Will Hayes

Kingsley Napley

Will is a barrister with a range of experience in general and white collar crime. He joined Kingsley Napley in 2017. Will was called to the Bar in 2013 and completed pupillage at a leading criminal set, where he represented clients in a range of hearings and trials in the magistrates' court, crown court and youth court. His experience covers the full spectrum of general crime, from road traffic matters and drug offences, to allegations of violence and dishonesty and prosecutions for sexual offences, often involving vulnerable clients. Will also has experience of financial and serious and complex crime, including working as part of the defence teams for Rebekah and Charlie Brooks in the phone-hacking trial and for a broker prosecuted by the SFO for allegedly conspiring to manipulate LIBOR. Prior to joining Kingsley Napley, Will was instructed as independent counsel by the Serious Fraud Office for three months to carry out a legal professional privilege review in connection with a bribery investigation. Will therefore possesses a thorough understanding of LPP and is well placed to advise on this often complex area of law.

Contributed to

4

Issues of privilege in cross-border criminal investigations

Practice notes

This Practice Note explains the issues relating to legal professional privilege which arise in cross-border criminal investigations and the practical steps which should be taken to protect legal professional privilege in multi-jurisdictional criminal investigations.

Corporate Crime

Legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings

Practice notes

This Practice Note explains how the principles of legal professional privilege (LPP) apply in a criminal context. It explains the different categories of legal professional privilege, legal advice privilege and litigation privilege, and how these key concepts apply in criminal investigations and proceedings. This Practice Note also considers the impact of the decisions in SFO v ENRC, HSE v Jukes and R (on the application of Jet2.Com Ltd) v CAA on the dominant purpose test in litigation privilege and legal advice privilege and what constitutes ‘reasonable prospect of litigation’ in litigation privilege in criminal investigations. It also considers the difference in the protections afforded by legal advice privilege as opposed to litigation privilege in criminal proceedings.

Corporate Crime

Maintaining privilege during criminal investigations

Practice notes

This Practice Note explains how legal professional privilege (LPP) can be maintained for clients during the course of a criminal investigation including during dawn raids, during regulator searches and during interviews under caution and compelled interviews. The steps to be taken during internal investigations to preserve privilege (legal advice privilege and litigation privilege) are highlighted and privilege issues to consider when advising and preparing internal investigation reports into suspected criminal breaches are also included.

Corporate Crime

Privilege against self-incrimination

Practice notes

This Practice Note explains the scope of privilege against self-incrimination. It covers when privilege against self-incrimination may be raised in criminal proceedings and inquests and the practical considerations when advising clients during criminal investigations, interviews and during criminal hearings.

Corporate Crime