Siobhan specialises in Homicide cases which regularly involves expert witnesses in the areas of pathology, psychiatry, blood spatter, toxicology and DNA evidence as well as telephone data, cell site and CCTV analysis.
Her murder cases are conducted both nationally as well as internationally. She has argued cases before the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in a gang-land murder case and has defended cases in the Caribbean as well as before the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.
R v S – Preston Crown Court (Feb/March 2023) Murder trial lasting 5 weeks appearing for the first Defendant.
This was a high profile case involving the murder of a young woman in Blackburn who was shot and killed in a botched murder plot with the intended victim escaping unharmed. The prosecution’s case was that the defendant was the mastermind behind the plan.
R v H – Birmingham Crown Court ( April 2023) The Defendant was charged with attempted murder having left home with a knife and attacked a random stranger in the street. The case involved three psychiatrists and issues relating to paranoid schizophrenia.
R v P – Manchester Crown Court ( May 2023). Murder trial appearing for the Defence.
The Defendant was charged with the high-profile murder of a Manchester Met University student. The prosecution alleged that in response to a light-hearted comment, the Defendant produced a flick-knife which he proceeded to use causing 8 stab wounds – the killing was caught on CCTV.
R v RS, Bolton Crown Court (January 2023) A 5 week multi-handed murder trial which involved a conspiracy to rob and murder. The case involved complex DNA evidence regarding secondary transfer and the sufficiency of such material as well as a detailed analysis of telephone and cell site data resulting in cross examination of experts in these fields.
R v S, Leicester Crown Court (July 2022). A homicide case which involved decapitation of the deceased’s head with a long history of domestic violence perpetrated by the deceased against the Defendant. The case required the extraction of electronic data from a telephone depicting the history of abuse and which resulted in the case being reduced from murder to manslaughter.
R v Rahman Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey (February 2022) A 6 week murder trial which involved extensive cross examination and a detailed analysis of the CCTV evidence which prominently featured in the case.
R v Pachecka: Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey (November 2021) An 8 week re-trial for Murder after the conviction was overturned in the Court of Appeal. The case involved complex medical evidence regarding PATHOLOGY with multiple experts to examine. Four pathologists gave evidence as well as multiple scientific forensic experts which undermined the whole JOINT ENTERPRISE argument advanced by the prosecution. The case has been the subject of an international documentary made by investigative journalists based in Poland.
R v Thompson: Newport CC (March 2021) A 10 week trial. The Defendant, along with others, was charged with the murder of a 17 year old boy. The case concerned a drugs turf war. The case concerned important principles about withdrawing from a JOINT ENTERPRISE.
R v Pachecka and Others Court of Appeal (December 2020) Siobhan Grey KC led the legal arguments in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. The appeal involved investigative journalists based in Warsaw who unearthed fresh evidence.
R v Lall. Inner London Crown Court. (November 2020) The Defendant was charged with murder. The case involved complex PSYCHIATRIC evidence concerning paranoid schizophrenia, non-compliance with medication and impairment of self-control in the context of mental illness. The Defendant was given a Hospital Order. The Prosecution sought to appeal the Hospital Order by way of an Attorney General’s Reference on the grounds that the sentence was too lenient. The Defence was successful in resisting the AG’s Reference and the Hospital Order was upheld.
R v H: Cardiff Crown Court. (June 2019). A 6-week trial. Represented a boy aged 17 who suffered with a severe stammer and had been diagnosed with ADHD and a Depressive Disorder. He was charged with murder and the trial involved five co-accused in relation to the torture and stabbing of a young man.
R v P: Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey. (November 2018). Represented a man charged with the murder of his employer at her home address. The issues focused on the nature of the Defendant’s medication and its impact on his brain. This case involved extensive investigations into pharmacology and heptology.
R v O: Swansea Crown Court. (October 2018). Represented a woman charged with murdering a pensioner in his own home. The case involved three Defendants and focused on the unreliability of non-statistical DNA evidence.
R v H: Inner London Crown Court. (May 2018). The Defendant was charged with Manslaughter having sold slimming tablets over the internet resulting in death of a vulnerable young woman.
R v F: Sheffield Crown Court. (October 2017) A 4-week trial. Represented a man charged with the torture and murder of a drug user. The case involved three Defendants and focused on the unreliability of mobile phone and social media evidence in a case where the Defendant was running alibi.
R v Goodall: Sheffield Crown Court (October 2016) Represented a man charged with murder. The case concerned causation issues requiring the cross-examination of numerous expert witnesses in the areas of pathology; orthopaedic medicine; cardiology and heptology.
R v Seton: European Court of Human Rights (October 2015) Gang land shooting. The issue turned on the admissibility of Hearsay evidence in a murder trial. The case is reported in Criminal Law Review Commentary 2016.
Siobhan has a long history of defending in serious sexual offences involving historic sexual abuse; violent sexual assaults committed during the course of a homicide as well as internet sexual offending which engages multi-jurisdictional issues. Siobhan has completed the vulnerable witness training courses and is experienced at cross examining young and vulnerable witnesses. Furthermore, she understands the importance of disclosure issues in particular third-party disclosure in such cases and is always live to the question of s.41 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 as regards the admissibility of a complainant’s prior sexual history.
R v M: Carlisle Crown Court (June 2023) Successfully defended in a case alleging multiple allegations of sexual offending involving child complainants, aged 10, Ms Grey KC was instructed by the senior partner, Neal Gozzett at Monan Gozzett solicitors.
R v R – Chichester Crown Court ( January 2023) Student accused of rape,
R v K – Birmingham Crown Court (November 2022) The Defendant was a night club owner charged with multiple allegations of rape involving two female students.
R v JR – Lewes Crown Court (June 2022) Defended a police community support officer charged with multiple rapes.
R v N: Maidstone Crown Court (March 2022) The case involved historic allegations of rape and sexual assault. The case involved cross examination of the complainant with detailed disclosure of third-party material from outside the jurisdiction.
R v W: Portsmouth Crown Court (January 2022) The case involved historic allegations of sexual assault and the Crown asserted that one allegation was caught on the camera of a mobile phone.
R v B: Winchester Crown Court (August 2021) The case involved multiple historic sexual offences and again a detailed knowledge of the disclosure of unused material was required.
R v S: Lewes Crown Court (July 2019) Represented a priest charged with multiple historic sexual offences. The case involved legal issues such as severance; third party disclosure and ultimately psychiatric evidence concerning fitness to plead and stand trial.
R v W: Croydon Crown Court. (May 2019) Represented a man charged with 18 counts of sexual assault alleged to have been committed over skype. There was extensive legal argument on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, including anonymous hearsay, found on the Defendant’s telephone and computer.
R v G: Guildford Crown Court (August 2018) Represented a man on multiple historic allegations of child cruelty dating back to the 1980s and 1990s. The case involved extensive disclosure issues as regards third party material in relation to all complainants.
R v HB: Guildford Crown Court (February 2018) Represented a man charged with stalking who applied a tracker to his ex-wife’s car. The issue turned on the construction of the words in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
R v P. Croydon Magistrates’ Court. (October 2017) Represented a man charged with rape and sexual assault. The case focused on seeking and obtaining disclosure of the defendant’s telephone which highlighted the extensive messages sent to the Defendant by the complainant.
R v R: Oxford Crown Court (September 2016) Represented a deaf man with learning difficulties charged with rape. The case involved numerous intermediaries during the trial process and a careful understanding of how to present the Defendant’s evidence in chief before the jury in line with the Advocates’ tool kit for vulnerable witnesses.
Siobhan has a long history of defending in fraud related offences including investment frauds, and MTIC frauds. She has defended in SFO prosecutions including a pension fraud worth over £50 million which was the biggest pension fraud since the Maxwell trial in the 1990s; a conspiracy to defraud involving £80 million whereby detector devices, ‘the Alpha 6’ were sold to Government and law enforcement agencies world-wide to detect explosives, drugs and weapons. She has defended company directors prosecuted under the Export Control Act 2002 for the alleged violation of UK export control regulations in relation to conventional arms and ammunition as well as dual use goods to Southeast Asia. Siobhan has spoken at National events on Export Control and Dual Use items, which included the former head of the Secretariat for the Wassenaar Arrangement on export control of arms and ammunition.
In the context of Business crime, Siobhan Grey has detailed experience of dealing with Confiscation/POCA related matters and an extensive knowledge of the case-law in this area. The legal landscape has dramatically changed in relation to such proceedings over the years with the recognition and statutory prohibition involving a disproportionate interference with a convicted person’s property rights. Cases include R v Pitcher, Southwalk Crown Court and arguments involving £52 million benefit figure as well as confiscation proceedings in the context of an Insider Dealing case R v Sanders, Southwark Crown Court.
R v P: Cardiff Crown Court. Acted for an Accountant charged with Defrauding the European Union and the Welsh Government of £5.19m in grants.
R v M: Southampton Crown Court. Acted for an Accountant on an indictment involving eight defendants charged with Conspiracy to Defraud by using the Construction Industry Scheme to defraud HMRC of over £1million of tax owed by subcontractors in demolition projects.
R v P: Central Criminal Court: Represented a company director on 22 counts of Fraud and exporting dual purpose goods (commercial and military items) to China without a licence. The case involved novel and complex legal argument concerning the EC Regulation 428/2009 in relation to Export Control and whether it lacked legal certainty in the context of the classification of Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuits. Three expert witnesses in the fields of electrical engineering and export control were engaged in the case.
R v A: Bolton Crown Court: Defended one of two defendants charged on an indictment with 27 counts of Fraud and Money Laundering involving millions of pounds regarding property in the Cayman Islands.
R v S: Manchester Crown Court. Defended the wife of the principal defendant in a £200 million money laundering regarding a licensed money service business specialising in remitting money to Pakistan.
Siobhan was instructed to defend in the News of the World’s Fake Sheikh ‘Red Mercury’ plot. The Prosecution alleged a plot to buy radioactive material. The Defendant was acquitted after a three-month trial at the Old Bailey concerning a conspiracy to fund terrorism and a conspiracy to possess an article for terrorist purposes.