Frances McClenaghan has been appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel, commencing in September 2022.

Frances has a depth and breadth of expertise in medical and police matters. She acts in a range of connected proceedings: inquests, judicial review hearings and before police misconduct panels. Frances is assiduous and practical. She can be relied upon to provide clear, timely advice. She is an effective advocate who enjoys working collaboratively with clients.

Click here to read more about Frances’ practice.

Hannah Hinton completes the ‘25 for 25’ Challenge, having successfully undertaken a significant number of hours of pro bono work.

Hannah has a busy and growing practice across all areas of Chambers’ work, including civil fraud, financial crime, extradition (overseas and EU) and Inquests, inquiries, and investigation law. Hannah is distinguished for her hard work and enthusiastic approach as well as, her unwavering support and client care.

Read more about her practice here.

The Administrative Court  has dismissed the claim brought by the Metropolitan Police (“MPS”) against the decision of the Police Appeals Tribunal (“PAT”), which chose to reinstate Superintendent Robyn Williams in her role in the MPS, and impose a final written warning against her as a result of her criminal conviction. The MPS had argued that Supt. Williams should be dismissed.

Mrs Justice Heather Williams dealt with the MPS’ arguments that the PAT failed to follow the correct approach in disciplinary proceedings against Supt. Williams, and that too much weight was given to mitigating factors in her favour. She found that the PAT was entitled to conclude that this was an ‘exceptional case’ and dismissal would not have been ‘a necessary and proportionate sanction’, and that there was no legal basis to overturn the PAT’s decision.

Gerry Boyle QC appeared on behalf of Supt. Robyn Williams and was instructed by Nick Wrightson, Nick De Mulder, Rosie Gibson and Rory O’Donovan all of Kingsley Napley.

Read more about R (Commissioner of the Met Police) v PAT here.

After 12 weeks before the Senior Coroner for Dorset, the jury returned their findings in the widely reported Gaia Pope-Sutherland Inquest. Sarah Clarke QC acted as counsel to the Senior Coroner, Paul Spencer represented the 2 Trusts (Acute and Psychiatric), Sarah Simcock, the National Police Air Service, Mark Ley-Morgan, two serving or former serving Dorset police officers, and Alan Jenkins acted for Dorset Council and South Western Ambulance Service.

This podcast complements the textbook, featuring interviews by the editors with different authors to discuss and explore further the various topics covered by the book.

For a preview with hosts Christopher Johnston QC and Sophia Roper QC, please click here.

To receive notifications when a new episode is released, please click here.

To find out more about the textbook, please see here.

The Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which the Article 2 enhanced investigative duty arises “automatically” and the factors indicating that there is an arguable breach of an operational duty.

Frances is a knowledgeable and approachable practitioner with expertise in a range of police law matters. She is regularly instructed by a number of forces from across the country. To read more about her practice, please click here.

Matthew Holdcroft successfully defended the Lancashire Constabulary against allegations of race and sex discrimination.

The case involved a white, male officer that had been subject to a misconduct investigation and subsequently dismissed for misconduct (press coverage of the misconduct hearing is available here). The Claimant, submitted that the investigation had discriminated against him and that a female BAME officer should have also been subject to an investigation at the same time, and they should have appeared at a joint hearing together.

The Employment Tribunal agreed with Matthew that there had not been any less favourable treatment. They also agreed that the Respondent’s treatment of the Claimant was entirely attributable to the allegation that had been made against him.

As a result the claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Serjeants’ Inn is delighted to announce the following 12 nominations at The Legal 500 UK Bar Awards 2022.

• Set of the Year
• Clinical Negligence Set of the Year
• Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Law Set of the Year
• Public Law Set of the Year
• John Beggs QC for Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Law Silk of the Year
• Christopher Johnston QC for Clinical Negligence Silk of the Year
• Sarah Clarke QC for Financial Services and Insurance Silk of the Year
• Alan Jenkins for Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Junior of the Year
• Heidi Knight for Clinical Negligence Junior of the Year
• James Berry for Public Law Junior of the Year
• Catherine Calder for Chambers CEO of the Year
• Marketing and Front of House Team of the Year

Many thanks to all our clients for taking the time to participate in the research and good luck to all the different chambers and counsel nominated!

Please see the full The Legal 500 UK Bar Awards 2022 shortlist here.

Spencer J (Martin) has today handed down judgment in HD & Ors v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police [2022] EWHC 1661 (QB) in which the Claimants alleged that their sexual abuse could have been prevented had the police properly investigated a report relating to the possession of indecent images of children. The Court has held that no duty of care was owed in negligence, in accordance with established principles, and nor was any duty owed pursuant to Article 3 ECHR.  The judgment is an important re-statement of the scope of the obligations owed by the police to prospective victims of crime.

Read the judgment here.

Anthony Haycroft successfully defended a GP before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal in a 10 day listed case of alleged digital and metal speculum instrument intimate examination in the presence of her boyfriend on a single occasion. It was further alleged the examination was consented to by deception by giving the patient a false reason to carry it out and so there was not only an allegation of sexual motivation but one of dishonesty. The doctor denied conducting any form of intimate examination whatsoever, only an abdominal one. The complainant and her boyfriend gave evidence as did the doctor. It was agreed that an intimate examination in the circumstances of her presenting complaint was not clinically indicated and so, if conducted sexual motivation and dishonesty were likely to follow.

The MPT noted various inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and her boyfriend as highlighted by the defence and which caused them “real concern” and “troubled” them. The Tribunal also noted the defence evidence that the practice had no metal speculums available and their use in a GP setting was not known by the GMC expert “for some years.”

On the other hand the Tribunal noted the GMC expert agreed with the defence that “given the presentation, history and examinations conducted the noted actions of [the doctor] were reasonable as was his management plan and he agreed that the clinical note was “clear, coherent and reasonable…”

In addition they stated:
“That note is consistent with the account that [the doctor] gave to the Tribunal concerning what had occurred during the consultation.”

The Tribunal found every allegation not proven, no misconduct was found and the doctor’s fitness to practise was, accordingly, found not to be impaired.

Anthony Haycroft was instructed by Tracy Sell-Peters and Rebecca Dymott of DWF Law LLP, London.