2 Bedford Row

Kevin Toomey works in all areas of crime including the full range of violence, dishonesty and drugs offences. He also regularly undertakes complex fraud, confiscation and asset forfeiture work as well as appeals in licensing and road traffic offences.

Although specialising in crime, Kevin does have experience in various civil proceedings. He is a member of Chamber's regulatory team, with particular experience in Health and Safety work and medical regulatory offences.  He has appeared frequently before the GOC and the GDC. 

Before joining 2 Bedford Row, Kevin had a successful career in banking. Over 15 years he held senior managerial positions in several investment banks including Vice Presidencies at the Bank of America and Bank of New York. During this time he specialised in trading in a variety of financial markets, products and instruments.

Kevin lectures and conducts training courses on the financial markets, insider trading and regulation and he advises a number of city institutions on their regulatory and money laundering responsibilities and compliance procedures. He has had a number of articles published in various legal journals.

Kevin is accredited to undertake work suitable for direct public access.

Notable cases include

R v E:   Led defence junior in a multi-handed murder trial. The defendant was acquitted.

R v M:  Led defence junior in a murder trial. The case involved the cross-examination of numerous expert witnesses; every eye witness gave evidence via an interpreter.

R v W:   Led defence junior in a 3 month, multi-handed attempted murder trial. The defendant was acquitted of attempted murder.

R v F Ltd: A gross negligence manslaughter case, where following defence submissions the prosecution offered no evidence

Fraud / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

R v R:   Defended alone in a multi-handed conspiracy to defraud a UK clearing bank by its own staff and a serving Police officer. Mr R was the only defendant acquitted. 

R v S:    Led defence junior in a conspiracy to defraud by investment bank staff using counterfeit financial instruments to the value of $1 billion

R v B    Led defence junior in a multi-million pound, 18 handed property fraud.

R v A:  Led defence junior in a 10 handed fraud and money laundering case involving the laundering of the proceeds of the importation of 275 kilos of heroin.

R v W:   Led defence junior in a multi-handed international conspiracy to defraud a UK clearing bank

R v Y:   Defended alone in a multi-handed international conspiracy to launder the proceeds of drug crime. Every other defendant pleaded guilty on the first
day of trial, Mr Y was acquitted.

R v S:   Led defence junior in a 14-handed conspiracy to defraud. The client was acquitted following a submission of no case to answer.

R v W:   Defended a client who was found with £400,000 in cash in his car and claimed to be looking after it for a friend. The Defendant was acquitted.

R v D:   Defended alone in a multi-handed conspiracy to defraud worth over £7m

R v G:   Represented a client in forfeiture proceedings who claimed that the £12,000 seized from him had been won on fruit machines. The money was returned to the client.

Abuse of process

Kevin has particular experience in mounting abuse of process arguments because of breaches of obligations by Prosecuting authorities

R v J:   Crown offered no evidence following submissions of abuse of process in that it was not fair to rely on evidence from Crown witnesses, said to be witnesses of truth, when they themselves were under investigation for their involvement in a separate fraud

R v N:   A re-trial was stayed as an abuse of process because the Crown failed in their duties to investigate lines of enquiry that may have assisted the defence. The argument had not been advanced by previous counsel who appeared in the original trial, and co-defendant counsel rejected the argument as having no merit.

R v T:   Stayed as an abuse after the Police destroyed crucial evidence

R v S:   Stayed as an abuse of process after a Police officer instructed the Defendant to destroy evidence that would have assisted his case

R v H:   Stayed as an abuse of process after the Crown were forced to accept that they could not disprove defence assertions that the Crown witnesses called at trial were in fact not the same ones that had made statements to the Police