David Morris

David is clerked primarily by Lee Johnson, Clare Sabido, Jennifer Pooler and Emma Bell.

experience & Expertise

David is a well-known junior who specialises in the defence of healthcare professionals and hospital trusts. He has long experience in representing them before their regulators, on appeal to the Administrative Court, at criminal Crown Court trials and Coroners’ inquests. In recognition of his skill and knowledge, he was awarded the accolade of Professional Discipline Junior of the Year at the Chambers & Partners’ UK Bar Awards.

David combines a detailed knowledge of tribunal and court practice and procedure with a friendly and relaxed approach that is designed to secure the best possible outcome for the client and to make a stressful, career-threatening process more bearable than might otherwise have been the case.

cases & Work of note

• Inquest  2025
  David represented a GP practice at an Inquest into the death of a 74 year old woman who died of widespread septic infection.  She had complained to her GP of back pain and sciatica and subsequent bilateral shoulder pain.  A provisional diagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica (an autoimmune condition) and treatment was started with steroids.  A blood test showed a very high level of C-reactive protein (CRP) which is a reliable indicator of severe bacterial infection.
  The GP visited the patient and noted that the steroid treatment had not, as expected, improved her condition.  Despite the raised CRP he ruled out infection as the more likely cause of her symptoms and told her to continue the steroid treatment over the weekend but to contact NHS 111 or attend A&E if the symptoms did not improve.  She was admitted to hospital the next day by which time the bacterial infection (sepsis) was too advanced to respond to antibiotic treatment. The doctor’s failure to recognize the infection and treat it contributed to her death.  However, the coroner accepted David’s submission that the GP’s admitted error of clinical judgment did not amount to a gross failure to provide basic medical attention and therefore didn’t justify a finding of Neglect.
• GMC v G 2024
  David defended a consultant vascular surgeon who was found to have supplied cocaine to an escort, assaulted her by choking her and pulling out her hair.  The Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) suspended him for 12 months with a review.  The MPT Chair observed that he had been on the cusp of erasure and had been lucky to have Mr Morris representing him.  At review the MPT allowed him to return to practice subject to conditions.
• Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council v E 2024
  E was a hypnotherapist who was found to have breached Data Protection laws and the Council’s Code of Conduct concerning confidential information by providing a client with an open, unsafeguarded letter to support an application to the Family Court for a non-molestation order against her volatile, abusive and violent husband.  David persuaded the Panel that in so doing she had acted in a good hearted way and not, as alleged, without integrity.  She had shown sufficient remediation and insight to allow them to find that her fitness to practise was not impaired.
• Inquest 2024
  David represented a consultant anaesthetist who worked at Bourn Hall, the world leading fertility clinic.  A woman suffering from severe medical conditions (Type 1 diabetes, chronic hypertension, autonomic neuropathy with resulting poor kidney function) was desperate to have children. The patient did not give the clinic full details of her condition: in particular that neither her hypertension nor kidney were not well controlled and stabilized.  On the day she was due to undergo the surgical procedure of egg extraction the anesthetist was surprised to note her high blood pressure.  The coroner accepted David’s submission that proceeding with the extraction was the least worst option.  There were damaging disadvantages in not proceeding.  The anaesthetist accepted that in a different procedure he would not have proceeded.  The eggs were extracted without problem.  The coroner did not criticize the anaesthetist but did find that the Clinic had failed to obtain independent evidence of the patient’s condition.  He further found that she was not given a complete picture of the very substantial risks of pregnancy either before the subsequent implantation of fertilized embryos or during the pregnancy.  Those risks were sadly realised and the patient suffered a massive cerebral haemorrhage as a result of uncontrolled hypertension.
• Health and Care Professions Council v V 2024
  David represented an Advanced Practice Radiographer who failed to detect cancerous lung masses in two patients’ chest X-rays.  The Council’s expert conceded in cross-examination that all radiographers and radiologists made errors and that V’s errors did not fall seriously below standard.  The tribunal accordingly found that there was no case to answer.
• GMC v G 2023
  David successfully defended a consultant colorectal surgeon before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) in a three week Fitness to Practise hearing.  The surgeon was alleged to have sexually harassed three nurses and a secretary over a period of 14 years.  His behaviour included  undoing a bra strap in a bar, kissing a nurse in a storeroom while aroused and molesting the secretary’s breasts and touching her bottom on numerous occasions.   Of the 17 specific allegations only 2 were found proved (undoing a nurse’s bra strap and touching the secretary’s bottom more than once).  The Tribunal were impressed by his insight and considered that he could not have done more to satisfy them that he was not a continuing risk.  They found his fitness to practise not impaired and gave him a Warning.
• GMC v C 2022
  David defended an Upper Gastrointestinal/Pancreatic surgeon who faced charges of poor treatment of a patient suffering severe acute pancreatitis.  These included:
  i) failure to conduct appropriate investigations;
  ii) inappropriately operating on the pancreas and later on the small bowel;
  iii) failing to refer the patient to be managed by a specialist pancreatic unit in a tertiary hospital;
  iv) making insensitive comments to the patient’s family.
  Of the 19 specific allegations which the Professor denied only one was found proved.  The Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) found that the Professor’s fitness to practise was not impaired and that neither a sanction nor a warning was required.
  An earlier hearing of the case had to be abandoned because of the perceived bias of the MPT.  Whilst the GMC’s evidence was still being called the defence expert, who was attending remotely, had inadvertently overheard the MPT Chair discussing the case with the two other MPT members.  The Chair had expressed the view ‘I think we all know how this is going to go’.  The MPT had refused to recuse itself for bias in appearing to prejudge the outcome of the case.  David  applied for judicial review of their refusal and obtained an interim High Court injunction staying the proceedings.  The GMC did not contest the allegation of bias and the case was relisted before a different MPT.
• GMC v X 2018 and GMC v X 2019 EWHC 493 (Admin)
  David defended a paediatrician who engaged in a sexually explicit online  conversation with A who said they were 15 years old and they had a friend aged 14 who wanted to join in sex games. The doctor arranged to meet them.  In fact A was not a child but was in fact a member of a paedophile vigilante group.  The police reported Dr X to the GMC whose Case Examiners referred the matter for a fitness to practise hearing before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT).  Because of the doctor’s  family and cultural background the prospect of the allegations being publicised made Dr X suicidal.  At the hearing David successfully applied for the hearing to be held entirely in private to secure Dr X’s ECHR Article 2 right to life.  The GMC sought the doctor’s erasure but the Tribunal accepted David’s submission and suspended Dr X for 12 months with a review.
  The GMC proposed to publish a redacted version of the MPT’s Determination which would nevertheless identify Dr X.  Dr X applied to the Administrative Court for judicial review of their decision.  At the same time the GMC appealed the sanction of suspension as insufficient to protect the public.  David (led by Mark Shaw QC) persuaded the Court to quash the GMC’s publication decision and to dismiss the GMC’s sanction appeal.  Sadly, throughout every stage of the MPT and Administrative Court hearings the GMC opposed Dr X’s applications for privacy/anonymity despite the presence of uncontested cogent psychiatric evidence that Dr X was at real and immediate risk of suicide.
• General Dental Council  v T 2016
  David successfully defended a dentist who was the director of a company owning over 10 dental practices. He was accused of knowingly and dishonestly buying counterfeit dental equipment for the practices on eBay from Chinese websites for prices a small fraction of those paid for genuine items.
  On the face of the evidence about the ludicrously low prices paid a finding of dishonesty seemed inevitable. The Panel accepted his submissions on the need, in accordance with cited legal authority, to look for cogent evidence of dishonesty and to apply both an objective and subjective test. The Panel found that, while the dentist showed a profound level of naivety, he had not been dishonest.
• Inquest 2016
  David represented a private psychiatric hospital group whose patient committed suicide with a belt she had concealed in her room as the ligature. The Coroner found a number of failings in care but David dissuaded her:
  i)  from concluding that the hospital was guilty of neglect; and
  ii) from her expressed view that a Prevention of Future Death report was required by convincing her that the hospital had taken all reasonable steps to remedy its deficiencies.
• General Medical Council v H 2015
  A GP faced allegations of dishonestly issuing prescriptions in the names of fictitious patients. In his submissions David had cited authorities emphasising the importance of identifying cogent evidence and motive before finding charges of dishonesty proved. The Panel, while considering the doctor’s evidence to have been at times vague and evasive, was unable to identify any personal or financial motive and did not find him dishonest. Having found that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired the Panel went on to reject the GMC’s submission that the doctor should receive a formal Warning for poor record-keeping which he had admitted in his evidence. It accepted David’s submission that it would be wrong to issue a Warning about matters which had not been formally alleged against the doctor and about which no findings of fact had been made. In the circumstances the Panel agreed that it did not have the power to impose a Warning about matters not included in the formal allegation. In so doing the Panel expressly rejected the contrary advice of the Legal Assessor.
• General Medical Council v A 2014.
  Mr A was a senior surgical Specialist Registrar who faced charges relating to his performance of an appendicectomy on a 20 week pregnant woman during which he in error removed one of the patient’s ovaries having mistaken it for the appendix. These included poor clinical performance before, during and after the procedure and acting beyond the scope of his competence. The patient subsequently died from infection. It was not however part of the GMC’s case that Dr A’s failures contributed to the patient’s death. The on-call consultant who had allowed Mr A to conduct the procedure without being present to supervise him was also a defendant in the case.
  Mr A admitted the majority of the allegations. Since the incident Mr A had done substantial remedial work. The Panel found his failings so serious that, notwithstanding his remediation, they considered his current fitness to practise to be impaired. Conditions of supervision and retraining were attached to his registration.
  Immediately after the Panel’s sanction Determination the GMC’s Chief Executive, Niall Dickson, issued a Press Release. In it he criticised the leniency of the Panel’s sanction saying that for such a serious clinical incident which had such serious consequences a sanction of suspension should have been imposed.

recommendations

David has long been recommended by both The Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners as a leading junior in Professional Discipline. In 2013 Chambers & Partners awarded him Professional Discipline Junior of the Year. The current edition notes that “David is a barrister for whom complex cases are second nature. He’s very thorough and has an incredible eye for detail. He’s excellent on complex, paper-heavy cases and is phenomenally experienced.”

Other directory commentary has included the following:

Articles

David has provided Commentaries on the following cases for the Medical Law Reports:

• General Dental Council v Aga [2025] EWCA Civ 68; 2025 Med LR 119 General Dental Council – Fitness to practise – Sanction of suspension – Immediate suspension – Deduction of period of immediate suspension from period of substantive suspension – Fairness
• Karim v General Medical Council [2024] EWCA Civ 770; 2024 Med LR 433 Racial discrimination – Equality Act 2010 – Whether the respondent GMC discriminated against the claimant, a black African/European doctor, during its investigation of complaints – Comparison with the related case of a white doctor – Burden of proof and drawing of inferences – Delay and the relevance of statistics
• Professional Standards Authority v GDC and Patel  [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin); 2024 Med LR 205 General Dental Council – Fitness to practise – Conviction for causing death by careless driving – Reprimand – Insufficient sanction
• Professional Standards Authority v GMC and Onyekpe [2023] EWHC 2391 (Admin); 2023 Med LR 577 General Medical Council – Fitness to practise – “Undercharging” – Sexual misconduct – Vulnerable Patient – Insufficient sanction
• Marcheselli v Information Commissioner and GMC [2023] UKFTT 76 (GRC); 2023 Med LR 217 General Medical Council – Fitness to practise – Disclosure – Freedom of Information request – Doctor’s personal data – Information exempt from disclosure – Information Commissioner
• Professional Standards Authority v GMC and Another [2022] EWHC 2075 (Admin); 2022 Med LR 484 General Medical Council – Fitness to practise – ‘guidance – Inadequate reasons
• Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin); 2022 Med LR 170 General Medical Council – Fitness to practise – Dishonesty – Cumulative misconduct – Insight – Erasure
• Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763 [2021] Med LR 498 Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal – Fitness to practise – Sexual misconduct – Finding that non-clinically indicated intimate examinations of two patients were not sexually motivated – Appeal against finding by General Medical Council – High Court decision to quash finding – Doctor’s appeal to Court of Appeal – Inferences of fact to be drawn from primary facts – Proper appellate approach to challenges to such inferences.
• GMC v X [2019] EWHC 493 (Admin) [2021] Med LR 161 Fitness to practise – Sexual misconduct – Judicial review – Publication of Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision – ECHR Article 2 right to life – GMC Appeal against sanction – GMC Sanctions Guidance..

Privacy

David adopts and adheres to the provisions of the privacy notice which can be accessed here.

Further Information

For further details of David’s practice please click on the links to the left or contact a member of the clerking or client service team.

Bar Council Membership No: 15924
Registered Name: Mr David Paul Morris
VAT Registration No: 245298246