2025-2026 R v S and others (Central Criminal Court)
John is instructed to prosecute Iranian nationals alleged to have assisted a foreign intelligence service, contrary to section 3 of the National Security Act 2023.
John Greany prosecutes serious offences in the Crown Court and is regularly instructed by the Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service. He is instructed in a wide range of criminal cases for the defence.
John has extensive experience of professional disciplinary and regulatory proceedings including police gross misconduct proceedings, appeals to the PAT, and regulatory health care proceedings.
John Greany prosecutes and defends in a wide range of criminal cases; he often represents professionals facing parallel disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations of dishonesty, use of unlawful force or other breaches of professional standards. He has represented company directors, police officers and members of the armed forces.
John is an experienced prosecutor. He is a DV cleared member of the CPS Counter-Terrorism and specialist fraud panels.
John is instructed to prosecute Iranian nationals alleged to have assisted a foreign intelligence service, contrary to section 3 of the National Security Act 2023.
Prosecution of far-right extremist who encouraged terrorism via social media and disseminated terrorist publications.
In 2024-2025 John prosecuted a series of cases involving membership of and support for Islamic State. The most recent of these is the case of R v Abdrabba The defendant will be sentenced in December 2025 for membership of a proscribed terrorist organization and for professing to belong to Islamic State.
In 2023 John Greany prosecuted the case of Mohammed Al Bared for the CPS Counter Terrorism Division at Birmingham Crown Court. After a six-week trial the defendant, a PHD student with expertise in mechanical engineering, was convicted of preparing for acts of terrorism by (a) designing a remotely piloted drone for Islamic State and (b) setting up a sham company as cover for travel to Islamic State territory via Turkey and (c) completing an application form to join Islamic State. The case involved calling expert evidence in relation to explosive substances, aeronautical engineering, drones, the structure and evolution of Islamic State, and the interpretation of multiple documents which had been written in Arabic by the defendant. As much of the evidence was in Arabic, John’s knowledge of the language was an asset to the police and prosecution team. John was led in this case by Michelle Heeley KC, the leader of the Western Circuit.
In 2023 John Greany was instructed (acting alone) by the Specialist Fraud Division of the CPS to prosecute Jonathan Allard, the so called “Lord of Fraud”. Allard was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court for playing a leading role in a £3.7 million investment fraud linked to Zurich Private Capital (ZPC). Large numbers of victims had been tricked into investing their savings in ZPC as Allard spent the proceeds on luxury goods, sports cars and foreign travel. Allard, who had registered foreign companies and bank accounts in order to sustain the fraud, was sentenced to 7 years and 2 months custody on 22 May 2023.
In 2022 John Greany represented a defendant accused of money laundering when serving as a police officer in Kent. The officer had agreed to pay cash through his personal bank account for a friend who, it subsequently transpired, had been dealing Class A drugs and steroids. The officer was acquitted following a five week trial at Southwark Crown Court.
John (led by James Hines KC) prosecuted the Chief Information Officer of a large corporation convicted of bribery at Southwark Crown Court.
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.
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.
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.
Acting alone, John prosecuted in a multi-handed high value fraud and money laundering case, instructed by the CPS Specialist Fraud Division.
Led by John Hardy KC, prosecuted to conviction 9 defendants charged with conspiracy to commit high value fraud and money laundering.
John was part of the team advising prosecution witness Dan Evans in the “phone hacking trial” at the Central Criminal Court
John represents police officers facing disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct. He has considerable experience in providing advice, drafting and advocacy in gross 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.
John has experience of representing officers in Gross Misconduct Hearings, before the Police Appeals Tribunal and in UPP hearings.
In 2023 John successfully argued that there was new evidence capable of undermining the testimony of an officer who had given evidence against TW in a police gross misconduct hearing at Northamptonshire Police Headquarters. The accused officer was reinstated on full pay and the case remitted for fresh determination by a new tribunal.
John Greany represented a serving police officer accused of providing sensitive information to officials of a foreign embassy.
In 2023 the MPS brought gross misconduct proceedings against an officer accused of assaulting his partner. The defence argued that the sole and decisive evidence in the case was the hearsay evidence of the officer’s partner. After hearing legal argument on the first day of the hearing the panel agreed with the defence submissions that it would be unfair for the hearsay evidence to be admitted in evidence. Following that ruling the MPS offered no evidence, and the allegation was not proven.
In 2023 John represented an Inspector who had been accused of bullying and harassing a colleague. The panel found that whilst the officer had made errors of judgment, the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct in all the circumstances.
In 2023 the MPS alleged that a serving PC had been “grossly incompetent” because he had failed to identify and report a “non-crime domestic” incident in accordance with force policy. The panel found the allegation of gross incompetence not proven. The Panel commended the officer for displaying commendable remorse, reflection and humility and described the incident as “a deeply unfortunate but an honest misjudgement.”
In 2023 John Greany represented a serving officer who had set up an “only fans” account with his partner. Members of the public could pay to view the sexual activity of the officer, his partner and other consenting participants in various video clips. The defence acknowledged that the officer had breached MPS policy by failing to register the “only fans” account as a business interest; the officer also accepted that his conduct risked bringing discredit to the police. However, there was a strong mitigating context which was set out in defence submissions, and which allowed the panel to issue final written warning.
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.
Counter Terrorism cases 2023-2026
2025-2026 R v S and others (Central Criminal Court)
John is instructed to prosecute Iranian nationals alleged to have assisted a foreign intelligence service, contrary to section 3 of the National Security Act 2023.
In 2024-2025 John prosecuted a series of cases involving membership of and/or support for Islamic State. The most recent of these is the case of R v Abdrabba. The defendant will be sentenced in December 2025 for membership of a proscribed terrorist organization and for professing to belong to Islamic State,
Al Bared and the design of an explosive drone for Islamic State
In 2023 John Greany prosecuted the case of Mohammed Al Bared for the CPS Counter Terrorism Division at Birmingham Crown Court. After a six-week trial the defendant, a PHD student with expertise in mechanical engineering, was convicted of preparing for acts of terrorism by (a) designing a remotely piloted drone for Islamic State and (b) setting up a sham company as cover for travel to Islamic State territory via Turkey and (c) completing an application form to join Islamic State. The case involved calling expert evidence in relation to explosive substances, aeronautical engineering, drones, the structure and evolution of Islamic State, and the interpretation of multiple documents which had been written in Arabic by the defendant. As much of the evidence was in Arabic, John’s knowledge of the language was an asset to the police and prosecution team. John was led in this case by Michelle Heeley KC, the leader of the Midlands Circuit.
Crime
R v Allard, Southwark Crown Court 2023
In 2023 John Greany was instructed (acting alone) by the Specialist Fraud Division of the CPS to prosecute Jonathan Allard, the so called “Lord of Fraud”. Allard was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court for playing a leading role in a £3.7 million investment fraud linked to Zurich Private Capital (ZPC). Large numbers of victims had been tricked into investing their savings in ZPC as Allard spent the proceeds on luxury goods, sports cars and foreign travel. Allard, who had registered foreign companies and bank accounts in order to sustain the fraud, was sentenced to 7 years and 2 months custody on 22 May 2023
R v MM, Police officer acquitted of money laundering (2021-22, Southwark Crown Court)
In 2022 John Greany represented a defendant accused of money laundering when serving as a police officer in Kent. The officer had agreed to pay cash through his personal bank account for a friend who, it subsequently transpired, had been dealing Class A drugs and steroids. The officer was acquitted following a five week trial at Southwark Crown Court.
R v BC (Southwark Crown Court 2021) John Greany (led by James Hines KC) 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 KC, 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
Successful appeal in the case of TW at Northamptonshire Police Headquarters
In 2023 John successfully argued that there was new evidence capable of undermining the testimony of an officer who had given evidence against TW in a police gross misconduct hearing at Northamptonshire Police Headquarters. The accused officer was reinstated on full pay and the case remitted for fresh determination by a new tribunal.
Officer accused of providing information to a foreign embassy
John Greany represents a serving police officer accused of providing sensitive information to officials of a foreign embassy. The case is ongoing.
Key evidence excluded leading MPS to offer no evidence in case of PC Gibbons
In 2023 the MPS brought gross misconduct proceedings against an officer accused of assaulting his partner. The defence argued that the sole and decisive evidence in the case was the hearsay evidence of the officer’s partner. After hearing legal argument on the first day of the hearing the panel agreed with the defence submissions that it would be unfair for the hearsay evidence to be admitted in evidence. Following that ruling the MPS offered no evidence, and the allegation was not proven.
Inspector KW
In 2023 John represented an Inspector who had been accused of bullying and harassing a colleague. The panel found that whilst the officer had made errors of judgment, the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct in all the circumstances.
MPS allegation of gross incompetence not proven against serving PC
In 2023 the MPS alleged that a serving PC had been “grossly incompetent” because he had failed to identify and report a “non-crime domestic” incident in accordance with force policy. The panel found the allegation of gross incompetence not proven. The Panel commended the officer for displaying commendable remorse, reflection and humility and described the incident as “a deeply unfortunate but an honest misjudgement.”
Officer breaching MPS policy by setting up “only fans” account receives final written warning
In 2023 John Greany represented a serving officer who had set up an “only fans” account with his partner. Members of the public could pay to view the sexual activity of the officer, his partner and other consenting participants in various video clips. The defence acknowledged that the officer had breached MPS policy by failing to register the “only fans” account as a business interest; the officer also accepted that his conduct risked bringing discredit to the police. However, there was a strong mitigating context which was set out in defence submissions, and which allowed the panel to issue final written warning.
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.
Manchester Arena Inquiry
John was instructed by Greater Manchester Police in the Manchester Arena Inquiry alongside other members of chambers, led by Richard Horwell KC.
“A very strong junior” Legal 500 2026: Crime
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
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:
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
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.
| Address | 3 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5BH |
|---|---|
| DX | 237 LDE |
| Opening hours | 08:30 – 18:30 |
| Telephone | +44 (0)20 7400 6400 |
|---|---|
| clerks@3rblaw.com | |
| Senior clerk | John Greany |
