020 7404 1147

Annette Henry QC Called 1984

Annette Henry QC

Called 1984
Silk 2014

Email Booking Enquiry


Practice Areas

Fraud Bribery & Corruption
Business & Financial Crime
Regulatory & Disciplinary work
Serious & complex Criminal Defence

‘Annette Henry QC is a naturally gifted lawyer whose meticulous preparation and Court room style is a masterclass in advocacy. Miss Henry’s successes, time and time again, are testament to her level ofcommitment to cases and her enduring sense of fairness and justice.’ Professional Client

‘If it wasn’t for your brilliance, my life would have been shattered’. Lay Client

Annette is a first rate defender, always going above and beyond for case and client. A committed defender for her entire career, she has secured many unlikely acquittals over the years. She has a very impressive back catalogue of leading defence cases. Long renowned for her specialist work in the area of mental health law, she has an exceptional ability to relate to people and juries however difficult or challenging the circumstances may be. A consummate professional with complete integrity, she instils trust and confidence in all, wherever they are positioned in the courtroom. She has thrived in silk and the demand for her services and the quality of her practice continues

unabated. This is wholly unsurprising given her proven track record and appeal with professional and lay clients alike.

Annette has been the recipient of many personal letters of thanks from her clients keen to express their gratitude to her and freely giving plaudits for her work on their behalf.

Some of the many comments from professional and lay clients include:

  • fabulous, a real fighter, whose clients trust her absolutely
  • fearless in the pursuit of doing what is right by the client and has complete integrity
  • unrivalled in her dedication and diligence to case and client
  • meticulous command of the brief
  • goes the extra mile for clients, leaving no stone unturned in the preparation and presentation of the defence
  • she is extremely well received by both the Courts and clients alike, particularly when dealing with the most sensitive and complex matters
  • always pragmatic in her approach and does not shy away from the taking on the most difficult of fights in the best interests of her client
  • always approachable with a work ethic second to none
  • incisive and an outside the box thinker
  • astute and insightful
  • a tactical expert
  • her judgement is spot on every time
  • handles complex personalities and the added dimension they bring to a case effortlessly
  • superb client care skills
  • she has absolutely outstanding people skills
  • a hands-on QC and you know you are in the best hands


Annette has always been and continues to be instructed in the most serious, difficult, high profile and challenging cases most often combined with unusual or idiosyncratic features.

Mental Health Review Tribunal President 2001 – 2013

Mental Health Act Commissioner: Broadmoor Visiting Team and Patient Deaths Investigator 1995 -2001

Author of the Mental Health Referencer 1997

Notable Cases

Annette continues to successfully combine top level fraud cases and white-collar crime with the most serious and heavyweight murder/manslaughter, drugs and other top level criminal cases. She has a wealth of experience including cases with cross cultural, cross jurisdictional issues and the most complex disclosure issues confronting the modern day courts.

Fraud and Financial Regulation

  • Judicial Review proceedings against the Legal Aid Agency to challenge inadequate funding arrangements under the ‘IFFO’scheme to defend in unique fraud where the responsibility for the control & management of 200 million pages of material for trial lay with the defence and not the prosecution. Landmark case taken on behalf of defendant by counsel supported by solicitors.
  •  R v H: Fraud by abuse of position in relation to the sale of luxury property developments in the Caribbean.
  • R v GA: Property entrepreneur with a property portfolio of businesses specialising in sales, lettings and training said to have committed fraud against Milton Keynes Council in relation to former council owned properties under the shared ownership scheme. D was being defrauded by employees of the company, a manager was acting as an imposter in company dealings with the council combined with a complex internecine family history and relationship in the business activities.
  • Operation Perali: Complex MTIC fraud and money laundering operation involving recycling companies and co-conspirators operating against each other from opposite ends of the country in Cardiff and London.
  • Operation Amazon: Landmark case in relation to e-disclosure issues, namely 7 terabytes of e-disclosure, in the largest and most complex HMRC tax fraud to the value of £269 million pounds. Selected to represent a solicitor during the disclosure arguments leading to a stay for abuse of process.
  • FCA v AH: Sophisticated Ponzi style fraud by ‘former Wembly catering manager who set himself up as a successful foreign exchange trader and self-proclaimed City whizz kid’. Investor funds expended in casinos and clubs frequented by Premier League footballers and celebrities.
  • R v MC: Sophisticated immigration fraud involving a network of companies and bank accounts used by defendants to process and manufacture false evidence in support of top tier applications to the UK Border Agency. Defendant, an IT expert with mental health issues, was the unwitting recipient of many fraudulent documents in the fraud perpetrated by others and used to blame him. The defence relied on complex technical computer evidence at trial.
  • R v MK: International fraud against major mobile airtime providers. Complex fraud, financial and money laundering evidence at trial.
  • R v EB: International money laundering operation. Financial handler using sophisticated coding system and foreign exchange services to disguise activities. Vulnerable defendant with mental health issues.
  • R v WD: Professional mortgage fraud operation involving high profile celebrity defence witnesses. Defence involved allegations of complicity by major lending banks and funding by the use of proceeds of gambling activities by high net worth individuals. Complex financial evidence.
  • R v PH: SFO international investigation into corruption (insider dealing) in securing oil & gas engineering projects worth over £65 million.
  • R v NS: First group insider dealing ring to be prosecuted by the FSA (spread betting). Complex expert trading and financial evidence.
  •  R v MU: The ‘trusted lieutenant’ of the controller of a multi-million money laundering operation via a complex network of MSBs and onward transmission to Pakistan.
  • R v MB: Mass purchase of high mileage vehicles from auction, car clocking and onward distribution through car dealerships.
  • R v JM & CM: First and very high profile prosecution brought by the FSA against an in-house solicitor and his father-in-law. Aged defendant with special measures required for stress related disorders during trial.
  • R v RK: The ‘architect and central figure’ in sophisticatedinsurance fraud making false motor insurance claims. Complex multiple claims and financial evidence. Led to greater co-operation between insurance companies and review of claim systems/procedures.
  • R v MA: Professional and highly orchestrated scheme to defraud insurance companies by making multiple claims in respect of highend expensive motor vehicles with sophisticated ‘ringed’ changesto their identity, which led the insurance industry to develop new computer systems to combat fraud.
  • R v LP: Professional conspiracy to defraud insurers by targeted carjacking and ringing high value motor vehicles.
  • R v JP – Indian people trafficking case, charged as a fraud, by arranging false passports/documentation on behalf of illegal immigrants brought into the country from various destinations in America. Young defendant deceived by third party mastermind of scheme.
  • R v AA & SK: Complex investigation into police corruption and subsequent prosecution of a serving police officer and his partner.
  • R v SJ: The largest, most serious and sophisticated antiquarian book fraud ever perpetrated on the British Museum and Cambridge University Libraries. The prosecution concerned the theft, disguise, by removal of a series of identifying features requiring experts to conduct examinations using specialist equipment in court and onward sale of rare and valuable items(including Sir Isaac Newton’s Principa Mathematica) from these libraries through various major auction houses, such as Christies, Sothebys and Bloomsbury.
  • R v MR: D was alleged to have a dual role in running a large scale sophisticated MTIC (carousel) fraud and as a counter surveillance expert hired to ensure the co-conspirators avoided detection by deploying specially designed equipment similar to that used by the perpetrators of the Dome Robbery. This was said to be central to the operation and organisation of the fraud by deploying counter surveillance equipment and techniques to protect and disguise the activities of the conspirators. Specialist reconstruction and demonstrations were conducted by experts at trial. Previous incarnations of similar technical equipment was said to have been used in a serious and organised drug conspiracy 14 years previously. The defence included allegations of police corruption. Numerous PII hearings and disclosure applications/hearings. Hearings in camera.
  • ML: Counterfeiting operation on such a huge scale that it was likely to flood the market with forged notes and undermine public confidence in Bank of England issued currency. Concealed warehouse used for manufacturing counterfeit notes of all denominations for onward supply to an organised criminal network. Sophisticated counterfeiting process, surveillance operation and complex probe and cell site evidence.
  • R v AK: MTIC fraud representing the partner of one of the leading defendants operating a scheme to reclaim VAT arising out of complex network of trading relationships between British and European companies.
  • R v GW: The largest joint Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise prosecution into the illegal activities of the insolvency profession.


  • R v Montilla, Newbury & Others: Money laundering and leading House of Lords case as to whether it was necessary to prove property was the proceeds of drug trafficking or of criminal conduct.
  • R v May & Others: Leading House of Lords authority on confiscation.

Serious Crime

  • YL: Deceased hacked to death in the back garden of a family home. Murder resulting from serious armed group violence. Anonymous witnesses, CCTV/ID, accomplice/hostile witness, bad character of prosecution witnesses & co-defendants, murder/manslaughter alternative specific verdicts in law.
  • R v TJ: Murder of long term partner discovered after his suicide bid by jumping in front of a triain (severed right arm and left hand). Third killing of a partner – previous manslaughter conviction arising out of alleged previous domestic abuse on him by partner and argument on the balcony of a high rise flat and second manslaughter plea relating to previous partner on grounds of diminished responsibility/serious mental health issues – resulted in an Attorney-General’s Reference by the prosecution.
  • R v EE: Drugs related murder by stabbing on a well known estate. Juvenile with ADD, intellectual disability, inappropriate effect and impaired cognitive functioning. Complex bad character, hearsay, mistake of fact, severance and cut-throat defences, partially captured on CCTV, mistake of fact & roles.
  • R v RN: Murder of 3 month old baby cut throat defences between parents, baby died in presence of mother in hospital, child family witnesses aged 9 and 7, expert osteopathologist, failure to protect, severe burn injuries by father, causation/complex medical injuries and evidence.
  • R v JL: Murder at Coldingley Prison by stabbing deceased with with a makeshift knife made from prison articles. Prison racketeering and gangs operating in prison, D targeted by the deceased & asscociates on route to Muslim prayers. Defence supported by detailed reconstruction from ununsed material items. Complex DNA expert evidence. Witnesses comprised of prison inmates and their unreliable, dishonest testimony challenged through meticulous scrutiny of prison records and unused material.
  • R v PJ: Boxer charged with manslaughter of one of a number of known loacal street drinkers arising out of a motoring incident following congested traffic flow after a music festival. Transferred malice on the part of the witnesses, causation, bad character, mistake of fact.
  • R v NS: Drug related murder by joint enterpprise stabbing outside university halls of residence. D said to be head of drugs line and directing events. Student witnesses, CCTV/ID and activities of parties, prosecution relied texting patterns to demonstrate supply chains and cell site to demonstrate interrelationship, location and movement of phones, voir dire in relation to witness in fear (drug users) and hearsay application. Demonstrated that a prosecution had misidentified ‘the stabber’.
  • R v MS: Murder by stabbing in churchyard in High Wycombe instigated by former partner of D and mother of his child. Co- defendants and prosecution witnesses resident in a hostel for vulnerable persons with mental health and drug related problems. One of the first cases to implement the Supreme Court decision of Jogee in joint enterprise cases.
  • R v AQ: Murder by escalation in Kick-Ass violent stunts on a resident alcoholic. Reconstruction of Taliban style torture. Dismembered body parts located by local fishermen at a fishing lake. Perverting the course of justice based on witnessing the murder and steps to mislead the course of the investigation by police. Accounts incriminating and exculpating co-accused. Complex bad character, hearsay and probe evidence.
  • R v TC: Main defendant in indiscriminate gang related shootings at a nightclub. Cut-throat defence with witness anonymity applications, numerous vulnerable witnesses (serious drug, alcohol and mental health problems) and a myriad of disclosure, hearsay and bad character issues.
  • R v NO: Organiser of a triple shooting at a nightclub in Forest Gate. Investigation by Trident officers. Technical CCTV issues requiring complex expert evidence. Numerous disclosure applications and hearings. Rebuttal evidence. Allegations by prosecution against professional defence witness and novelapplications by the prosecution to adduce third party ‘bad character’ of the partner (not a witness) of a defence witness.
  • R v LB: Defendant said to be a vital lynchpin in a wide ranging conspiracy to supply firearms and manufacture ammunition orchestrated from behind prison walls to supply converted firearmswith ‘made to order’ ammunition for use in serious and organisedcrime. Multiple hearsay and third party hearsay applications. DNA mixed profile expert evidence.
  • R v AK: International people trafficking ring and money laundering. Defendant alleged to work as an IT consultant for the OCG. Complex technical computer evidence and reconstruction of of complex computer messaging conversations over many months. Cross examination of interpreters and technical experts.
  • R v AS: Operation Pillow investigation into Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients imported on a massive scale via the defendant’scompany to use as cutting agents with Class A drugs. SOCO prosecution using new powers and ground breaking new law relating to inchoate offences. Defendant with ADD charged as main protagonist and mastermind.
  • R v AS: Relative of the owner of a prominent London nightclub alleged to be major drugs supplier and to have transferred his drugs operation to the home counties.
  • R v RS: Arson by setting fire to buildings during London Riots 2011. D appeared on Sky News reports. Associated to Mark Duggan case.
  • R v TR: Wife alleged to have attempted to murder her husband suffering from the seriously degenerative illness Motor Neurone Disease. Expert neurologist as to the effects of suffocation. Cross- examination of victim in a severely paralysed condition. Videolink evidence of 12 year old daughter as defence witness.
  • R v GC: Highly publicised case of gross negligence manslaughter by father of his own 6 year old daughter riding a Quad bike bought for Christmas on a public road.
  • R v SR: Brutal domestic murder with loss of control/diminished responsibility newly categorised partial defences. Defendant attempted suicide after the killing. Extensive interrelating bad character applications spanned previous 27 years. Expert psychopharmacologist on effects drugs/alcohol on metal state and behaviour.
  • R v DL: Young black British triple jumper, Olympic prospect and son of 2 separated barristers, charged with professional bank robbery.
  • Securitas Robbery: Organiser of the largest recorded, most notorious, armed robbery in British history. Manager and manager’s wife/8 year old son kidnapped separately by robbers posing as police officers. A plethora of mutiple, complex disclosure issues.
  • R v MO: Organiser from prison of the assassination of a drugs dealer lured to the woods and shot in front of his partner and 4 year old son. Expert palynologist (Soham murder trial). Cell informant evidence against the defendant. Major disclosure issues into the background and handling of the cell informant, motives behind evidence and other candidates for shooting.
  • R v KM: Gruesome drugs debt murder outside defendant’s family home. Meticulous investigation/enquiry into unused material and cross-jurisdictional disclosure applications provided almost all supportiing evidence for the defence case that an international gang of Bangladeshi drug dealers was responsible.
  • R v MM: Death in custody (Belmarsh prison) of former IRA member. Complex issues into the cause of death were raised at the inquest relating to the care & treatment of prisoners suffering from mental disorders in prison and the practice/procedures applicable in prisons as distinct from psychiatric hospital.
  • R v SK – Complex conspiracy to commit money laundering offences between 2002 -2008 arising out of major drug dealing network linked to firearms offences.
  • ‘Greenleaf Cannabis Café’ – Well known Brixton drugs cafe and money laundering case. Take away service supplying all classes of drugs with take away food. Substantial financial proceeds subsequently laundered into the property market. Defendant well known figure also ran a food stall at Glastonbury Festival.
  •  R v NL: Vietnamese cannabis factory and money laundering operation featuring cut throat defence against all other co- defendants. Home office issues concerning deportation served immediately before defendant’s evidence led to psychiatric evaluation during trial.
  • R v KC: Mentally disordered defendant charged with the manslaughter of a vulnerable victim with health issues. Complex medical evidence concerning cause of death/non-life threatening heart condition. Range of medical experts including a consultant cardiologist cross-examined History of sexual advances by older victim to younger defendant.
  • Pierre Antoine -v- The United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights): Application of Article 6 to the fitness to plead provisions.
  • R v DO: Instructed post-conviction in a mental health appealagainst a determination that ‘he did the act’ under the fitness to plead provisions on a charge of murder. Complications arose because of the wavering mental state of the defendant between the finding that he was unfit (part 1 of the procedure) anddetermination of whether ‘he did the act’ (part 2) causing legal complications and unveiling a lacuna in the legal provisions.
  • The Munch-Petersen trial: Highly publicised case of multiplevictims of ‘death by dangerous driving’ on a motorway which led to a serious debate on the legal definition of ‘dangerous driving’.Munch-Peterson wrote a book ‘Fatal Error’ about the incident,the prosecution that followed and about his experiences in the legal system. He was full of praise for Annette.
  • R v RM: The death of an entire family was responsible for the launch of a new campaign to combat “morning after drinking”. Expert evidence on back calculation of alcohol consumption.
  • R v CN – Relative of one of the suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case charged with a serious and racially motivated attack. Abuse of process argument upheld.