John Greany

Call: 2012

Instructing John

To instruct John please contact our Clerks on +44 (0)20 7400 6400 or email clerks@3rblaw.com.

John Greany has a broad practice across Chambers’ areas of expertise, including criminal law, professional discipline, public inquiries, regulatory and licensing work. He has recently been instructed in complex criminal cases, in the Manchester Arena Inquiry by Greater Manchester Police, and in a wide range of disciplinary matters involving police officers and medical professionals.

Legal Expertise

Crime

Crime overview

John Greany prosecutes and defends in a wide range of criminal cases; in his defence work he often represents professionals, many of whom also face disciplinary proceedings arising from criminal allegations of dishonesty, use of unlawful force or other breaches of professional standards. In criminal proceedings he has recently represented company directors, police officers, members of the armed forces, and a civil servant whose employment prospects turned on the outcome of the criminal case.

John is also an experienced prosecutor. He is regularly instructed in complex cases of fraud, bribery, tax evasion and money laundering. John is a DV cleared member of the CPS counter-terrorism and specialist fraud panels.

Notable Crime cases

R v MM (2021-22, Southwark Crown Court)

John represents a defendant accused of money laundering while serving as a police officer.

R v BC (Southwark Crown Court 2021)

John (led by James Hines QC) prosecuted the Chief Information Officer of a large corporation convicted of bribery at Southwark Crown Court.

R v J (2019)

John defended a member of the MPS staff charged with assaulting an emergency worker and with public order offences; the court found that she had been unlawfully arrested and unlawfully detained by the arresting officers; the charges were dismissed at the close of the prosecution’s case.

R v H (2019)

John defended a senior police officer charged with assaulting a member of the public. The court found that the complainant had lied to the police about the incident and that an independent witness must have been mistaken when she reported the alleged assault to the police. The officer did not face any disciplinary proceedings in light of the criminal court’s findings.

R v Carl Tiltman (Southwark Crown Court 2019)

John prosecuted a Chief Executive Officer and former employee of the Ministry of Defence charged with fraud by abuse of position and fraud by false representation following an investigation by the MOD police. The defendant had deceived specialist units of HM armed forces and his own company directors in relation to laser equipment marketed to the Royal Navy and to the airline industry.

R v Mangava, Atitebi and others (2019)

Acting alone, John prosecuted in a multi-handed high value fraud and money laundering case, instructed by the CPS Specialist Fraud Division.

R v Chukwuka and others (2018-2019)

Led by John Hardy QC, prosecuted to conviction 9 defendants charged with conspiracy to commit high value fraud and money laundering.

R v Brooks and others (2014)

John was part of the team advising prosecution witness Dan Evans in the “phone hacking trial” at the Central Criminal Court

Professional Discipline overview

John represents police officers facing disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct. He has considerable experience in providing advice, drafting and advocacy in misconduct hearings involving allegations of dishonesty, excessive use of force and other alleged breaches of professional standards. He represents officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), British Transport Police (BTP) and regional forces.

Notable Professional Discipline cases

MPS v LT

In September 2022, John defended in a MPS case in which the officer concerned was alleged to have falsely imprisoned a colleague in his home. The allegation that he did so was not proven.

BTP v PJ

In 2022 John advised federation representatives and solicitors assisting officers of West Yorkshire Police; the officers allegedly failed to provide appropriate first aid to a detainee who had died in police custody. John drafted written submissions which were relied on by the officers. The allegation was not proven against any of the officers.

West Yorkshire police officers

In 2022 John acted for a British Transport Police (BTP) officer facing multiple allegations of dishonesty, racist behaviour and excessive use of force against members of the public. The officer denied the allegations of gross misconduct, denied dishonesty, and relied on medical evidence to explain aspects of his conduct. He also contended that the some of the allegations had been dealt with by way of management action, and that he had a legitimate expectation that no further disciplinary sanction should be imposed. Having received the written response to the allegations served by the defence, BTP reviewed the case shortly before the hearing. In light of the medical evidence BTP withdrew the allegation of gross misconduct.

Manchester Arena Inquiry
John was instructed by Greater Manchester Police in the Manchester Arena Inquiry alongside other members of chambers, led by Richard Horwell QC.

R v MM (2021-22, Southwark Crown Court) John Greany represents a defendant accused of money laundering while serving as a police officer.

R v BC (Southwark Crown Court 2021) John Greany (led by James Hines QC) prosecuted the Chief Information Officer of a large corporation convicted of bribery at Southwark Crown Court.

R v J (2019) John defended a member of the MPS staff charged with assaulting an emergency worker and with public order offences; the court found that she had been unlawfully arrested and unlawfully detained by the arresting officers; the charges were dismissed at the close of the prosecution’s case.

R v H (2019) John defended a senior police officer charged with assaulting a member of the public. The court found that the complainant had lied to the police about the incident and that an independent witness must have been mistaken when she reported the alleged assault to the police. The officer did not face any disciplinary proceedings in light of the criminal court’s findings.

R v Carl Tiltman (Southwark Crown Court 2019) John prosecuted a Chief Executive Officer and former employee of the Ministry of Defence charged with fraud by abuse of position and fraud by false representation following an investigation by the MOD police. The defendant had deceived specialist units of HM armed forces and his own company directors in relation to laser equipment marketed to the Royal Navy and to the airline industry.

R v Mangava, Atitebi and others (2019) Acting alone, John prosecuted in a multi-handed high value fraud and money laundering case, instructed by the CPS Specialist Fraud Division.

R v Chukwuka and others (2018-2019) Led by John Hardy QC, prosecuted to conviction 9 defendants charged with conspiracy to commit high value fraud and money laundering.

R v Brooks and others (2014) John was part of the team advising prosecution witness Dan Evans in the “phone hacking trial” at the Central Criminal Court

Notable recent professional disciplinary cases

In September 2022, John defended in a MPS case in which the officer concerned was alleged to have falsely imprisoned a colleague in his home. The allegation that he did so was not proven.

In 2022 John advised federation representatives and solicitors assisting officers of West Yorkshire Police; the officers allegedly failed to provide appropriate first aid to a detainee who had died in police custody. John drafted written submissions which were relied on by the officers. The allegation was not proven against any of the officers.

In 2022 John acted for a British Transport Police (BTP) officer facing multiple allegations of dishonesty, racist behaviour and excessive use of force against members of the public. The officer denied the allegations of gross misconduct, denied dishonesty, and relied on medical evidence to explain aspects of his conduct. He also contended that the some of the allegations had been dealt with by way of management action, and that he had a legitimate expectation that no further disciplinary sanction should be imposed. Having received the written response to the allegations served by the defence, BTP reviewed the case shortly before the hearing. In light of the medical evidence BTP withdrew the allegation of gross misconduct.

Instructing John

To instruct John please contact our Clerks on +44 (0)20 7400 6400 or email clerks@3rblaw.com.

  • CPS Panel (General Crime) Level 3
  • CPS Panel (Counter Terrorism) Level 3
  • CPS Panel (Fraud) Level 3
  • DV Cleared
  • Bar Professional Training Course, BPP London (Outstanding; highest score in year in advocacy and criminal procedure and litigation)
  • Graduate Diploma in Law (Distinction)
  • Middle Temple Diplock Scholarship
  • The Queen’s College, Oxford University (MA)
  • The Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst
  • The Defence School of Languages
  • The School of Oriental and African Studies (MSc)

John served as a reconnaissance officer in the British army and subsequently in the NGO sector. Before being called to the Bar he worked in the UK, Canada, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Colombia, Argentina, and Guatemala.

Languages

  • Arabic
  • French

I, John Greany, am a data controller and can be contacted at 3 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5BH or by telephone on 020 7400 6400 or by email at john.greany@3rblaw.com. My Data Protection Policy can be found below.

All personal data that I process is for the purposes of providing legal services, conducting conflict-checks, marketing, defending potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes, keeping anti-money laundering records, training other barristers and pupils and when providing work-shadowing opportunities, and/or exercising a right to a lien. The types of data I process vary upon the nature of the legal matter in relation to which I am engaged to advise, but can include names, contact details, biographic details and ‘special category personal data’ (such as details of racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, health, sex life and criminal convictions and proceedings).

Depending upon the circumstances of the case, the legal bases upon which I process personal data are (i) the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract, (ii) the processing is necessary to comply with legal obligations to which I am subject, or (iii) the processing is necessary for the legitimate interests set out above, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subjects which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. When I rely on (iii) legitimate interests, my ‘Legitimate Interests Assessment’ can be found here. When I process data which has not be obtained directly from the data subject (e.g. personal data contained in evidential materials), it will have been supplied to me as part of my instructions in circumstances covered by legal professional privilege.

Depending upon the circumstances of the case, I may share the personal data with:

  1. my Chambers, which supplies professional and administrative support to my practice;
  2. Courts and other tribunals to whom documents are presented;
  3. my lay and professional clients;
  4. potential witnesses, in particular experts, and friends or family of the data subject;
  5. solicitors, barristers, pupils, mini pupils and other legal representatives;
  6. ombudsmen and regulatory authorities;
  7. current, past or prospective employers;
  8. education and examining bodies;
  9. business associates, professional advisers and trade bodies.

I retain personal data for no longer than 7 years after the case has come to an end or as otherwise required by law.

I do not intend to transfer data to any country which is not either within the European Union, ‘white listed’ by the EU or otherwise permitted by EU law (e.g. to the USA under the provisions of the ‘Privacy Shield’).

Under the GDPR, data subjects whose personal data I process have the right to request from me access to, and rectification or erasure of, their personal data, the right to the restriction of processing concerning them, the right to object to processing as well as the right to data portability. Data subjects also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ico.org.uk).

In cases where there is a contract between me and the data subject, the provision of personal data is a contractual requirement and the data subject is obliged to provide the personal data in order that I can supply legal services. A failure to provide such data may mean that I will not be able to provide the legal services.

Rev 1.0 – 25.05.2018

Data Protection Policy

Legitimate Interests Assessment

John Greany is qualified to accept instructions direct from clients under the Bar Council’s Public Access Scheme. This means that members of the public who seek specialist advice can come direct to him. In addition, he welcomes instructions from solicitors, in-house law departments, qualified foreign lawyers, and clients licensed by the Bar Council to give instructions direct to barristers under the Bar Council’s Licensed Access Scheme.

For further information please contact our Clerks.

Related news