Dr. Anthony Richardson

Year of Call: 2001
Dr. Richardson's diverse and expansive legal knowledge and academic achievements have equipped him to function effectively and independently in many areas of legal practice. I have found him to be a very competent barrister. His ability to manage highly sensitive and confidential matters, coupled with his excellent interpersonal skills made him a valuable member of the legal team of the Attorney-General's Chambers.

– 2024, The Hon. Kathy Lynn Simmons, Attorney General of Bermuda

Throughout our professional relationship Dr. Richardson has struck a cordial but businesslike tone in his dealings with the Customs Policy Unit and with Customs consultants and other clients within government and the private sector. His deportment is composed and serious and he is at all times polite and respectful in his manner.

– 2021, J. Richard Amos, H.M. Customs, Bermuda

Mr. Richardson's expert knowledge and experience in international legal affairs was a great asset to us, in transposing of the UK maritime legislation, and the provisions of international maritime conventions into Bermuda merchant shipping laws, for implementation on Bermuda registered ships. I found Mr. Richardson a hardworking, dedicated and reliable professional who is always willing to assist others in finding satisfactory solutions to difficult legislation problems in a pragmatic manner.

– 2018, Captain Pat Nawaratne, Bermuda Shipping and Maritime Authority

Mr. Richardson performed the tasks assigned to him with professionalism, dedication and efficiency. He has displayed through his work and interaction with colleagues within CTED his ability to understand complex international issues and produce high-quality, professional content, as well as be a strong and reliable team member. As an extremely capable young professional, he has my strong recommendation.

– 2014, Jean-Paul Laborde, Executive Director of the UN Counter Terrorism Committee

Dr. Anthony Richardson is a very accomplished, tenacious, self-motivated, disciplined, hardworking and effective Barrister. These attributes have made Anthony a highly sought-after Barrister. His primary areas of practice are commercial law, criminal law, public law, public international law, and regulatory matters.

Anthony has also practised law in Bermuda cumulatively for more than 20 years as a general practice attorney, an in-house counsel for two international financial institutions, and a senior parliamentary counsel and senior legal advisor to the Governor and Government of Bermuda (on occasion working directly in partnership with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, RCMP, Scotland Yard, and the Royal Navy/ US Coast Guard while engaged in the arrest of suspect vessels at sea). Anthony was directly involved in the creation of Bermudaʼs Financial Intelligence Agency in 2007. He also has several yearsʼ experience on the judicial bench as a provisional judge and coroner in Bermuda and is a former Clerk and Law Researcher to two of Bermuda’s Chief Justices.

Anthony also provides domestic and international technical assistance (specific to his practice areas), in the form of policy development and the drafting of legislation, to NGO’s and to the governments of small countries and small states.

Civil Law

In civil law, he maintains a commercial law practice involving aviation law, banking law, company law, construction law, human rights, insurance and reinsurance law, proceeds of crime and anti-terrorist financing law, public law, shipping law, tax law, telecommunications law and trade union law. Anthony is also an accredited civil and commercial mediator.

Colonial Law

In colonial laws, he is an expert in the operation of UK colonial law operation within Bermuda and the Caribbean region and provides legal advice (including tactical legal advice) on the same.

Criminal Law

In criminal law Anthony maintains a predominantly criminal defence practice, specialising in general criminal law matters and financial crime matters.

International Law

In public international law (crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes) he maintains a human rights law practice but is also developing a strong international sanctions practice (representing nation states and states or persons affected by the imposition of sanctions).

Anthony’s International Technical Assistance Regions are set out below:

Bermuda Region

Caribbean Region
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Jamaica: Including Death Row Appeals
Puerto Rico (US Territory)
Turks & Caicos Islands

North American Region
California: Death Row (Appeals)
New York: Miscarriages of Justice (Appeals)
Texas: Death Row (Appeals)
United Nations HQ, New York City

Middle East Region

Tax Law
In tax law, Anthony is developing a strong international tax law practice.

Notable Cases

  • R v KB, 2024

    Dr. Anthony Richardson secured, on 21st May 2024, unanimous acquittals for a defendant charged with the offences of: rape of a female, assault of a female, sexual assault of a female, and engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child. This was after a 5-day trial at the Stafford Crown Court. Dr. Richardson used the evidence of the Crown’s own witnesses to undermine their own credibility. He also relied on an unused medical report, which did not support the Crown’s case, to successfully challenge the rape and sexual assault allegations. The Defendant had no previous convictions for like offences.

    The events giving rise to the trial occurred between 2013 and 2018.

  • R v MM, 2024

    Dr. Anthony Richardson secured, on 5th February 2024, a unanimous acquittal for a defendant charged with the single offence of robbery. This was after a 6-day trial at the Old Bailey (Aldersgate). It was alleged that the Defendant broke into the office of a gentlemen’s club, attacked and tied a staff member to an office chair, and made off with a sum of money.

    Dr. Richardson successfully attacked and undermined the methodology used for compiling the Crown’s Expert DNA evidence. Dr. Richardson, by way of three direct questions, gave the Crown’s DNA Expert three opportunities to defend his research but he refused. Dr. Richardson also highlighted the fact that there was unexplored DNA evidence, from an unknown person, found on the staff member’s arm. For unknown reasons, prior to the Defendant being charged, the Crown’s DNA Expert failed to try and determine the identity of the unknown person’s DNA.

    The trial concerned primarily: ID evidence, cell-tower evidence, financial/ bank transaction evidence and DNA evidence. The events giving rise to the trial occurred in 2019.

  • R v JD and Another, 2023/2024

    Instructed in a matter where the Defendant, along with his co-defendant, has been charged with three counts of defrauding a charity of large sums of money. The matter requires the assessment of the law of charities, trust agreements, and several expert forensic reports, bank statements and tax statements.

  • R v RM, 2023

    Secured three unanimous acquittals for a defendant charged with three Joint Enterprise offences: Racially Aggravated Fear or Provocation of Violence, Robbery, and Attempted Theft. This was after a 7-day trial at Aylesbury Crown Court. Joint Enterprise charges are extremely difficult to disprove and, for this reason, acquittals are rare. The Defendant and his three Co-Defendants were jointly charged with committing the offences, against a taxi driver, after leaving a nightclub in the early morning hours of April of 2019. The Crown’s case relied on CCTV and medical evidence which required detailed analysis.

    Instructed by Solicitor Riccardo Pagano of Walker Law Ltd. Solicitors.

  • R v YJ, 2023

    Anthony secured two unanimous verdicts for a defendant charged with one count of burglary and one count of theft, following a 3-day trial at the Old Bailey Crown Court.

  • R v DG, 2023

    Anthony secured two unanimous verdicts for a defendant charged with one count of assault occasioning bodily harm with intent and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, following a 4-day trial at the Old Bailey Crown Court.

  • R v ME, 2022

    Instructed in a matter where the Defendant has been charged with possession of cocaine with intent to supply and possession of diamorphine with intention to supply.

  • R v WF, 2022

    Instructed in a matter where the Defendant has been charged with two counts of modern slavery and two counts of possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply.

  • R v RD, 2020

    Dr Richardson was counsel for the defendant who entered a plea of guilty to a charge of criminal damage (broken window and frame valued at 640.00 pounds).

    The Crown asserted that this guilty plea caused the defendant to be in breach of a previous Suspended Sentence Order and now liable for a term of imprisonment. Dr Richardson countered this assertion by inviting the court to look at the actual date each matter came before the courts and argued that there was no such breach as the suspended sentence matter was moved in front of the current criminal damage matter by the Crown. In other words, the Defendant cannot be punished because the Crown decided to prosecute itʼs matters, related to the same defendant, out of sequence. The court accepted his arguments and refused to activate the suspended sentence matter. The court thanked Dr Richardson for preventing a miscarriage of justice.

  • R v S, 2006

    Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant who was charged with being in possession of Class B drugs. The defendant’s motor car, while parked in a bowling alley parking lot, was found to have with it small packets of Class B drugs shoved inside the small, unlocked door cover for the petrol tank. As the defendantʼs motor car was parked in a public place, a bowling alley where patrons of the bowling alley freely walked between the parked motor cars (the parking lot had no walls, fencing or barriers restricting access), Dr Richardson successfully argued that anyone could have placed the Class B drugs inside the unlocked door cover for the petrol tank and, this being the case, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of the offences charged. The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

  • R v GL, 2005

    Dr Richardson was Junior Counsel for the defendant, over a period of approximately four weeks, where the defendant was charged with the offence of murder.

    The defendant caused the death of his ex-girlfriend by stabbing her over twenty times with a butcher knife, in broad daylight at a petrol station, in front of several witnesses. The defence put forward was one of not guilty by reason of insanity, relying on expert evidence

  • R v HE and Ors, 2005

    Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant who was charged with, along with others, unlawful wounding and being in possession of an offensive weapon (a machete). At first instance before the Magistrates Court, the presiding Magistrate declared that the Crown had failed to provide the necessary paperwork to allow the matter to be submitted to the Crown Court for trial and, in consequence, no longer had jurisdiction to detain the defendant and his co-defendants. Still, the Magistrate refused to Order the Defendant’s release or to release him under Bail conditions. In 2005 Bermuda did not have statutory law or case law that would allow for the detention of a defendant under these circumstances. Dr Richardson determined this to be an obvious lacuna in the law/that the defendant was being unlawfully detained. On the instruction of the defendant, Dr Richardson commenced an immediate habeas corpus application in the High Court for his immediate release. After several hours of legal argument by me, relying simultaneously on constitutional law and criminal law and procedure, the Court ruled in favour of the defendant and ordered his immediate release (the Crown later withdrew the unlawful wounding and possession of an offensive weapon charges during the arraignment session of the Court).

  • R/Bermuda Regiment v B (A Private), 2005

    Courts Martial/Abuse of Process.

    Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant Private, in relation to a string of offences charged against him which included assaulting an Officer. After successfully obtaining a conviction against the Private for a previous matter, the Bermuda Regiment (Bermudaʼs local Defence Force at the time was a mostly conscripted Force) sought in error to bring a duplicate prosecution of the Private some three plus years after the purported offences were said to have occurred. He argued that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The court found in favour of the defendant Private and thanked Dr Richardson for spotting the error and for preventing a miscarriage of justice.

  • Medical Service Provider, 2023

    Instructed by a Medical Service Provider in Bermuda, by way of Direct Access, to draft and advise on common law employment and service provider contracts involving million-dollar intellectual property subject matters.

  • M.P & CG (A Bank), 2006

    Dr Richardson was Counsel for the claimant property developer and buyer, who alleged that the defendant Bank was negligent by failing to consider his bid for a property, valued over one million Bermuda Dollars/ US Dollars, due to an oversight by employees of the Bank. The defendant Bank sought to strike out the claimant’s claim by arguing that this was a case where the legal doctrine of ‘battle of the forms’ applied.

    In response, he argued that the claimant needed first to be in the ‘battle’ in order for this legal doctrine to have effect. Rejecting Dr Richardson’s arguments, the High Court found in favour of the defendant Bank. On appeal the Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of the Bank and accepted Dr Richardsonʼs arguments. This matter was settled out of court between the parties immediately after the appeal hearing.

  • LMWS (A Firm) v MP1, MP2, MP3 (the Defendants), 2006

    Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant companies who sought to stop the efforts of the claimants to have them declared insolvent and, as a result, wound up. The claimant alleged that the defendants owed them over $250,000.00 Bermuda Dollars/ US Dollars in unpaid service fees and accrued interest. The claimant also sought to enforce the penal notice attached to a Chambers Summons against one of the directors for failing to attend a Chambers Hearing in relation to the same matter. By methodically and successfully attacking the faulty financial statements, invoices, timesheets, and attendance notes, and supporting affidavits submitted by the claimant, he demonstrated that there was ‘No Case’ to answer by the defendants. The Court found in favour of the defendants. The Court also refused to enforce the penal provision against the director as the method of service was determined to be defective.

  • R v V (A ship), 2002

    Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant Cruise-Ship being charged with oil pollution while berthed at the City of Hamilton pier. At the time of the alleged offence the Cruise-Ship was berthed, along with other ships and marine craft, at the City of Hamilton pier. Although an oily substance was clearly visible on sides of all the ships and marine craft, Marine Police determined that the Cruise-Ship was responsible for the alleged oil spill. At trial, no evidence was put forward by the Crown specifically linking the Cruise-Ship to the oil spill other than there being an oily substance on the Cruise-Shipʼs sides. Dr Richardson put forward a ‘No Case’ submission arguing that the Crown failed to provide the necessary fingerprints from the Cruise Ship, such as test sample results from fuel carried by the ship/ its bunkers, specifically linking it to the oil spill. The court found there was ‘No Case’ to answer and acquitted the Cruise-Ship.


Bermuda Bar Association
Bar of England & Wales
Grayʼs Inn
New York City Bar Association (Non-Practicing)
Administrative Law Bar Association
British Insurance Law Association
Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice
Chancery Bar Association (England & Wales)
Commercial Bar Association (England & Wales)
Commonwealth Lawyers Association
Criminal Bar Association
Human Rights Lawyers Association
Revenue Bar Association (Tax Law)
The Society of Mediators
Grayʼs Inn: Law Mentor
Delta Epsilon Sigma Honors Society (USA)

Academic & Professional Awards

2023 Visiting Law Lecturer/Visiting Research Fellow & Scholar, Brunel University Law School
Harvard University: Certificate in Higher Education (Teaching Accreditation) w/ International Law Focus [First Class]
University of London: Master of Philosophy/ Doctor of Law and Philosophy (Dual Degree)
University of London: Master of Law Degree
BPP Law School: Bar Vocational Course Diploma in Law
BPP Law School: Post Graduate Diploma in Law
University of Wales Cardiff: Bachelor of Laws (Hons) Degree
University of Victoria (Canada): Bachelor of Arts in History and Political Science Degree