Will Hayes
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.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2016
Membership
- Young Fraud Lawyers Association
- Criminal Bar Association
Education
- College of Law (GDL and BPTC)
- University of Southampton (BA History)
6 Contributions by Will Hayes
PRACTICE NOTES
Criminal legal professional privilege in England and Wales: legal advice and litigation privilege, dominant purpose and reasonable contemplation, internal investigations, interviews, and multi-recipient emails
This Practice Note aims to provide some guidance on the core principles of legal professional privilege (LPP) and how they apply in criminal investigations and prosecutions. For further information and guidance on maintaining LPP for a client during the course of a criminal investigation, see Practice Note: Maintaining privilege during criminal investigations.
What is privilege?
Privilege can be grouped into four primary categories in law:
legal professional privilege
common/joint interest privilege (though, strictly, this sits within legal professional privilege)
without prejudice privilege
privilege against self-incrimination
This Practice Note deals solely with LPP within a criminal context. For more general information concerning legal professional privilege, see Practice Note: Legal professional privilege in civil proceedings. For information on other types of privilege, refer to Practice Notes: Privilege—joint and common interest privilege, Privilege—solicitor and client confidence, Privilege against self-incrimination and Without prejudice communications.
Legal professional privilege (LPP)
LPP is recognised by the courts as a fundamental right...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Legal professional privilege in criminal investigations and internal corporate investigations: guidance on dawn raids, interviews, regulator engagement, DPAs and waiver (England and Wales)
The purpose of this Practice Note is to set out practical guidance on how best to keep legal professional privilege (LPP) intact for the client throughout the various stages of a criminal investigation. For information on legal privilege and how it operates in a criminal context, see Practice Note: Legal Professional Privilege in criminal proceedings. For information about LPP in general terms, see Practice Note: Legal professional privilege in civil proceedings.
Preserving privilege during a dawn raid/search and seizure
One possibility is that individuals or corporate entities under investigation receive an unannounced visit at their premises or homes, enabling investigators to conduct searches of property and arrest them for the purpose of interviewing them; this is commonly termed a ‘dawn raid’. Many individuals and organisations are insufficiently prepared for such raids, and LPP material is frequently contained within computer files and scattered around the office or home, rather than separated off in electronic and hard copy files, clearly marked ‘Privileged and Confidential’. Where LPP material is stored on a computer, the relevant folders and documents should be identified and clearly marked as privileged, so that LPP material is not inadvertently accessed by the investigating officers...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Managing legal professional privilege in cross-border criminal investigations: comparative rules, waiver traps, EU competition nuances, US contrasts, Overseas Production Orders and practical steps
The rules relating to privilege, disclosure and waiver can vary widely from one jurisdiction to another.
In recent years, collaboration among enforcement bodies has intensified significantly. This is reflected in instances of deferred prosecution agreements (DPA) spanning several jurisdictions and joint working between the UK and nations including France and the USA. See Practice Note: DPAs in practice. Where matters are multi-jurisdictional, it is essential to take privilege advice from lawyers in every relevant jurisdiction from the outset to ensure important material retains privilege and to minimise risk to the client. For instance, releasing privileged documents under a limited waiver in one country might be treated as a full waiver in another, with consequent loss of protection. This Practice Note outlines key privilege issues that emerge in cross-border investigations and sets out practical measures to safeguard privilege in practice. For guidance on legal privilege and preserving it in criminal investigations, see Practice Notes: Legal Professional Privilege in criminal proceedings and Maintaining privilege during criminal investigations...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Privilege against self-incrimination in UK law: scope, limits and statutory carve‑outs across criminal, civil, regulatory, investigatory, inquest and cross‑border proceedings
Background
The idea of the privilege against self-incrimination, often treated as a single safeguard, in truth stems from several distinct common law protections for defendants and witnesses, each aimed at shielding citizens from misuse of powers by those who investigate crime.
Each reflects concern for the protection of citizens against abuse of powers by those investigating crimes in law.
Those varied protections can be broadly grouped as:
a privilege against self-incrimination for witnesses in criminal, civil, or other non-judicial investigative proceedings (including coroners' inquests)
the entitlement of a defendant not to give evidence at trial; and
a suspect’s right to remain silent during a pre-trial criminal inquiry
As outlined below, the privilege is not absolute, and statute has intruded upon these protections in several ways.
The privilege against self-incrimination at common law
The privilege against self-incrimination is a long-established common law protection. The principle developed at common law as a reaction to prisoners being tortured into providing self-incriminating answers that would result in their conviction in the Star Chamber. It was summarised in 1942 in Blunt v Park Lane Hotel Ltd: 'The rule is that no one is bound to answer any question if the answer thereto would, in the opinion'...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
The iniquity (crime-fraud) exception to legal professional privilege: scope, proof standards, civil and criminal contexts, dominant purpose test, and investigative powers (England and Wales)
Legal professional privilege (LPP) safeguards the confidentiality of specified lawyer–client communications and is a fundamental right, subject only to tightly limited exceptions where it applies. A way to contest LPP is to argue that it never arose, often by invoking the crime–fraud, or iniquity, exception. This Practice Note explores that exception in greater depth. For guidance on what constitutes LPP and how it is preserved in criminal investigations, see the Practice Notes: Legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings and Maintaining privilege during criminal investigations.
The crime-fraud exception
When does it apply?
Privilege cannot be claimed over communications made to facilitate the client’s commission of a crime or fraud, or that themselves form part of a fraudulent act. This is also referred to as the ‘iniquity exception’, a more precise term since, as stated in JSC BTA Bank v Abylasov, it is not limited to criminal conduct but extends to other forms of iniquity. See further below: ‘Iniquity’ as an exception to privilege...
Corporate Crime
CHECKLISTS
Maintaining legal professional privilege in criminal and internal investigations: practitioner checklist on legal advice and litigation privilege, confidentiality, document handling, third-party communications, regulatory requests and dawn raids
These are indicative pointers only, as each criminal investigation will depend on its particular facts. This checklist should be read alongside Practice Notes: Legal Professional Privilege in criminal proceedings and Maintaining privilege during criminal investigations. Confidentiality is paramount and must be preserved. If a document or communication was not confidential when created, or later ceases to be confidential, it will generally not benefit from Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). To assert privilege, consider carefully whether you rely on legal advice privilege or litigation privilege, as different factors apply to each...
Steps to maintain legal professional privilege
At the outset
If the client seeks advice before a criminal investigation begins:
Legal advice privilege
Assess whether legal advice privilege applies, namely:
is the communication confidential? (If yes)
is the communication between a lawyer and their client, in either direction? (If yes)
is the dominant purpose to give or obtain legal advice?...
Corporate Crime
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
