Áine Kervick
Áine Kervick is an associate in the criminal litigation team and acts on a wide range of white collar and general criminal cases. She joined Kingsley Napley in 2014 and qualified as a solicitor in 2016.
She currently acts for suspects and witnesses in respect of investigations brought by the SFO, CMA and DoJ in relation to bribery and corruption and cartel investigations. She was part of the team working on the LIBOR II trial which involved allegations of a conspiracy to manipulate the LIBOR rate in which the client was acquitted after a trial lasting nearly 4 months.
Áine has a particular interest in the international dimension of criminal cases and advises individuals in respect of extradition requests. She is also experienced in acting for individuals in internal investigations with a focus on legal professional privilege in criminal investigations.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2016
Membership
- Young Fraud Lawyers Association
- Defence Extradition Lawyers' Forum
- London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association
Education
- BPP London (LPC)
- University of Cambridge (MPhil in Criminological Research)
- University of Trinity College Dublin (LLB Law)
4 Contributions by Áine Kervick
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
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.
