William Hays > Chambers of Simon Denison QC > London, England > Lawyer Profile

Chambers of Simon Denison QC
6KBW College Hill
William Hays photo


Will is highly-regarded practising in crime, fraud, the proceeds of crime, extradition and mutual legal assistance, and judicial review. He has appeared in the most significant recent cases on confiscation, including three cases before the Supreme Court. He advises companies, prosecuting authorities and overseas governments on restraint, confiscation and enforcement. Will also practises in general civil litigation and appears regularly in the Tribunal, Tax and Immigration chambers.

Notable cases include: R v Waya (a Supreme Court matter which is the most important case on confiscation in the last decade); R (Seroka) v Redhill Magistrates’ Court (a complex high court challenge to a speeding conviction concerning the admissibility of evidence produced by the LTI 20-20 speed scope); and R v Q (concerning the correct approach to sentencing young persons to detention and training orders).


Called 2006. Attorney General’s Panel for Civil Litigation (List B); Serious Fraud Office Panel of Counsel (List C); Crown Prosecution Service Prosecutor (Grade 2).


Member of the Proceeds of Crime Lawyers Association, South Eastern Circuit.


University of Oxford, BA (Hons), Modern History and Economics.

Lawyer Rankings

London Bar > Proceeds of Crime Act and asset forfeiture

(Leading Juniors) Ranked: Tier 3

William Hays6KBW COLLEGE HILLClever, calm and clear-headed.

6KBW COLLEGE HILL‘s Jonathan Hall QC represented the National Crime Agency (NCA) in a high-profile asset recovery case against Zamira Hajiyeva, the wife of a former chairman of a state-owned Azerbaijani bank who was convicted of embezzlement; the case marks the first time that the NCA issued an unexplained wealth order (UWO) after it was discovered that she had spent £16m in Harrods in a decade. Additionally, David Perry QC led William Hays in R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice, a Supreme Court case which considered whether part-payments made against a confiscation order would reduce the term of imprisonment in proportion to the original amount of the order, or the original amount with interest.