Zoe has extensive experience representing those facing the most serious allegations, including deprivation of citizenship, terrorism, murder, manslaughter, rape, sexual offences, money laundering, fraud, confiscation proceedings, firearms and violent offences, robbery, multi-handed drug importations and conspiracies, and death by careless driving.
Zoe qualified in 2002 and since then has had conduct of numerous high-profile criminal cases. Her expertise lies in terrorism and fraud, and she excels at the forensic, detailed analysis required when dealing with accounting, forensic and cell-site data. She has also represented clients pursued under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and is regularly instructed to defend in serious sexual offences.
Zoe has been instructed by an international corporate client in a European multi-jurisdictional mutual assistance money laundering investigation, where a settlement was ultimately secured — work which involved advice on European arrest warrants. More recently she acted in several multi-handed drug and county lines cases, and represented an interested party in the inquest into the deaths arising from the London Bridge and Borough Market attack of 3 June 2017.
Zoe is accustomed to liaising with all arms of law enforcement on a daily basis, and to digesting vast volumes of evidence — forensic, banking, cell-site, telephone, expert and witness material — then preparing summaries, briefs to counsel and advice to clients.
Notable cases
Terrorism
- R v H & H and Others (2001–2003) — IRA case involving two brothers charged with conspiracy to cause explosions in London and Birmingham; the last Real IRA bombing campaign of its kind on the UK mainland.
- R v M and Others (2006) — arrest of Bradford students under ss.57 and 58 Terrorism Act 2000 relating to downloading ‘extremist’ literature. Conviction subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal.
- R v A (2006) — directly connected to the transatlantic liquid bomb plot; s.38 Terrorism Act 2000. Acquittal secured.
- R v M and Others (2006–2008) — multi-handed case involving receiving terrorist training, linked to the 7/7 bombings, under s.6 Terrorism Act 2006.
- R v K and Others (2008) — man accused of soliciting the murder of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
- H2 v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2013) — SIAC case involving international terrorism and illegal rendition.
- R v H and Others (2016) — allegations of funding a proscribed terrorist organisation in Syria.
- R v A (2013) — murder of a soldier, relying on a novel defence of ‘under the Queen’s peace’. Investigated by SO15.
- London Bridge Inquest (2019, Central Criminal Court) — representation of an interested party at the inquest into the deaths of eight individuals killed on 3 June 2017.
Drugs
- R v A and Others (2019) — multi-handed £65 million conspiracy to manufacture steroids.
- R v A and Others (2021, Kingston Crown Court) — multiple count indictment relating to a conspiracy to supply Class A as part of a county lines operation.
Fraud
- R v G (2009) — bank fraud, nine co-defendants, conspiracy to steal and false accounting, involving voluminous accounting and telephone data. Acquittal secured.
- Public Prosecutor’s Office Netherlands v Lycamobile (2011) — brought by the Dutch National Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Criminal Assets Deprivation Bureau regarding possible tax violations. Settlement secured.
- R v A (2012, Central Criminal Court) — ten-week multi-handed million-pound Cisco fraud.
- R v S (2012) — bank fraud involving forensic analysis of banking documents, transactions and mobile phone data, with substantive disclosure issues. Acquittal secured.
- R v M and Others (2016) — conspiracy to defraud prosecuted by the London Borough of Redbridge; false claims to housing and in-work benefits totalling over £1,600,000, followed by POCA confiscation proceedings.
- R v H (2018, Southwark Crown Court) — £6 million conspiracy to cheat the public revenue by diverting funds owed to HMRC through a network of accounts in the UK, Dubai, Jersey and Switzerland.
Client identities are protected. Every case turns on its own facts;
past results are not a guarantee of any particular outcome.