Top tax barrister Robert Venables KC, 78, of Old Square Tax Chambers is currently facing three counts of dishonestly cheating the public revenue in criminal proceedings before a jury at Southwark Crown Court.
Our previous reporting of this case:
✍️ Jan 2025: Barrister accused of falsifying tax returns – the indictment revealed
✍️ May 2026: Trial date set for barrister accused of falsifying tax returns
✍️ May 2026: Barrister’s barrister tells jury: “There is nothing legally wrong with avoiding tax and exploiting loopholes”
✍️ May 2026: Wise gardener gives evidence in KC Tax Cheat case
✍️ June 2026: Venables’ Bookkeeper Gives Evidence in KC Tax Cheat Case
Please buy us a coffee to support crowd-funded journalism
Reporting by freelance journalist Daniel Cloake
Robert Venables (left) with barrister Stuart Biggs KC outside Southwark Crown Court
On Friday the court heard evidence from HMRC’s officer in charge of the case Ms Varsha Heerasing.
Julian Christopher KC, asking about 2 minutes’ of questions on behalf of the prosecution, confirmed with her that she had worked on the case from January 2020 through to October of the same year, before resuming the role in March 2023.
The remainder of the questions were asked by Stuart Biggs KC, appearing on behalf of the defendant.
Ms Heerasing was asked to look at a document produced by her in a matter of days of having started her first stint on the case entitled “Operation Lighter review findings“. This was a “review of the material made available to myself and others” and had been produced “in a limited time frame“.
The purpose of the document was to help inform a decision as to whether a criminal investigation should be launched, the jury were told.
In the executive summary, part of which was read out, we were told that “in HMRC’s view the partnership does not exist” and that “given Robert Venables’ area of work he must know, and have always known, that the partnership does not exist“.
The partnership in question – the RVQC Partnership – had been explained to the jury in the prosecution opening.
They had been told that Mr Venables KC is a member of a chambers in Lincoln’s Inn, London but “unbeknownst to his clients, or his clerks, Robert Venables dealt with HMRC on the basis that his income came from a partnership“.
In the period of time covered by the indictment there were just two partners in this
partnership: Robert Venables, and a company of which his brother, Michael Venables, was a director, called Breamgale Ltd.
Despite the view of HMRC that the partnership did not exist, Mr Biggs put it to Ms Heerasing that the existence of the partnership had been disclosed to HM Customs and Excise (which merged with the Inland Revenue in 2005 to form HMRC) as early as 1987.
The court was shown a letter, sent by Venables, dated 6 April 1987. It said variously: “I am a barrister currently registered for VAT purposes” adding that in the future “I shall make taxable supplies as a barrister as a member of a partnership…“.
The letter said that the existence of the partnership would not be revealed to his clients or to staff.
Another letter was shown, this one dated November 2006. In it we were told Venables had explained to HMRC how he had purchased his residential home in July 2004, and that the “bar partnership” had acquired a 7.5% interest in the property as it housed a law library, and was used for legal work.
Biggs put to the witness that Venables was “continuing to disclose” that there was a partnership.
“Yes, the word partnership is there” confirmed Heerasing.
Biggs continued: “I suggest to you that the existence of the bar partnership was being made clear to the new organisation [ie HMRC] since at least November 2006.“
All this was pertinent as it formed one of the so-called Red Risks identified in Heerasing’s review document. She had set out a traffic light system of red, amber and green “to grade the level of risks” we were told.
The risk that it was “not inconceivable that Robert Venables would argue HMRC has been on notice since 1987 that his practice is not to disclose his partnership to third parties” was set out.
We were told the “second part” of that risk was that Mr Venables had a “significant footprint across HMRC, given his involvement in tax schemes and appearing in the tribunal“.
HMRC: Venables is our ‘favourite barrister‘
In one instance we were told that a comment made by a member of HMRC staff had caused concern as more material could come to light which could “undermine the prosecution or help the defence“.
Biggs put it to Heerasing that: “You were concerned that it could seem unprofessional if employees had referred to [Venables] sarcastically as their ‘favourite barrister‘”, as had already been discovered.
Another red risk identified in Heerasing’s report was that of ‘staleness’, and the conflict that could occur between ongoing civil and criminal proceedings.
It was explained that the case of ‘Tooth’ meant that there had to be “absolutely clear deliberate behaviour on behalf of the taxpayer” for HMRC to be able to go back up to 20 years, rather than just 6 years.
Heerasing replied that “staleness wasn’t my area of expertise, and [the Tooth case] was under appeal at the time“.
Biggs said it had also been established in her report that “around 2009 the London Barristers’ Unit of HMRC had started looking at Robert Venables’s tax affairs“.
“Sorry, I don’t have knowledge of what they did” replied Heerasing.
Biggs added it was “absolutely clear that by 2009 the specialist barristers unit fully understands he’s operating through a partnership” and “that he must be getting more money [than was declared on his tax returns] … otherwise he wouldn’t be able to pay his mortgage.“
Biggs took Heerasing through a number of documents which, he said, showed that HMRC could have worked it out for themselves where the money was coming from.
Biggs: “The one thing [HMRC] have available are these returns showing the trusts?“
Heerasing: “If such returns had been submitted then these would be on their system.”
Biggs: “So, if the concern is in 2009/2010 how is it Mr Venables is living a half million pound lifestyle, on £50k income there is an answer there isn’t there?“
Heerasing: “No there isn’t, it doesn’t show who received the 500k as such“.
A letter was shown from Mr Venables, responding to HMRC, which had asked him a series of questions.
The suggestion that Venables should provide a list of all property owned over the past 10 years, and details of every trust of which he was a beneficiary, among other things, was “burdensome” and a “fishing exercise“. HMRC was “out to harass” him and “the enquiries were not made bona fide” he said, although some detail was given.
In response to this letter we were told HMRC wrote to Venables on 29 April 2015 saying their investigation had closed.
At that point the “criminal referral” had been “rejected already“.
A subsequent investigation opened in 2017/2018 by a Mr Atkinson of HMRC, and in 2019/2020 contact was made with Venables’ personal chef and his gardener.
[You can read our coverage of the evidence of Mr Wise, the gardener, here]
It was put to the witness that Mr Atkinson had two roles: the first was to make assessments in a civil capacity, i.e. how much tax, if any, should be paid back; and the second was to consider whether the matter should be referred to the criminal team.
Heerasing replied “Yes, if the circumstances are right.“
It was said throughout 2018 “there’s a back and forth exchange” between Venables and Atkinson, in which “Venables takes exception at being accused of tax fraud“.
At 13:30 the court adjourned for the week. Mr Justice Calver informed the 12 members of the public ultimately deciding issues of fact:
“Members of the Jury, we’ll break now and we will resume on Monday at 10am. It’s particularly important you don’t discuss the case with anyone or look up anything on the internet to do with the case and I hope you have a very good weekend, and I’ll see you on Monday“.
Ms Varsha Heerasing is expected to continuing giving evidence.
The trial continues.
At this hearing the CPS were represented by Julian Christopher KC. Mr Venables was represented by Stuart Biggs KC.
The mouseinthecourt attended Southwark Crown Court on Friday 5th June 2026.
The work on this site is protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved.
You may print off one copy, and may download extracts, of any page(s) from our site for your personal use and you may draw the attention of others within your organisation to content posted on our site.
You must not modify the paper or digital copies of any materials you have printed off or downloaded in any way, and you must not use any illustrations, photographs, video or audio sequences or any graphics separately from any accompanying text.
Our status (and that of any identified contributors) as the authors of content on our site must always be acknowledged.
You must not use any part of the content on our site for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence to do so from us or our licensors.
Mouse in the Court 