Paul Hynes KC

Barrister

Defends in serious criminal cases including: bribery, company offences, confiscation, corruption, dishonesty, drugs, firearms, fraud, homicide, money laundering, prison disorder/escape, robbery and terrorism.

Almost undeniably the most intelligent member of the Bar; phenomenally intelligent and outstanding in terms of case preparation & cross-examination. He goes the extra mile for his clients.

Significant civil and common law experience particularly in actions against the police/Home Office. Considerable experience of white collar crime and regulatory offences.

Advises and acts for local authorities, public and private companies, charities, police officers, politicians and senior civil servants, lawyers, company officers and other professionals in connection with a wide range of matters.

Instructed in relation to other crime related work including: extradition, health and safety, judicial review, prisons, proceeds of crime and tax tribunals.

A regular author, broadcaster, commentator and lecturer on crime and criminal law related issues.

Has spoken on a variety of topics at numerous Sweet & Maxwell conferences, the annual Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime, the White Paper Conference on CHIS Evidence and the Lexis/Nexis Butterworths Criminal Law Summer School, and chaired the annual McKay Law Surveillance Conference.

Has written for Sweet & Maxwell, Legal Action Group and Jordans publications, the Criminal Law Review, Counsel magazine, Criminal Law and Justice Weekly and is a current contributor to the Lexis/Nexis PSL Bribery Toolkit.

Directories

"Paul is an incredible silk." Chambers UK 2025, Crime
"He is really good with judges and a real all-rounder." Chambers UK 2025, Crime
"He is a go-to silk for serious complex trials and is one of the best jury advocates." Chambers UK 2025, Crime
"Paul is a good advocate and a very compelling cross-examiner." Chambers UK 2025, Crime
"Paul is undoubtedly one of the cleverest barristers at the criminal Bar, if not the cleverest. His intellect is extraordinary. He is able to comprehend even the most complex areas of the law in a way that few others can, and then condense it in a way that makes sense to the layman. His humour means that judges, juries and law clients, combined with his exceptional ability, warm to him." Legal 500 2025 Crime
"Paul Hynes has one of the best brains at the Bar, and finds novel arguments in cases." Chambers UK 2024, Crime
"Paul Hynes KC is regularly instructed in very serious, complex and high-profile criminal matters. He focuses his practice on criminal defence and regularly appears in heavyweight crime cases including those relating to terrorism, firearms and violent criminal offences." Chambers UK 2024, Crime
"Paul is frightening intelligent; he grasps complex legal issues with ease and simplifies these so that they can be presented to a client, court or jury in an easily comprehensible way. His advocacy is fluent and incredibly engaging and his cross-examination is devastating. In a room full of silks, Paul will always stand out." Legal 500 2024, Crime
"An astute tactician who takes the sting out of the case with a dose of humour." Chambers UK 2022
Ranked in two categories of the 2019 Legal 500: Business and Regulatory Crime (including global investigations) and General Crime. Described as “Almost undeniably the most intelligent member of the Bar.” and “It is clear that when he is in front of the judge, his reputation goes before him and his arguments are respected.”
Recommended as a leader in crime in Chambers and Partners 2019 as “Phenomenally intelligent and outstanding in terms of case preparation and cross-examination.” “He goes the extra mile for his clients.”
Has been described in previous editions as: A diligent and "intellectually gifted barrister" regarded as being "excellent on the law" and "brilliant in front of juries." A "genuinely inspiring barrister" who is "clever, jury-friendly and has good judgement as well as the light touch which is so important in terrorism cases." "…fights his corner well." “fluent and articulate”; “tactically aware”, “bright and tenacious…” a “feisty and determined advocate”, an “extremely bright individual”, “Very hot on black letter law but also has a great jury manner”, “One of the most cerebral QCs”; “Intelligent and eloquent”; “always in command of the facts”, “Well regarded for the most intellectually challenging cases” and “A brain the size of Jupiter, without the matching ego”.

Articles & Publications

Co-author of International Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: A UK Perspective [December 2008, Sweet & Maxwell].
A contributor to Abuse of Process A Practical Approach [June 2006, Legal Action Group], second edition [February 2011, Jordans].
Occasional contributor to Criminal Law and Justice Weekly and Counsel magazine.

Associated Work

Delegate lecturer to the annual Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime at Jesus College.
Speaker at the White Paper Conference: Obtaining and Disclosing CHIS and Probe Evidence Lawfully and Skilfully.
Speaker at the Lexis/Nexis Butterworths Criminal Law Summer School at Emmanuel College Cambridge.
Speaker at the Sweet & Maxwell Conferences: The New Fraud Trial Model; Money Laundering Regulations, Are You at Risk? The Changing Face of Fraud Trials; and, The Coroners and Justice Act.
Chair and speaker at the Sweet & Maxwell Conference: The New Fraud Offences.
Chair of the McKay Annual Surveillance Conference: Bugging, Interception & the Death of the Key Principles.

Professional Memberships

Criminal Bar Association
Financial Services Lawyers Association
Legal Action Group
Liberty
Police Action Lawyers Group

Education

BA (Hons.) Law; LLD (Hon.)

Terrorism

R v Ciarán Maxwell – called the “Marine who turned to terror”, a British serviceman from Northern Ireland who was stockpiling chemicals and bomb components in a series of hides in the West Country and around Larne, whilst manufacturing improvised explosive devices in connection with dissident Republicans
R v Rajib Khan and Others – A long standing undercover operation in relation to Islamist activity in Luton, said to be linked to Al-Muhajiroun, Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Muhammed, involving questions of “support”, freedom of expression and religion - with the consequent engagement of articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR.
R v Humzah Ali and Another – A IS Syrian traveller case from the West Midlands linked to Alexander Nash, Abdel Latif Gaini, Gabriel Rasmus, Mohammed Ahmed and Brustham Ziamani, with British Security Service involvement, additional allegations of dissemination of terrorist material and malicious communications targeting a local politician.
R v Yousaf Syed and Others - The “Poppy Day Plot”, an allegation of preparing for an act of terrorism in support of ISIS following the Sheikh Adnani fatwa, said to be a plan to involve a beheading on the streets of London - linked to the 2014 Remembrance Day commemoration and designed to be a copycat Lee Rigby killing.
R v Zakariya Ashiq - Known as the “Walter Mitty Muslim”, an attempt to join ISIS in Syria via Turkey after extensive communications with contacts already fighting there which ultimately failed, but was claimed by the Defendant to have been necessary in order to escape the attentions of MI5 – including kidnapping and water boarding in Coventry.
R v Ahmad Ali and Others - A massive anti-terrorist operation based in London and High Wycombe directed towards a transatlantic bomb plot conspiracy in which it is alleged that 16 Islamic terrorists were preparing to smuggle individually innocuous items onto commercial flights to the US in order to assemble and detonate improvised explosive devices in a suicide bombing mission.
R v Dhiren Barot and Others - The “Dirty bomb” plot approved by Al-Qaeda in Pakistan to implement a series of outrages against specific targets in the US and London (including the tube tunnel under the Thames at Greenwich, the Ministry of Sound and Bluewater shopping centre) using a variety of methods and materials including limousines packed with gas canisters and radiation dispersal devices.
R v Omar Khyam and Others - The “Fertilizer Bomb” plot to kill, injure and damage utility infrastructure using ammonium nitrate fertilizer and aluminium powder to produce a significant remotely detonated explosion for religious and political purposes. Aside from the domestic probe and circumstantial evidence the case involved the Pakistan secret services and the Canadian authorities.
R v Abdul Raheem and Others - The network of individuals based in the West Midlands who provided support for the activities of Parvais Khan (the author of a plot to kidnap and behead a British Muslim serviceman), principally buying items requested by the mujahedeen fighting against coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan and arranging for their delivery.
R v Abu Hamza - The first UK Islamic terrorist investigation which concentrated on hostage taking in the Yemen in which several UK and US tourists had been killed in a rescue operation and a number of UK nationals had been convicted of involvement. A PT(TP)A “explanation order” was successfully challenged on the basis of a prospective HRA breach.
R v Sulayman Zain-Ul-Abidin - The first UK Islamic terrorist prosecution which alleged the provision of weapons and other military training for Jihadist purposes in the US and the UK (then recently criminalised by the TA 2000) using a Security Company based in the UK, relying heavily on internet records, e-mail traffic, video-tape footage and ideological material.
R v Abu Hamza - Incitement to murder and possession of terrorist materials post September 2001, based largely on speeches and sermons given at the Finsbury Park Mosque against a backdrop of Security Service interest, SIAC proceedings, an orchestrated media campaign and after a number of executive statements and a US extradition request. Certified point of law of general public importance.

Homicide

R v Omar Hassan and Others - A seven handed brutal East London drug gang related slaying, in which two men were murdered having been chased and trapped in a car as at least three men swarmed round the vehicle and repeatedly stabbed the helpless occupants on a quiet residential street.
R v Michael Smith and Others - Six handed double murder following a gunfight outside a London club. Violence spilled out into the street resulting in a running battle in which one man died at the scene and another shortly afterwards. One co-Defendant was charged with Michael Smith’s attempted murder having shot him several times, and others with perverting the course of justice.
R v Kellie-Ray Birch and Others - A shooting in a car park, in fact a case of mistaken identity, as a result of which eight men were tried for murder on the basis that attempts were made to lure the victim to an ambush but a wholly innocent man was wrongly identified and killed in the ensuing attack.
R v Amaar Najib and Others - Three handed murder, resulting from an arson attack on a house in Maidenhead containing 16 people. Cut throat with Defendants blaming each other resulting in complicated issues of bad character, and significant disputed expert evidence as to the start of the fire and injuries sustained. Defendants left the area and subsequently tried to or had in fact fled the country.
R v Jordan Dixon and Others - The "Witch's Hat" three handed murder of a man kicked to death in the street on Halloween following a dispute over an item of fancy dress. Extensive media interest, before, during and after the trial.
R v Ba Dinh - An allegation of murder by a husband in a pre-meditated hammer attack against a man he suspected to be his wife’s lover. Based on circumstantial evidence and motive, the case was complicated by the existence of a dying declaration which had been received by the accused’s wife who was thus not a compellable witness at the instance of the Prosecution.
R v Kathryn Taylor and Another - A murder over the non-payment of a £5 debt, characterised by the peculiar fact that although there were a large number of eye witnesses, none could identify the assailant. As a result, the evidence was circumstantial and reliant upon a number of absent, reluctant and hostile individuals, and multiple hearsay testimony received after the trial had started.
R v Andrey Denty and Others - The bizarre Mac10 machine gun execution of the Defendant’s severely disabled brother’s carer outside an East End nightclub, featuring eye witnesses, extensive ballistic evidence matching spent rounds with a recovered weapon, and significant hearsay and bad character material said to establish motive.
R v Ricky Beesley and Others - An allegation of murder, said to arise from a drugs and/or loan shark debt in which the victim was lured to a flat on a pretence and tortured. His injuries included the complete removal of an ear, which was discovered in a cereal box at the premises.

Drugs

R v Paul Flisher and Others - Conspiracy to supply cocaine based on an extensive accountancy and money tracing exercise, with ancillary money laundering and firearms charges. Represented one of the two main Defendants controlling the supply of drugs from London and Essex into the South West of England and enjoying a “007” lifestyle including yachts, luxury cars and an O2 Arena investment.
R v Raul Beia and Others - A £1,000,000 cocaine importation into the United Kingdom allegedly undertaken by a Royal Navy sailor smuggling the drugs aboard HMS Manchester, a destroyer returning from a seven-month deployment including visits to South America and counter-narcotics operations around the Cape Verde Islands off the West African coast.
R v Steven Franks and Others - A massive conspiracy to supply cocaine (40 kg) and ecstasy (over a 1,000,000 tablets), at one stage said to be the largest single seizure of ecstasy in the UK. The Defendant was on day release from prison during the period when he was the subject of directed and intrusive surveillance lasting for nearly six months.
R v Robert Powell and Others - Substantial conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine amounting to a cutting and wholesale distribution warehouse operated from a suburban family home, servicing retail suppliers using a network of couriers. Eight Defendants were charged after a three month round the clock surveillance operation during which a shooting took place.
R v Darren Christian and Others - Seizure of 20kg of heroin worth in excess of £1,000,000 which had been tracked into the UK from Eastern Europe. The background involved the making of a feature film dealing with the cycle of criminality around guns and drugs and a close associate of the Defendant had been killed at the outset of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency operation.
R v Michael Lee and Others - A highly sophisticated money laundering enterprise believed to involve over £5,500,000, spanning nearly a decade and revealing a sophisticated web of property investments in the UK and Europe, as well as disguised off-shore trusts and companies domiciled in Mauritius, the Seychelles, Azerbaijan and Switzerland.

Miscellaneous

R v Feroz Khan and Others - A trial concerning the carefully planned attack on a prison officer at HMP Full Sutton, who was taken hostage shortly after the murder of Lee Rigby, and subsequently threatened with beheading in order to bring attention to the treatment of Muslims within the prison estate.
R v Gary Maughan and Others - Acted for the first Defendant in a staged robbery of over £3,000,000 worth of Cartier jewellery from Southend airport, where the inside man, a Fifteen Foundation Jamie Oliver chef and the Defendant’s cousin - made a voluntary confession seven years after the event and gave evidence for the Crown pursuant to a SOCPA contract.
R v Nitish Jaitha and Others - A trial concerning a conspiracy to source and supply military equipment and aircraft parts in the US destined for Iran in breach of export controls. Parts for F14 Tomcats, F4 Phantoms, F5 Tigers and Cobra attack helicopters were routed through Hong Kong, Romania and the UK using a variety of false identities and forged documents to evade sanctions.
R v Lee Bowyer and Others - The Leeds United football trial in which a number of first team players were accused of an unprovoked attack on an Asian man outside Majestyx nightclub following a night of heavy drinking, and subsequent efforts to pervert the course of justice by destroying and/or concealing evidence and fabricating an account of relevant events.
R v Michael Burrell - An allegation of rape by one senior civil servant against another in a highly sensitive work context. Subject to reporting restrictions.
R v Darren Nash and Others - Prison riot at HMP Parkhurst in which a number of serious injuries were sustained by prison officers and a siege ensued. Allegations of systemic misconduct by staff and brutality against inmates up to and including governor grades and the falsification of records to disguise the true picture and corroborate false testimony.
R v John Dunlop and Others - Conspiracy to commit robberies of cash in transit deliveries to garages and supermarkets in the Home Counties, said to be linked to firearms offences and the attempted importation of 91kg of cocaine worth approximately £10,000,000 sourced in the Caribbean, and sailed across the Atlantic on a yacht before being intercepted by Customs fifteen miles off the Cornish coast.
R v Karim Mohammed and Others - Kidnap, false imprisonment and threats with a firearm as part of an attempt to recover a large amount of cash stolen from an employer and subsequently removed from the jurisdiction. The case raised questions concerning the duty of the prosecution to ensure that accurate and reliable antecedent histories of foreign national witnesses are disclosed.
R v Carl Robinson and Others - A complex two-part allegation involving gunpoint threats to two women, the kidnapping of a man in the West Midlands and the linked possession of an arsenal of firearms in London some months later. There were a number of reluctant witnesses acting from a variety of motives and a challenge to the transparency and integrity of the investigation as a whole.

Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance

US Government v Babar Ahmad - The first 2003 Extradition Act consideration of whether the extradition of an alleged Islamic terrorist based on undertakings was HRA compatible.
Babar Ahmad and Haroon Aswat v US Government, Bow Street Magistrates’ Court and The Secretary of State for the Home Department - Appeal against the decision to commit to the custody of The Secretary of State and the subsequent decision to extradite.
US Government v Abu Hamza - Consideration of whether extradition might involve SAMs, extraordinary rendition, Military Order No. 1 and cruel and unusual punishment.

Significant Appeals

R -v- Ali (Yasir Ifran) - Appeal dealing with the sufficiency of apparent or ostensible consent after grooming which had a tendency to limit or subvert the victim's capacity.
R -v- Raymond Betson and Others - The Millennium Dome robbery appeal against conviction on the basis of the introduction of inadmissible evidence and a defective summing-up.
LSC -v- Abu Hamza - Complex DCRO proceedings as the result of special investigation and asset tracing exercise.
R -v- Abu Hamza - Appeal against conviction based on abuse involving culpable delay and the jurisdictional and territorial requirements of s.4 OPA 1861.
R -v- Huntingdon Justices ex parte RSPCA - Appeal by the RSPCA as a test case to define the scope of general licences to kill protected wild birds.
R -v- Harringey Justices ex parte DPP - Appeal against a decision to stay proceedings, defining the court’s power to call Prosecution witnesses.
R -v- Osron Samuel - Appeal against conviction for murder based on deficiencies at trial (hearsay and oppression) and fresh evidence in relation to the NDLEA.
R -v- Pieter Versluis - Appeal in relation to a confiscation order of £3,200,000 based on hidden assets which failed to consider the business reality of drug dealing.
R -v- Kenneth Arnold - Appeal against two convictions based on similar fact cross-admissibility and the reading of a statement made by a witness said to be in fear.
R -v- Christian and Smith - Appeal against a confiscation order using the value of drugs as benefit in multi-handed proceedings using the expenditure assumption.
R -v- Frank Gambrah - Appeal against conviction concerned with the aggravating features of firearm possession.

R v Colin Nineham and Others - Represented the principal Defendant, a local authority leader, in a three handed allegation comprising a complex and long running waste recycling fraud perpetrated using a local community company operated as a quasi-charity, stayed as an abuse of process on the basis of disclosure failings.
R v Abu Kazi and Others - A six Defendant sophisticated diversion fraud involving large scale importation of tobacco with a demonstrable duty loss in excess of 32,000,000 by a Bangladeshi Organised Crime Group using multi-jurisdictional corporations via the UAE, with significant disclosure issues resulting in a jury discharge and an application to stay.
R v Bains and Others - A twelve handed fraudulent trading/conspiracy to defraud involving a sophisticated long firm fraud involving nearly 10 years’ worth of dishonesty and deception on numerous wholesale traders including IKEA and Toys-R-Us, in which debtor companies were controlled by means of “distress” loan agreements administered through off-shore trusts and then liquidated.
R v Joyti DeLaurey and Others - Theft of approximately £4,500,000 by a Goldman Sachs PA involving a complex audit trial in multiple jurisdictions, tracing assets through numerous bank accounts and property transactions in diverse currencies. A lengthy and well publicised trial on an indictment containing thirty-two counts of theft, obtaining by deception and money laundering.
R v Vesna Grandes-Howard and Others - An Arts and Antiques Unit fraud investigation into allegations concerning the manufacture and sale of fake Banksy prints and Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren 1970s vintage clothing, distributed through a number of outlets including auction house and the internet with the profits being laundered through PayPal accounts.
R v Andrew Cook - Large and complex tobacco diversion and money laundering conspiracy said to be worth in excess of £10,000,000 based largely on lifestyle and modus operandi evidence and linked to four other cases which had already been tried whilst the Defendant was awaiting extradition from Spain. Also identified within the C&E “Danati” disclosure review.
R v Paul Spicer and Others - A case concerning the advertisement and operation of betting tipster services, where mail shots suggesting access to inside bloodstock information from betting syndicates, which would allow winning risk free bets to be placed, were sent to thousands of potential punters; the money generated by which was said to be laundered in Hong Kong.
R v Georgy Schouten - Deception by a confidence trickster living a concocted double life in which he posed as, amongst other things, an experienced commercial pilot and persuaded a number of industry professionals to work for him, an aircraft maker to “sell” him a private jet, an airport to provide ground services and an Arab royal family to give him a contract to provide their “Air Arm”.
R v Kenneth Peacock and Others - An allegation of involvement in a “Ponzi” fraud, said to involve at least 563 investors (including some celebrities) and approximately £38,000,000. The scheme was intervened by the Financial Services Authority which resulted in High Court Regulatory proceedings for unauthorised deposit taking.
R v Christopher Sussex and Others - A money laundering conspiracy uncovered after a safety deposit box raid, in which it is alleged that money was disguised and moved through a number of property purchases, bank accounts and businesses, and transferred using covert international transfers utilising foreign currency exchange platforms.
R v Seagar and Blatch – The case which established that, contrary to R. v. Neuberg, fraudulent trading benefit is not the turnover of the business, and settling that the corporate veil can be pierced only when there is an attempt to shelter behind it, an act is done in the name of a company which constitutes a criminal offence, or where a transaction or business structure constitute a device, cloak or sham in an attempt to disguise its true nature.
Has in addition advised and acted for numerous clients in dispute with or under investigation by HMR&C, alleged to be involved in money laundering and various types of fraud including diversion, Ponzi and carousel/missing trader/cross border/MTIC schemes.

Significant Appeals

R v Scott Linegar - Appeal against sentence in which the relationship between the sentences for money laundering and the underlying offence was considered.
R v Seagar and Blatch - Appeal against a confiscation order made in respect of regulatory offences calculating benefit as the turnover of a company.

Professional Discipline

AH v General Pharmaceutical Council - Retained to argue a contested Interim Suspension Order Review based on a serious criminal allegation, challenging findings in relation to both the public protection and public interest tests.
X v Bar Council - Represented a barrister accused of several instances of professional misconduct by a judge in the course of a criminal trial, involving failure to abide by judicial rulings and repeatedly raising impermissible matters before a jury.
AA v General Dental Council - Instructed on behalf of a Registrant in relation to a contested application to discharge before the Interim Orders Committee following Crown Court proceedings lasting almost a year.
Instructed by the International Senior Lawyers project to represent the interests of a private individual foreign national working for an NGO who had been asked to give evidence before a Mauritian Government Commission concerning an investigation into arms’ trafficking.
Has in addition advised and acted for numerous corporations including British Petroleum and a multi-National Insurance company, a local councillor accused of corruption, a former cabinet minister in connection with proceedings before the Electoral Commission and has been instructed by a number of charities, trustees, local authorities and trade/campaign bodies.

Inquest

Hillsborough Inquests - Acted for an interested person, a retired Chief Superintendent involved in the South Yorkshire Police investigation into the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989, alleged to have involved a "cover-up" of police responsibility for the disaster.

Public and Administrative Law

Patrick Petrie and Others -v- The Home Office - High Court civil jury trial for damages consequent upon the failed prosecution arising from the HMP Parkhurst prison riot.
R v Huntingdon Justices ex parte RSPCA - Appeal by the RSPCA against a finding that an individual had acted within the scope of a general licence.
R v Harringey Justices ex parte DPP - Appeal by the CPS against a decision to stay proceedings as an abuse of process, defining the court’s power to call witnesses.
Martin MacAndrew & Others v The Metropolitan Police Commissioner - Civil action for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution by Stoke Newington police officers.