topics have included: tax evasion offences; Deferred Prosecution Agreements; piercing the corporate veil; the Bribery Act.

Despite being recognized for his impressive intellect, Edward maintains a very easy and approachable client manner; he puts people at east with his likeability as much as with his obvious skills and juries just love him.

Notable Business Crime & Fraud cases

R v M (on appeal to UKSC as MCT v R) St Albans Crown Court, Court of Appeal Criminal Division, Supreme Court

Landmark intellectual property prosecution that will decide whether the trade in “grey goods” is caught by S.92 Trademarks Act 1994.

R v Crickmore Southwark Crown Court

Represented a solicitor and Coroner of Gloucester charged with £2m theft from the practice client account.

R x X

This case concerned multiple NCA investigations into a hijacked hotel project in Mauritius, and the nearly successful sale of a £10m house in Chelsea from under the nose of its lawful owners together with other copy-cat frauds.

R v M (2017 – Ongoing) Southwark Crown Court

Police officer charged with the alleged protracted and systematic theft of cash seizures under POCA.

R v P [2017] Southwark Crown Court

Large scale fraud allegation against CEO of a renowned charity.

R v A Southwark Crown Court [2017]

£12.5m fraud allegation against the head of Russian oligarch’s private office.

R v M (on appeal to UKSC as MCT v R) [2017]

Landmark intellectual property prosecution that will decide whether the trade in “grey goods” is caught by s.92 Trademarks Act 1994.

R v X & Y

This case concerned multi-million pound fraud allegations involving company directors, and inter-related FTT tax tribunal proceedings, which is set against the background of an alleged bullion smelting fraud. Edward Henry KC is instructed by Ian Lewis of JMW Solicitors.

Dr O [2015]

Successful defence of GP accused of falsifying records and failing to treat patient in latter stages of
palliative care.

R v A [2020]

Edward Henry KC has just successfully challenged the Appropriate Authority (“AA”) of a major Constabulary, which lost two successive rulings in hard fought proceedings before a Legally Qualified Chair (‘LQC”). In consequence, the AA dropped career ending accusations against Edward’s client.
The Officer, who must remain anonymous, faced misconduct proceedings in respect of deliberately and dishonestly misattributing intelligence, derived it was suspected from an unregistered “CHIS,” to two lesser-known criminals, X and Y.
Edward mounted a sustained and determined attack on the AA, targeting shortcomings in its conduct of disclosure (which he labelled “the disclosure debacle”) and defects in its investigation of the Officer. These faults, Edward argued, were diagnostic of an irreparable systemic failure, being endemic from the outset, long before the service of the Officer’s Reg. 22 Notice, which outlined his defence.
Following disclosure submissions regarding sensitive material, the major part of the case (based upon Y’s anticipated evidence) collapsed. Thereafter, two critical rulings went in favour of the Officer. First, the LQC upheld Edward’s submissions that the AA was wrong to discontinue the disclosure exercise in respect of Y, in spite of his refusal to attend as a witness. The AA maintained that his failure to co-operate meant he “fell away” but the LQC upheld Edward’s argument that non-disclosure in respect of Y was still relevant, not redundant, and capable of amounting to a potential abuse of process. Second, the LQC refused the AA’s application for an adjournment, to analyse the material it had previously deemed irrelevant. The AA, having abandoned the disclosure exercise into Y of its own volition, without first seeking the LQC’s approval, then found itself unable to identify and disclose all the material gathered in respect of Y within the deadline set, and jettisoned the remaining allegations against the Officer made by X.
Edward, instructed by Nick Terry of Burton Copeland, assimilated a case of acute sensitivity, which had to be conducted under conditions of formidable secrecy. In close conjunction with Nick, he devised an effective strategy that homed in relentlessly upon the AA’s vulnerabilities. The case, in terms of the substantive Law, the evidence, and procedure, involved complex issues of Police Law, including many relating to European Jurisprudence, and the extent to which the CPIA applies to Police Disciplinary Tribunals.
After these proceedings weighing heavily upon him for several years, the Officer was delighted and relieved to be totally exonerated.