Sarah Clarke KC celebrated her final year as Course Director of the world renowned South Eastern Circuit, Tim Dutton CBE KC Advanced International Advocacy Course, held annually at Keble College, Oxford.

This course is the longest running and most famous advocacy course in the world and for over 30 years its faculty, comprising senior judiciary, Silks and Juniors of the highest calibre from the UK and international jurisdictions, has trained advanced advocates from the England and Wales Bar as well as international advocates from all over the world.

Sarah is the first Woman Course Director of this prestigious course and is proud to have been a part of the teaching faculty and organising team for over 25 years.

The Home Secretary has today laid before Parliament Police (Vetting) Regulations to address the lacuna identified by the Administrative Court in R (Di Maria) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2025] EWHC 275 (Admin).

The Vetting Regulations provide a process for police officers’ vetting clearance to be reviewed and, where appropriate, removed. Officers whose minimum vetting clearance is removed must be dismissed. The Regulations also provide for an internal appeal against the removal of vetting, and for an appeal to the independent Police Appeals Tribunal. The Regulations will come into force on 14 May 2025.

The announcement has generated significant media coverage.

Separately, the Court of Appeal has granted the Commissioner permission to appeal against Lang J’s decision in Di Maria.

John Beggs KC and James Berry KC appeared for the Metropolitan Police Service in Di Maria along with Katherine Hampshire.

John and James advised the Metropolitan Police Service on its representations to the Home Office with respect to the proposed Police (Vetting) Regulations.

Sophia Roper KC and Benjamin Harrison acted for the Official Solicitor in Aberdeenshire Council v SF, EF and Sunderland City Council [2024] EWCOP 10 where they successfully persuaded Poole J to refuse to recognise a Scottish Guardianship Order. The Guardianship Order purported to grant P’s mother the power to authorise the deprivation of P’s liberty for a seven year period without any means of effective review.

The court found that the Scottish Guardianship Order was made in a manner which (i) did not give P an opportunity to be heard in circumstances which (ii) breached of the principles of natural justice, and (iii) breached P’s fundamental human rights under Articles 5, 6 and 8 ECHR.

This case is the only reported example of the Court of Protection exercising its discretion to refuse to recognise a foreign protective measure which was made in another jurisdiction within the UK. Sophia and Ben were instructed by Caroline Hurst of Simpson Millar LLP.

Read more about Sophia’s practice here.

Read more about Ben’s practice here.

Anthony Haycroft represented a Consultant Surgeon at the Crown Court at Wolverhampton facing five allegations of sexual touching involving three patients during clinical assessments for planned surgery. The trial lasted 11 days, with the first two days dealing with a series of legal applications concerning the complainants and the doctor, covering bad character, cross-examination on sexual matters, special measures and live links. The defence called expert evidence as regards the techniques used during the assessments. The jury took about two hours to return unanimous verdicts of not guilty on all five counts, and the doctor was discharged.

Anthony Haycroft was instructed by Ian Sadler, Maisie Heely and Erin Brass of Weightmans London, on behalf of Dr Nicholas of the Medical Protection Society.

Sarah Clarke KC has been reappointed to the SFO’s KC Panel. She has been member of the SFO’s Panel for many years as prior to taking Silk she was a member of the A Panel.  This reflects her reputation as a leader in the field of financial fraud.

The inquest into the death of Sean Fitzgerald commenced today in Warwick Combined Court before Sir John Saunders sitting with a jury.

Mr Fitzgerald died on 4 January 2019 after being shot by a police officer who was involved in an operation to search an address in Coventry. Mr Fitzgerald was believed to be a member of an organised crime group (OCG) that was engaged in offences involving drugs and violence and had access to firearms. Mr Fitzgerald was not armed when he was shot.

The inquest is likely to last for 6 weeks.

Gerry Boyle KC and Stephen Morley act for West Midlands Police, whose firearms team were involved in the search operation.

James Berry KC and Chloe Hill act for West Mercia Police, whose officers were members of the Regional Organised Crime Unit that was conducting the investigation into Mr Fitzgerald and another member of the OCG.

Elliot Gold represented the IOPC at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

The case has attracted significant media coverage.

Sarah Clarke KC and Aaron Rathmell successfully fought off the FCA’s attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court in the long running case of FCA v Seiler and Whitestone.

Sarah successfully represented the main subject (Louise Whitestone) in this significant Upper Tribunal case which has far reaching ramifications for the FCA in terms of the significant criticisms made of its approach to litigation and disclosure ([2023] UKUT 00133 (substantive decision)).

Following this victory in the Upper Tribunal, Sarah was successful in obtaining a substantial costs order for her client on the grounds of the FCA’s unreasonable behaviour during the proceedings [2023] UKUT 00270 (costs decision).  Sarah was then successful in the Court of Appeal against the FCA’s attempts to appeal the costs order (Financial Conduct Authority v Seiler and another [2024] EWCA Civ 852).  The FCA then applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal.

Sarah and Aaron drafted a robust Notice of Objection which resulted in the Supreme Court refusing leave on the ground that the FCA had raised no arguable point of law.  This brings to an end this long running litigation which has had and continues to have, seismic ramifications on the FCA’s approach to Upper Tribunal litigation.

We are delighted to announce that George Thomas KC, Rachel Spearing KC and James Berry KC were appointed to silk on Monday, the 24th of March 2025, in Westminster Palace. George, Rachel and James were accompanied at the ceremony by clerks Lee Johnson, Tom O’Connor and Jennifer Pooler.

Congratulations to George, Rachel and James, and many thanks to all those who participated in the application process as referees. Since 2016 our silk team has increased from 9 to 29 (including 9 women) and we have recruited 32 new tenants, enabling us to extend and diversify the service we provide to our clients

Sarah Clarke KC chaired the judging panel for the final of the Sir Mota Singh Mooting Competition on 28 March 2025.  This prestigious event is organised by the Sikhs in Law Association in honour of Sir Mota Singh the first Sikh judge in England and Wales.  He broke barriers and paved the way for countless judges from diverse backgrounds.  As part of his great legacy, this moot’s purpose is to promote diversity and inclusion by enabling law students from diverse backgrounds to shine and to gain invaluable advocacy experience and by raising awareness of Sikhism and issues affecting the Sikh community.

To celebrate International Womens’ Day, the panel consisted of five female judges and Sarah was honoured to share the judging panel with HHJ Usha Karu, HHJ Anupama Thompson, Narita Bahra KC and Maryam Syed KC.

Anthony Haycroft successfully defended a dentist before a Dental Professionals Hearing Committee in March 2025 in a two week Fitness to Practise hearing. No preliminary legal argument was necessary as Counsel agreed all relevant redactions to the bundle in advance of the hearing. The dentist was accused of 33 charges with up to 5 sub-charges per charge covering dishonest NHS claims for payment, inadequate treatment planning, diagnostic assessments, radiographic practice, poor clinical treatment and inadequate record keeping. The defence case was that there were inadequate record keeping but there were a substantial number of records missing. This was proven and after a week of discussion between the parties and experts the GDC withdrew all charges save those relating to record keeping (12). The parties then also agreed what evidence should go before the Committee and what further redactions should be made.

The defence argued unsuccessfully that the failings, individually all only below standard, should not be aggregated together to make “serious misconduct” and the cases of Schodlok v GMC [2015] EWCA Civ 769 and Ahmedsowida v GMC [2021] EWHC 3466, were argued and both experts questioned on the issue.

In any event no current impairment was found as the Committee accepted that all issues were fully remediated and full insight shown as demonstrated by an extensive bundle and oral evidence.

Anthony Haycroft was instructed by Lee Biddle and Nicola Blower of Clyde & Co, themselves instructed by Thomas McCaffrey of Dental Protection. Rina Hill of 23 Essex Street presented the case for the GDC.

Elliot Gold appeared successfully against leading and junior counsel in persuading a court, on appeal, that CPR 11 has no application where the court has no jurisdiction to hear a claim at all, as opposed to where it has jurisdiction contingent on the agreement of the parties to submit to it.

The claimant issued a discrimination claim in the county court against a business that refused his application to enrol on a psychotherapy course. The defendant filed a defence before applying to strike-out the claim on the basis that only the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. At first instance, the court struck-out the claim. On appeal, the claimant said that the defendant had waived the issue of jurisdiction by failing to make an application under CPR 11 to dispute it, and relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 1203.

In a detailed judgment on this point, the court held that CPR 11 did not apply where the court had a total want of jurisdiction:

               29. I agree with Mr Gold’s analysis. The historical background to this rule is important in my assessment. It is clear that the Rule arose from an amalgam of issues relating to forum non conveniens and RSC Order 12.8. The focus was on irregularities that would mean a defect of jurisdiction could be waived. Whilst Shah was obiter it was cited and approved in R (Williams). I accept that Hoddinott was not cited but that does not take away from what in my view is the correct approach. It cannot be that a party can waive the issue of jurisdiction where the County Court has no such jurisdiction. This court is an inferior court. Parliament has conferred jurisdiction on the County Court in respect of some but not all parts of the Equality Act. The defendant cannot be said to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court if the court has no such jurisdiction at all. The procedural rules of CPR 11 cannot give the claimant a jurisdiction that does not as a matter of law exist. If as a matter of statute, this court cannot hear a claim, I do not understand CPR 11 to be conferring jurisdiction on the parties. CPR 11 is addressing situations where there are procedural matters that could mean the court in the particular circumstances has no jurisdiction as the claimant has failed to act in a certain manner; however, aside from the procedural matters, the court has jurisdiction. I do not read Hoddinott as purporting to give the court jurisdiction to hear a cause of action that the court would not otherwise have as a matter of statute. If the defendant was within Part 5 of the Act, then there was no jurisdiction in the County Court to hear the claim. The claim must fail as the defendant was not within Part 3 or 6.

               30. I am satisfied that Mr Gold’s analysis is correct. The procedural rules take second place to statute. If the court as an inferior court of record is not entitled to hear a cause of action as it does not fall within its remit, the defendant cannot submit to the jurisdiction of the court. The whole claim is outwith the court. Where there is a procedural issue which means that, if established, the court has no jurisdiction to consider the claim, that is very different to situations where there is no underlying jurisdiction. For these reasons the DJ reached the correct decision. This is a rolled-up hearing. I give permission to appeal but dismiss the appeal on this ground.

The judgment can be downloaded here.

Judgment was handed down on 11 February 2025 by the Administrative Court in the case of R (Di Maria) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Ors.

The Claimant is a Police Sergeant whose vetting was reviewed and withdrawn following concerns about his behaviour that had not resulted in any misconduct findings against him. He was referred to ‘gross incompetence’ proceedings under the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 on the basis that without vetting clearance he was unable to perform his role as a police officer. Those proceedings were paused pending the Claimant’s claim for judicial review.

The Claimant’s case was considered as part of Metropolitan Police’s Operations Onyx and Assure which were designed to review the position of officers who have faced adverse information (particularly relating to sexual offending and domestic violence) and to improve compliance with national vetting standards, in response to the Baroness Casey, Dame Elish Angiolini and His Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary’s highly critical reports.

The Claimant brought what was described as a test case challenging the use of ‘conduct’ concerns in reviews of police vetting and the dismissal of officers for loss of vetting under the Performance Regulations. He argued that the College of Policing’s Vetting Code of Practice and APP Vetting, which stated that this was permissible, were unlawful.

Allowing the claim, Lang J found that:

• The Commissioner had the power to impose a minimum vetting requirement for police officers pursuant to his powers of direction and control, which the Claimant had disputed.
• The Commissioner did not have the power to dismiss a police officer for lack of vetting clearance; this was not provided for in any of statutory bases upon which a police officer could be dismissed.
• A police officer may not be found “grossly incompetent” or otherwise dismissed pursuant to the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 consequent upon the withdrawal of their vetting clearance. The Commissioner had submitted (and the College of Policing’s publications state) that this provided a statutory basis upon which a police officer could be dismissed for lack of vetting clearance.
• Where a police officer has been investigated pursuant to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and found to have “no case to answer” a subsequent vetting review may not find that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the same conduct occurred, save in exceptional circumstances.
• The Claimant’s Article 6 rights were breached by the failure to consider and determine whether he should be afforded the opportunity to call witnesses or cross-examine complainants, and by not giving him the opportunity to be legally represented,  in a vetting review process where the outcome was the removal of his minimum vetting clearance which makes it very likely that he will be dismissed and included in the Police Barred List.

The Judge did not go on to consider the Claimant’s rationality challenge to the decision to withdraw his vetting clearance.

The Commissioner will be seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

It is anticipated that the Home Secretary will create Regulations to allow for the dismissal of officers who cannot maintain minimum vetting clearance.

The case has attracted significant media interest.

John Beggs KC, James Berry and Katherine Hampshire acted for the Commissioner.

Gerry Boyle KC and Aaron Rathmell acted for the College of Policing.