Back to Members

Education

MA (Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge)

Practice

Paul Keleher QC appears in Chambers & Partners in the ‘Leaders at the Bar’ section. He is experienced in all areas of crime, including terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud, serious offences of violence and sexual abuse. Whatever the nature of the offence charged or the circumstances of his client, Paul Keleher is greatly respected for his commitment to the case, sympathetic manner and client-handling skills.  He never forgets the paramount importance of each case to each individual client.  This level of concern for the client translates into a fearless and determined attitude towards the prosecution at every stage of the proceedings, from pre-charge to the ultimate outcome of the case.  His approach to the case is never less than total commitment, offering all necessary support to the client.

He is recognised as not only an outstanding trial advocate but also for his interest in the practice and development of the law.  From being awarded a First in Company Law, specialising in insider dealing whilst still an undergraduate to writing and lecturing on various aspects of criminal law, Paul Keleher has maintained an interest in the development of the criminal law.

He is much in demand as a lecturer on a variety of subjects that have seen extensive reforms in recent years, including disclosure under the CPIA, the effect of the bad character provisions of the CJA, the current law on hearsay and the right of silence.

He has been involved in consultation with the government over many areas of law reform, as well as submitting responses to the Law Commission.

He is also an acknowledged expert in cases involving information technology, computer use and misuse and mobile phones. 

Paul Keleher QC is associated with the following areas of expertise:

Crime
General Fraud
Terrorism
White Collar Crime


Paul Keleher may now accept work direct from the general public (direct access). For further details, please contact the clerks.

Cases

Fraud and Financial Regulation

  • R v Last & Others - 13 defendants accused of a multi-million pound conspiracy to defraud the Revenue by importing alcohol and tobacco without paying duty.
  • R v Blades & Another - alleged serious fraud on the Legal Aid Fund by solicitor.
  • R v Thornton - conspiracy to defraud her employers by major credit card company employee.
  • R v Johal - alleged fraudulent trading by company director who established numerous companies and employed complex accounting procedures to disguise the financial condition of his core business

 Proceeds of Crime Act

  • R v Perreira and Others - The defendant was accused of laundering the proceeds of a series of armed robberies and was acquitted on the basis of a submission by counsel identical in terms to the judgment in R. v. Montila and Others - but before Montila had been decided.
  • R v Yilmaz and Others -  money laundering of the proceeds of one of the biggest heroin importers in London.

Terrorism

  • R v Kilbley Da Costa and Others - the first trial in the UK of an offence of providing terrorist training and attending a terrorist training camp.  It was important as a case defining what 'for a purpose connected with terrorism' meant. The defendant was also charged with possession of a record containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism where the only evidence of possession was a record on his computer of a file having been present at some stage. This involved expert cross-examination of a police computer expert as to what the evidence actually disclosed and her concession that the inferences she drew may not have been correct.
  • R v Kokabi – the ‘Satanic Verses’ bookshop bomber, involved successful argument of abuse of process by the State in preventing Iranian witnesses attending court at time of first Gulf War.

Other Notable Cases

  • R -v Jones – the defendant was first on the indictment in a 9-handed murder trial.  He had confessed to police that he was present and implicated others and the trial involved cross-examining prosecution witnesses and other defendants
  • R v Yusef – the defendant was involved in a four-handed assault on the victim who died from stab-wounds.  His case was that he was involved, did not stab the victim but did not want to implicate others
  • R v Ngaman – the case concerned the shooting of the deceased and the evidence against the defendant relied heavily on mobile phone calls and cell-site evidence, which was successfully undermined by cross-examination and the analysis of the phone call evidence
  • R v Harris – the defendant was an animal-rights activist implicated in an organization that blackmailed companies in an attempt to stop experimentation on animals.  The case against him depended heavily on highly technical evidence of the examination of computer hard drives
  • R v Beyene – the case concerned the armed robbery of Graf jewellers in Bond Street.  The defendant was allegedly one of the organizers and the evidence included a highly complex volume of mobile telephone evidence
  • R v Copp – the defendant was accused of playing his role in the importation of a huge quantity of cocaine from the Caribbean, conveyed to the UK in a private yacht.
  • R v Isaac – the defendant was alleged to have demanded £2m from a businessman.  Part of the prosecution evidence was a newspaper report detailing the defendant’s history of acquittals in cases involving extreme violence, including murder.
  • R v Hannigan & Others - the defendant was alleged to be a career criminal who had paid a police officer for ongoing access to entries in the PNC. The case centred upon the admissibility of covert recordings.
  • R v Wyatt Anderson & Others - the defendant was the pilot in a gang of upmarket people smugglers caught landing Turkish Nationals in secluded airfields in Kent.
  • R v Ravandi and Others - the largest importation of opium detected in this country  
  • R v Barry Warden and Others - a conspiracy to supply drugs where the activities of undercover police officers and the legality of their entrapment of the defendants was in issue.
  • R v David Davenport & Others - the QPR director blackmail case.
  • R v Beirne & Others: importation of 50 kilos of cocaine via Estonia; evidence from Estonian government official and allegations of ex-KGB officer’s involvement.
  • R v Najmi & Others - conspiracy to import large volumes of heroin via Heathrow with assistance of corrupt baggage handlers; evidence of Pakistani Drug Enforcement officers subject to PII.
  • R v Robinson & Another - Operation Trident case concerning multiple shootings and drug offences.
  • R v Jordan Mckenzie-Pryce - the defendant was charged with conspiracy to rob and the evidence consisted largely of CCTV recorded evidence in a shopping centre. By the appropriate selection, editing and presentation of video evidence from the unused material, together with the provision to the jury of plans, still photographs and timelines - all computer-generated - it was possible to demonstrate that the defendant had not in fact committed the robbery. Expert computer skills were required to present the evidence.
  • R v Dhaqane - the defendant was charged with murder committed in front of a significant number of friends of his two co-defendants who to a greater or lesser extent implicated this defendant. Cross-examination on behalf of this defendant so undermined their testimony that not only was he acquitted but the jury failed to agree verdicts on the other two defendants.
  • R v Guney - drug and firearm case centring on allegations of corruption and plant by police officers; defendant finally released from sentence after unopposed appeal on same grounds.
  • R v Utip: multiple rapes and indecent assaults committed by man with serious mental health problems at time of offending and during trial.
  • R v Jarrett & Another - series of serious sexual offences allegedly committed by two defendants on young boys ‘groomed’ through contact at well-known stage school.
  • R v Gary James and Another -  multiple attempted murders by shooting alleged drug dealers.
  • R v Robert Clarke and Others - gang rape by young offenders of young victim.
  • R v Szyndel and Allison: firearms case involving landowner's assault on an illegal rave.  
  • R v Jubed Miah - multi-handed murder where significant evidence came from an absent witness whose witness statement was admitted. Counsel led the objections to the most significant parts of the statement and it was edited in accordance with defence objections.  
  • R v Stuart Field - the defendant was charged with money laundering. The prosecution elected to introduce evidence of the bad character of his associates as evidence that the unidentified sources of his money must have been criminal. After hearing defence submissions all the evidence was excluded.
  • R v De Villiers – after submissions made pro bono that the failure to provide adequate remuneration for confiscation proceedings prevented the defendant from securing representation for the proceedings and thus they were in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights the proceedings were stayed.  A side-effect of this case was that the Regulations governing the payment from public funds for confiscation proceedings were altered to allow for proper remuneration.
  • R v H & Others - the defendant was charged with conspiracy to blackmail. The case arose from the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences by animal rights' protesters and the associated campaign to blackmail contractors of HLS by threatening them and attacking their property. The case was significant for the scale and complexity of the evidence, all served electronically, relating to the numerous victims, the evidence of lawful protest by the defendants and the very extensive evidence derived from forensic analysis of the defendant's computers.

Articles & Publications

Author of Archbold Practical Research Paper on Disclosure which was published in 1999. The DPP provided copies of this paper to all CPS branches for guidance pending the issue on 29th November 1999 of the Attorney General’s new guidelines on pre-trial disclosure. Has also contributed to the Solicitors Journal and the Money Laundering Bulletin.

Associated Work

  • Member of the Bar Council's Legal Services Committee
  • Member of the Bar Council's Direct Contracting Supervisory Committee 
  • Member of the Ciminal Bar Association Committee
  • On the review panel of the Bar Pro Bono scheme
  • Proceeds of Crime Lawyers Association (POCLA)
  • Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (ARDL)
  • United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (UKELA)

Directories

Recommended as a leader in crime in Chambers UK 2012.

Contact

T. 020 7067 1500

E. pkeleher@25bedfordrow.com