R v B and G

(2004) CLW/04/21/2

Successfully intervened in appeal regarding (1) whether a hearing was a preparatory hearing in a serious fraud case (and so the rulings in it were capable of being appealed), and (2) whether counsel could be ordered not to disclose to their clients or to use in their conduct of the defence, information which was subject to public interest immunity but had been negligently disclosed to them by the SFO. The success of the appeal led to the abandonment of an alleged $80m investment fraud trial against his client.

Related Barristers: