Shana Grice was murdered in 2016 by Michael Lane. In the months before she was killed, Shana reported concerns about Lane to the police on five occasions. Her second report was dealt with by PC Godfrey.

At a police misconduct hearing which concluded on 30 July 2019, the misconduct panel found that PC Godfrey had failed diligently to investigate Shana’s complaint of harassment, failed to perform a risk assessment and treated Shana unfairly and that his conduct amounted to misconduct.

James Berry presented the case on behalf of the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, instructed by Weightmans.

Matthew Holdcroft appeared on behalf of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, who conducted the investigation.

The case attracted significant media coverage. Please click here and here.

Sarah Clarke QC contributes to ground breaking Code for Private Prosecutors, launched on 18 July by the Private Prosecutors’ Association.  The aim of the Code is to provide  a benchmark for best practice in the conduct of private prosecutions. Sarah drafted the costs section of the Code and was a member of the PPA’s Steering Committee.

Click here for a copy of the Code.

James Berry has been appointed to the Attorney General’s B Panel (London) following an open competition.

The appointment takes effect on 2 September 2019 and will see James instructed on behalf of government departments and agencies alongside his existing public, civil and regulatory work for public and private sector clients.

James was previously a member of the C Panel, although he had to relinquish his appointment during his (short) spell as a Member of Parliament.

James joins Edward Pleeth on the B Panel.

James Berry represented the National Police Chiefs’ Council in phase 3 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse’s investigation into child sexual abuse in the Anglican Church.

The hearing, which concluded on 12 July 2019, took evidence from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York and the Archbishop of Wales, as well a number of Bishops, clerics, safeguarding officers and victims of child sex abuse.

James has also appeared in the Internet investigation, led by Debra Powell QC and will appear in the Organised Networks investigation in 2020.

Gerry Boyle QC and Aaron Rathmell appeared in an earlier phase of the Anglican Church Investigation.

Click here for press coverage.

Jon Holl-Allen QC and Amardeep Dhillon successfully argued in Braceurself v NHS England for the application of CPR r.6.15 to regularise the email service of an issued Claim Form, in circumstances where the solicitors instructed by NHS England had not been instructed to accept service by email. The underlying dispute concerns a (second) procurement challenge to the award of an Orthodontic Tender by NHS England. The case is notable for two reasons: it is the first time that the High Court has considered the application of 6.15 in the context of the procurement regulations; and helps to clarify the established case law on when the discretion under 6.15 arises.

Angus Moon QC and Eleanor Morrison successfully defend a clinical negligence claim for brain damage said to have been caused by the drug nifedipine (Adalat) given to a mother during pregnancy in order to inhibit labour.

Angus Moon QC and Eleanor Morrison successfully represented the Trust in the case of Luc Jones v Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust in which judgment was given on 10th June 2019. The claimant (who suffers from complex disabilities) argued that whilst he was in utero, in 1995, his mother had been treated for pre-term labour, despite not reaching the appropriate threshold for treatment. The claimant alleged that his mother was treated with an unlicensed and inappropriate drug (nifedipine), when she should instead have been treated with the standard and recommended drug at the time (ritodrine). Complicating the question was the modern position: since 1995 nifedipine has become the standard drug with which to treat pre-term labour. The judge found for the defendant, holding that the claimant’s mother was in pre-term labour and it was reasonable to treat her with nifedipine.

Please click here for final judgement.

Debra acted for the Defendant in FA v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, where the Claimant alleged that there had been a negligent failure to reverse her female genital mutilation prior to delivery of her baby, with the result that she suffered a third degree perineal tear and resulting incontinence, leaving her unable to work.  The Defendant contended that there had been no reason to perform the reversal procedure prior to the Claimant’s labour, and that the Claimant’s precipitous delivery had prevented the planned reversal from taking place.  The Claimant discontinued the claim mid-trial.

The Chief Coroner, His Honour Judge Mark Lucraft QC concluded the Inquests into the deaths of the eight individuals killed on London Bridge and in Borough Market on 3 June 2017.

On 3 June 2017 eight people were killed when three attackers drove a van into members of the public on London Bridge before continuing on foot inflicting stab injuries before being shot and killed by armed police officers. Sarah Simcock of Serjeants’ Inn Chambers represented the London Ambulance Service, who provided care and treatment to some of the deceased as well as the other victims of the attacks. The Chief Coroner conducted a wide-ranging inquiry into how the deceased came by their deaths as well as the overall response of the emergency services, including the LAS, to the attack.  The Chief Coroner recorded determinations of unlawful killings in relation to each deceased along with narrative conclusions that reflected that the injuries of those who died were unsurvivable.  The Chief Coroner will consider whether to make a report to prevent future deaths in relation to potential improvements which could be made to systems and procedures to ensure the emergency response to such complex incidents is as effective as possible in the future.  The Inquests commenced on 7 May 2019 at the Central Criminal Court and concluded on 28 June 2019. The inquest transcripts are publicly available here: https://londonbridgeinquests.independent.gov.uk/

For press coverage, please click here:BBC, The Guardian

Dijen Basu QC and Jonathan Davies represented the Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police in his successful appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the EAT that only paying statutory shared parental leave pay to those taking this leave was capable of amounting to indirect sex discrimination against men, given that women have the more lucrative option of taking maternity leave with enhanced maternity pay.

They persuaded the Court of Appeal that the EAT and ET had been wrong to hold that male and female police officers’ terms and conditions of service were identical and that, in reality, Mr. Hextall’s claim amounted to a claim to be entitled to corresponding terms to those of a female officer in relation to maternity leave and pay. As such, it amounted to an equal terms (formerly equal pay) claim, so that any sex discrimination claim would be excluded. The equal terms claim was bound to fail because it related to terms of work affording special treatment to women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.

To the extent that it could be brought as a direct sex discrimination claim, it would be doomed because of s.13(6)(b) (maternity leave and pay are special treatment afforded to women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth) and, in any event, because a woman taking maternity leave was not a proper comparator within s.23.

The EAT’s analysis of the indirect sex discrimination claim was flawed because the PCP relied on (only paying statutory shared parental leave pay to those taking shared parental leave) did not cause any disadvantage to women in comparison with men. In any case, birth mothers had to be excluded from the pool for comparison.

The Court of Appeal also accepted that, even if there was prima facie indirect discrimination against men taking shared parental leave, it would be justified by the aim of affording special treatment of mothers in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.

The Court held that “Mr Hextall’s complaint is in reality an attack on the whole statutory scheme, in turn derived from EU law, under which special treatment is given to birth mothers.” In rejecting it, they accepted Dijen’s and Jonathan’s formulation of the 6 different purposes of statutory maternity leave: (1) to prepare for and cope with the later stages of pregnancy, (2) to recuperate from the pregnancy, (3) to recuperate from the effects of childbirth, (4) to develop the special relationship between the mother and the newborn child, (5) to breastfeed the newborn child (recommended for a period of six months by the World Health Organisation), and (6) to care for the newborn child. (1) – (5) are unique to women.

PC Hextall is understood to be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The hearing was livestreamed: please click here to access the video. Please click here for a copy of the judgment.