Mark Harries QC’s representation of a paramedic accused of misconduct and incompetence following the death of an inmate at one of Her Majesty’s Prisons has concluded successfully after his submissions persuaded an HCPC Conduct and Competence Panel to dismiss the entire case at the conclusion of the regulator’s evidence.

The paramedic working within the prison was alleged to have failed to ensure the inmate was taken to hospital after a series of examinations charting a deterioration of his presenting complaint; instead, the paramedic administered liquid morphine prescribed for a different prisoner and was alleged to have failed to conduct proper observations, an appropriate handover to other staff and to keep adequate records of his clinical decision pathways, which led to the death of the inmate 3 hours later.

Mark’s submission of no case to answer led to the Panel dismissing the more serious clinical allegations for lack of evidence and, in respect of the few remaining admitted allegations, concluding that statutory grounds of misconduct and lack of competence, and therefore also fitness to practise impairment, could not realistically be made out.

As a consequence, the HCPC’s case was dismissed in its entirety and the paramedic’s unblemished registration preserved.

Mark was instructed by James Stewart of Brabners LLP, Manchester.

Sarah Clarke QC is speaking at the Eversheds Sutherland and Law Commission Panel webinar – Should corporate wrongdoing be a matter for the civil courts? Greg Brandman, David Flack and Robin Barclay QC are also speaking.

Key points will include:

• whether corporate wrongdoing should be a matter for the civil courts, considering alternatives to criminal enforcement
• operation of the mixed criminal/civil enforcement regime relating to money laundering, insider dealing and market abuse under FSMA 2000, the Market Abuse Regulation and the Money Laundering Regulations 2017
• whether holding corporates to account in a civil-only context would be another practical alternative to the options currently under consideration

The webinar is at 4:30pm on Wednesday the 14th July and you can register to watch it here.

On 7 July 2021, a jury at Northampton Crown Court convicted WH Malcom Limited, which runs one of the biggest rail freight depots in Britain, of failing to prevent unauthorised access to railway infrastructure under its control and failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of unauthorised access.

The case resulted from the tragic death of an 11-year-old boy, and was prosecuted by Alexander dos Santos of Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, led by David Travers QC of 6 Pump Court Chambers instructed by the Office for Rail and Road. Sentence has been adjourned to 30 July 2021.

Read more about the case here.

Anthony Haycroft successfully defended a dentist before a Professional Conduct Committee of the General Dental Council. The dentist incorrectly extracted an adult upper tooth from a child and so failed to gain consent. He was due to extract 3 deciduous (baby) and 2 lower adult teeth at the request of an orthodontist. He said his original plan was to perform the extractions over two appointments but did them in a single appointment because he said he was pressurised to do so by the child’s mother and during the extractions she kept distracting him in trying to look inside the mouth. The error occurred in a short period of time.

The mother’s account was at complete odds being that she wanted two appointments but the dentist insisted on a single appointment only, failed to explain anything at all to her and failed to check what the orthodontist requested and changed his story about what went wrong. As a result of the alleged change of story he was accused of not only a lack of candour but dishonesty.

The dentist was supported in his account by his dental nurse and the PCC accepted the dentist’s admissions as regards incorrectly extracting the tooth without consent but found not proven a number of other allegations including dishonesty which were based upon the mother’s account.

The defence accepted misconduct and the PCC found no impairment on public interest or public protection grounds based upon the defence evidence and submissions.

The case concluded with no action being taken at all upon the dentist’s registration.

Anthony Haycroft was instructed by Ediri Okonedo and Sue N’jie of the Dental Defence Union.

Sarah Clarke QC has been selected through independent research with clients and peers for recognition in the Corporates chapter of Who’s Who Legal: Business Crime Defence 2021-a guide to the world’s leading white-collar criminal defence lawyers.

Sarah is particularly well known for her expertise in financial services, insider dealing, fraud including bribery and money laundering, restraint and confiscation proceedings.

Read more about Sarah’s practice here.

In November 2019 the Appellant was convicted at the Old Bailey of a single offence of possession of a single indecent video clip of a child. It had been sent to her unsolicited by her sister and it was an image which the Appellant never opened or played. At a ‘fast track’ misconduct hearing in March 2020 the Appellant was summarily dismissed for discreditable conduct by the Metropolitan Police.

Before the Police Appeals Tribunal, Gerry successfully argued that the Presiding Officer at that misconduct hearing had misapplied the law, failed to comply with statutory guidance and reached a decision to dismiss the officer which was unreasonable and unfair. The Police Appeals Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning Supt Williams’ dismissal.

Gerry worked with Matthew Hardcastle, John Harding and Maeve Keenan of Kingsley Napley LLP , instructed by Victor Marshall of the Police Superintendents’ Association.

Khan (Respondent) v Meadows (Appellant) [2021] UKSC 21

Neil acted in the Supreme Court in a claim arising from the wrongful birth of a child born with both haemophilia and autism, in circumstances where the Respondent GP had negligently advised in relation to the risk of the child being born with haemophilia (but not in relation to the risk of autism).  The case concerned the sole legal issue of whether the scope of the GP’s duty extended to the costs associated with the autism.

Judgment was handed down today in favour of the Respondent. The Supreme Court was unanimous in rejecting the Appellant’s appeal and laid down a new approach to analysing liability in clinical negligence cases.

Neil acted alone for the Defendant at first instance and as junior before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. He was instructed by Greg McEwen of BLM.

A summary of the case can be found here.

We are pleased to announce that Sebastian Naughton has been appointed as an Assistant Coroner for London South (Croydon).

Sebastian regularly acts for families, NHS Trusts, individual clinicians and various other statutory bodies in complex multi-factorial deaths, often involving Article 2. He is frequently praised by his clients not only for his forensic questioning of witnesses, but for his compassionate and reassuring conduct, and his ability to put nervous witnesses at ease.

For further information on Sebastian’s practice, please click here.

Anthony Haycroft represented a GP at the Crown Court at Amersham facing an allegation of sexual touching of a patient during a heart and lung examination. In addition there had been purported bad character allegations concerning other patients. The Crown accepted the defence argument against bad character and so the case continued in respect of the single incident only. The jury took under two hours to return a unanimous verdict of not guilty and the doctor was discharged.

Anthony Haycroft was instructed by Ian Sadler and Jinal Shah of Radcliffe LeBrasseur, London through Dr Nicholas of Medical Protection Society.

On 19 May 2021, Lieven J determined the renewed oral application of Andrew Riddle for Permission to Appeal the two judgments of Senior Judge Hilder dated 11 August 2020 and 4 September 2020. They are reported as The Public Guardian v Andrew Riddle (No1) and (No2) [2020] EWCOP 41.

The litigation is particularly complex, but in short, the court at first instance had to consider some 40 cases in which Mr Riddle, who is a professional deputy, but not a solicitor, sought authority to charge fees at solicitor rates or a specified rate. In the original judgments, Senior Judge Hilder refused Mr Riddle’s application to charge rates higher than the Local Authority rate, and also refused his application for retrospective authorisation for the solicitor rates he had been charging his clients without authority.

The 4 grounds of appeal can be summarised as the Judge having:

1. Erred in concluding that Mr Riddle’s qualification, experience, and business structure did not justify a specified rate on a general basis;
2. Erred in concluding that Mr Riddle’s qualification, experience, and business structure did not justify a specified rate on a specific basis;
3. Erred in refusing to grant Mr Riddle’s application for relief from liability for past charging;
4. Erred in refusing Mr Riddle’s application for the Public Guardian to pay his costs associated with responding to the revocation applications.

In a comprehensive judgment, the court determined that each of the 4 grounds did not reach the threshold for permission to appeal set out in rule 20.8(1) of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 – namely that there was no reasonable prospect of success, and no other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

Paragraphs 7-8 and 13-34 provide a helpful legal framework regarding appeal hearings, renumeration of deputies and retrospective authorisation.

Points to take away from the judgment

1. The whole tenour of the judgment relates to Mr Riddle’s arguments being a result of his disagreement with the Judges’ evaluative judgement and the weight she attached to various evaluative matters. In particular, at paragraph 37, Mrs Justice Lieven emphasises that ‘Those are things for the first instance judge, and subject to any misdirection (of which there was none), this is not a matter that the appeal court should interfere with’;
2. Judgments must be read as a whole, and it is wrong to focus on extracts of a judgment without seeing the broader context (paragraph 10);
3. Cumbria County Council v A [2020] EWCOP 38 does not change the law in any way. It simply provides a number of indicators of when it may be appropriate to appoint a professional deputy. The decision is ultimately a matter for the court having regard to the individual facts of a case (paragraph 41);
4. If an order is made refusing SCCO assessment, the appropriate route (if made without a hearing) is to seek reconsideration. It is not an appeal point (paragraph 43);
5. The starting position is that a Judge has a wide discretion regarding costs, and the appellate court should be very slow to intervene (paragraph 53);
6. In litigation which ‘evolves’ (in terms of the number of issues and the number of applications concerning differing P’s) it may not be possible to set out all of the grounds in one overarching letter before action, and a failure to engage in pre-action conduct (in such circumstances) may not be an appropriate criticism (paragraph 54).

Emma Sutton appeared on behalf of the Public Guardian instructed by Baljit Dhillon-Sidhu, senior lawyer within the Legal and Information Team. The judgment can be found here.

Webinars

Lawyers in lockdown: managing the challenges
Bridget Dolan QC and Rachel Spearing  discuss the challenges created by the pandemic. Despite Bridget’s PhD in psychology and her 13 years working with the NHS as a Psychologist before she came to the Bar and Rachel’s experience gained as the co-founder and first Chair of the Bar Wellbeing Initiative, they are clear that there are no simple solutions and that what works for one person may not be relevant to another.

 P in Lockdown: getting in to P and getting P out
Practical advice for assessments, advocacy and access.
This Court of Protection webinar, chaired by Jess Flanagan and Sophia Roper, will draw on the panel’s experience of difficult issues arising from lockdown.

Skype in the Court of Protection – the courts in the time of Coronavirus
Serjeants’ Inn barristers Sophia Roper and Nageena Khalique QC acted for two of the parties in the first case to be heard remotely in the Court of Protection. In a lunchtime seminar introduced by Michael Mylonas QC they share their experience and answer questions.

Coronavirus police powers and duties talks
Dijen Basu QC, David Lawson and Elliot Gold recorded video seminars on new and existing police powers, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, police organisation and collaboration and the duty of care to officers, police staff and members of the public arising from the Coronavirus emergency.

Podcasts

13.05.20   How has the law adapted to coronavirus
LBC, Alexander dos Santos

04.05.20   The Coronavirus Legislation
Police Law On Demand, Elliot Gold & Deborah Britstone

24.04.20   Covid-19 Guidance and Police Misconduct Hearings
Police Law On Demand, Cecily White  & Deborah Britstone

Articles

02.06.20  One Kingdom but four nations emerging from lockdown at four different rates under four different laws
UK Police Law Blog, Dijen Basu QC

15.05.20  Reducing restrictions, increasing inconsistency? Impact of the Lockdown Amendment Regulations on the Police’s Enforcement Ability
UK Police Law Blog, Dijen Basu QC & Frances McClenaghan 

11.05.20  Trial by ordeal? Not necessarily
Counsel, Michael Mylonas QC, Nageena Khalique QC, Sophia Roper, George Thomas, Simon Cridland, Alexander dos Santos & Hannah Hinton

07.05.20  Dealing with the increased risks to BAME NHS staff treating Covid-19 patients
UK Healthcare Law Blog, Dijen Basu QC & Sebastian Naughton

28.04.20  Covid-19 Deaths and Possible Exposure in The Workplace: The Coroner’s Role
UK Inquest Law Blog, Clare Hennessy

24.04.20  Covid-19: Government guidance on emergency rationing of critical care is needed to support professional decision making
BMJ, referencing paper by George Thomas, Katie Gollop QC & Sophia Roper

23.04.20  NHS faces billions in coronavirus claims
The Times, quoting George Thomas

23.04.20  The lawfulness of the Coronavirus Restrictions Legislation imposing ‘Lockdown’
UK Police Law Blog, Dijen Basu QC

15.04.20  Remote Verification of Community Deaths During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Should family members be relied upon?
UK Inquest Law Blog, Katie Gollop QC

14.04.20 Families of patients who die due to lack of ventilators could sue hospitals, legal experts warn
The Telegraph, quoting Katie Gollop QC and referencing paper by George Thomas, Katie Gollop QC & Sophia Roper

06.04.20  COVID-19: Allocation and withdrawal of ventilation – the urgent need for a national policy
UK Medical Decision Law Blog, George Thomas, Katie Gollop QC & Sophia Roper

01.04.20  A life worth living: Continuation of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in an incapacitous but sentient man
UK Medical Decision Law Blog, Nageena Khalique QC

31.03.20   Legislation and guidance – what is in force
UK Police Law Blog, Elliot Gold

31.03.20   The quickly mutating Coronavirus legislation – drafting anomalies and police powers
UK Police Law Blog, Dijen Basu QC

30.03.20  Corona Crisis: Standard of Care
UK Healthcare Law Blog, Eloise Power

30.03.20   Guidance to Appropriate Authorities: police misconduct hearings during the coronavirus restrictions
UK Police Law Blog, Aaron Rathmell & Cecily White

27.03.20   Coroners’ Courts open for urgent and essential business only
UK Inquest Law Blog, Briony Ballard

27.03.20   Joggergate: How frequently is it necessary to exercise in Wales?
UK Police Law Blog, George Thomas

26.03.20   Lockdown Regulations made: restrictions and police powers
UK Police Law Blog, Dijen Basu QC & Elliot Gold

25.03.20   What powers does “take such action as is necessary to enforce” give to police officers?
UK Police Law Blog, Dijen Basu QC, George Thomas & Elliot Gold

24.03.20   The Coronavirus Bill – police powers explained
UK Police Law Blog, Dijen Basu QC

24.03.20   Coronavirus Lockdown: Police Powers? What Police Powers?
UK Police Law Blog, George Thomas

23.03.20  Skype in the Court of Protection
UK Medical Decision Law Blog, Nageena Khalique QC & Sophia Roper

13.03.20  Prison conditions and Coronavirus
Serjeants’ Inn News Page, Hannah Hinton

05.03.20   CORONAVIRUS QUARANTINE
New Law Journal, David Lawson

12.02.20   The UK Coronavirus regulations – legal powers to control a public health crisis
UK Medical Decision Law Blog, David Lawson

11.02.20   The power to quarantine
UK Medical Decision Law Blog, David Lawson