32 Farringdon Street
London EC4A 4HJ
T: 020 7246 6560
F: 020 7236 7896
Katie Kipps is a Solicitor specialising in heavyweight criminal litigation. Katie has extensive experience of dealing with cases ranging from murder and sexual assault to complex frauds and insider dealing. She is particularly well known for her investigative skills and for achieving excellent results for her clients. In particular Katie consistently obtains excellent outcomes in confiscation and restraint proceedings arising out of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Katie undertakes both private and legally aided work and performs her own advocacy where appropriate. She is responsible for regularly briefing London’s top Queen’s Counsel and junior counsel.
Katie regularly conducts appellate work, advising clients on appeals against conviction and/or sentence.
She is also experienced in bringing actions against Her Majesty’s Prison Service on behalf of her clients and has a 100% success rate.
Katie also works alongside Lee Adams in advising on, investigating, and bringing private prosecutions.
Katie is a member of the Young Fraud Lawyers Association and the Female Fraud Forum.
R v Parvizi: Katie worked alongside Peter Hughman in securing an acquittal in the largest ever investigation into insider dealing by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). She was responsible for much of the detailed investigatory work undertaken by the defence, in relation to which she briefed trial counsel Orlando Pownall QC and David Whittaker, both of 2 Hare Court. Read more.
R v Piper: This case concerned five counts of fraudulent activity, carried out between 2008 and 2014. The main allegation related to an investment fraud, which involved cold calling wine investors and taking control of their portfolios from bonded warehouses. The Defendant pleaded guilty to four counts. Comprehensive analysis of the Crown’s figures and the methodology used resulted in the overall value of the frauds being reduced. As a result of Katie’s extensive inquiries involving a Solicitor who had previously been struck-off the role, the Crown dropped one count altogether. Read more.
R v T: Working alongside Peter Hughman in acting for a high profile client accused of rape. Katie studied hours of CCTV footage and found a clip, which the Police had completely overlooked, which categorically assisted in discrediting the Complainant, eventually resulting in their client’s acquittal.
R v R: Katie assisted Peter Hughman in defending a boy charged with serious section 18 GBH and witness intimidation. She conducted investigations in Manchester where the alleged attack took place. She re-traced the journey, paying close attention to timings of routes, according to the complainant’s account. Her work was key in proving that the complainant’s account simply could not be true, which resulted in an acquittal for her client.
R v Reilly: Katie fought ruthlessly for this client in confiscation proceedings. The client was convicted for drug and firearms offences following the discovery of highly sophisticated, underground drug bunkers in Essex, where a number of firearms including AK47 assault rifles were found. The Crown argued for a benefit of £5.6 million, and asserted the client had available assets in the sum of £2.6 million. Katie fiercely challenged the Crown’s case, resulting in a substantially reduced benefit figure of £407,780 and £121,860 in available assets.
R v G: Hughmans represented a client who was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for his organisational role in a multi-handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The total value of the conspiracy was estimated at £23 million. The purity of the drugs was the highest seen in the UK. Katie represented the client in confiscation proceedings which followed. The Crown made a number of assumptions, claiming that the client had assets in a foreign jurisdiction. Due to the investigative work conducted by Katie in Spain, the court had to order that the client had no available assets and a confiscation order was made in a nominal sum.
R v Seabrook: Katie defended a client in confiscation proceedings where the Crown asserted the client had hidden assets. As a result of her tough negotiations, the Crown conceded their argument just before the hearing itself, which resulted in a confiscation order being made in the sum of just £1,920.