We are pleased to announce that Hannah Hinton has been appointed as an Independent Safeguarding Panel Member for UK Athletics.

In late 2019, concern was raised to UK Athletics (UKA), UK Sport (UKS) and in the media about UKA’s existing safeguarding practices. On 19 December 2019, UKA and the Home Country Athletics Federations (HCAFs) publicly announced a programme of change in respect of its welfare and safeguarding provision, this included creating an Independent Safeguarding Panel.

Hannah’s practice encompasses complex extradition work, inquests, public law, police law, professional discipline and financial crime. She also assists clients in cases concerning the Mental Health Act, Mental Capacity Act, the Education Act and the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations. Click here to read more about Hannah’s practice.

Please see here for the whole UKA Independent Safeguarding report August 2021.

The former Mayor Liverpool, Joe Anderson, and his son brought judicial review claims challenging their arrests and the searches of their premises in December 2020 as part of a major investigation by Merseyside Police into corruption in Liverpool City Council.

John de Bono QC and James Berry were instructed by Chief Constable of Merseyside Police to defend the claims.

The Claimants were both refused permission by Julian Knowles J.

On 29 July 2021 the cases came before Dove J for renewed permission hearings.

James Berry represented the Chief Constable. Both of the Claimants were represented by Queen’s Counsel. Dove J refused permission in both cases.

Click here to read the press coverage from the BBC.

Eloise Power appeared before Collins Rice J on behalf of the successful Respondent in Dad v General Dental Council [2021] EWHC 1376 (QB). Anthony Metzer QC and Heather Beckett appeared for the Appellant. The case set out some important principles governing the interpretation of regulatory documents.

The facts of the case concerned a dentist who had been erased from the Dentists’ Register after he had failed to declare a fraud investigation on an application form. The Appellant argued that there was no duty to declare the investigation in the first place and relied upon principles from the case law on statutory interpretation. The Court found that the difference between a statute and a regulatory application form was “one of kind, not degree”.

Crucially, the Court observed that there was “no absolute, abstract ‘ordinary and natural’ meaning of any piece of language taken in isolation. Context matters…” and “Relevance has to be considered on a case by case basis”.  In context, the Appellant was under a duty to declare the fraud investigation.

Please see the judgment here.

Congratulations to John de Bono QC (Clinical Negligence Silk of the Year), Neil Davy (Clinical Negligence Junior of the Year) and Elliot Gold (Professional Discipline Junior of the Year) for their individual nominations. We are also delighted to be shortlisted for Set of the Year in Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law and for Set of the Year in Clinical Negligence.

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 Chambers UK Bar Awards 2021 shortlist here.