Oliver Williamson

Call 2008

Oliver Williamson | Call 2008

Back to Our People

Overview

In police regulatory work Oliver has developed a specialist practice presenting cases on behalf of Appropriate Authorities in misconduct proceedings and has appeared for the presenting side in cases against officers ranking from PC to Chief Constable.  Oliver also has an established disciplinary and regulatory practice in the medical sphere, and regularly represents doctors and dentists in fitness to practise hearings in the GMC and GDC. Oliver was Junior Counsel in the important case of Southall v GMC in the Court of Appeal and appeared in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in Edwards v Chesterfield Hospital.

Professional Discipline & Regulatory

“You can have a full and frank debate with him about how to approach something and he has great technical know-how.”
Chambers & Partners

Oliver appears for the appellant doctor in Higgins v General Medical Council [2024] EWHC 1906 (Admin), who challenged his erasure from the register for sexual misconduct.
Please click here for the judgment.

Police Misconduct

Oliver has a developed police misconduct practice and is trusted to act in some of the most important cases involving the full range of allegations, including inappropriate use of force, sexual harassment and assault, and dishonesty. Examples of his recent standout work in this field includes:

  • Chief Constable of Durham Police v PC Weir [2025]: presented successful case against officer found to have sent female colleagues inappropriate images, some in his boxer shorts. Click here for press coverage.
  • Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v PC Taafe, PC Smith and PS Ditchfield [2025]: presented successful case against 3 officers found to have bullied colleagues and sprayed laughing gas taken from a member of the public inside a police vehicle. Click here for press coverage.
  • Chief Constable of Durham Police v PC X [2025]: Presented successful case against officer concerning allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour on a night out with colleagues. Click here for press coverage.
  • Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police v PC Harris [2024]: Successfully defended the officer from being dismissed without notice after he was alleged to have sexually harassed two other officers on a night out. The Panel concluded that the most appropriate outcome was a final written warning for five years. Please click here for news coverage.
  •  IOPC v PC Ryan and PS Hussey [2024]: Represented the IOPC in a case concerning use of force, detention and the strip search of a woman by male officers. The IOPC decided to present the case as it disagreed with the force and considered that the officers had a case to answer for gross misconduct. The Sergeant was found guilty of gross misconduct. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v PC Marshall [2024]: Successfully represented the Appropriate Authority in a case concerning the use of excessive force on a woman, who was believed to be the victim of a domestic assault, in a hotel. PC Marshall was dismissed without notice. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v PC Potter [2024]: Represented the Appropriate Authority at both the misconduct proceedings and appeal concerning PC Potter’s failure to report the fact that he had crashed his personal car into the vehicle of another member of the force on police premises. On appeal the decision to dismiss PC Potter without notice was substituted for a final written warning, to remain in force for two years. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of Durham Police v DC Spellman [2022]: Represented the Appropriate Authority at the misconduct proceedings against DC Spellman for sexually harassing a female colleague while on a work trip. DC Spellman was found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed without notice. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v PC Harper [2022]: Represented the Appropriate Authority at the misconduct proceedings concerning a domestic dispute in which PC Matthew Harper was alleged to have domestically abused his wife. The Panel found that PC Harper had engaged in misconduct and issued him with a Final Written Warning, in force for two years. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of British Transport Police v Ch Insp Crouch [2022]: Represented the Appropriate Authority in this extremely serious case concerning the sexual, harassing, and discriminatory behaviour of Chief Inspector Crouch, both towards colleagues and about the cases he was involved in. The Panel found Chief Inspector Crouch guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him without notice. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v PC Ahmed [2021]: Represented the Appropriate Authority in this case concerning a police officer who was dismissed for using excessive force against a disabled man during an arrest. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v PC Perkins [2021]: Represented the Appropriate Authority in the misconduct proceedings against PC Perkins, a relatively junior officer who was alleged to have inappropriately and sexually touched male and female colleagues during a night out. The Panel found PC Perkins guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him without notice. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police v DC Pointon [2020]: Represented the Appropriate Authority in the misconduct proceedings against DC Pointon for predatory conduct and pursuing an inappropriate relationship with a member of the public. The Panel found that DC Pointon had engaged in gross misconduct and dismissed him without notice. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police v PC Ali [2020]: Represented the Appropriate Authority in the misconduct proceedings against PC Ali, a student police officer who shared parts of his ‘City and Guilds Learning Assessment Portfolio Coursework’, causing identical sections within the Portfolio being produced and submitted as personal evidence. The Panel found that PC Ali’s behaviour constituted gross misconduct and dismissed him without notice. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Bonnard: guidance on Regulation 21 of the Police Conduct Regulations
    Read Oliver’s post on our UK Police Law Blog here.

Healthcare Discipline

Oliver has extensive experience in medical professional discipline and regulatory cases at all levels of court proceedings. He appeared as junior counsel in both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital, a case concerning the extent to which the statutory unfair dismissal regime displaces a common law cause of action. Examples of his recent standout work in this field include:

  • Higgins v General Medical Council [2024] EWHC 1906 (Admin): Represented the appellant doctor who was erased from the register after a disciplinary tribunal found that he had engaged in sexual misconduct, and who submitted that the tribunal failed to have regard to relevant evidence, failed to give adequate reasons for its findings of fact, erred in its approach to weighing the evidence, and erred in its approach to assessing the appellant’s insight which was, in turn, relevant to the severity of the sanction imposed. Please click here for the judgment. Please click here for related news coverage.
  • Re Dr AM [2022]: Successfully argued that a doctor, who was suspended for eight months from the medical register following Panel findings that he had acted inappropriately towards a patient during a hospital consultation and was suspended, should return to unrestricted practice. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Re Dr HA [2022]: Represented the doctor in misconduct proceedings arising out of serious allegations being made by the doctor’s estranged wife’s family, including breaches of patient confidentiality and unlawful prescribing. At the Interim Order hearings Oliver persuaded the Tribunal to impose conditions which would enable the doctor to continue working, contrary to the GMC’s suggestion that he should be suspended pending conclusion of the investigation. At the Final Hearing the Panel suspended the doctor for four months having found only some of the GMC’s allegations proved. Please click here for news coverage.
  • Re Dr BB [2017]: Represented the doctor in misconduct proceedings arising out the fitting of a coil when the patient was already pregnant. Warning issued. Please click here for press coverage.

Recommendations

“Oliver has a balanced tone in his advocacy and real authority. His cross-examination was effective and he struck a good balance between being reasonable and bringing a strong challenge.”
Chambers & Partners

“Oliver is a highly technical junior and a strong advocate, with great client care and communication skills.”
The Legal 500

“Oliver is a very well prepared, knowledgeable individual who puts clients and witnesses at ease. He has a pleasant and approachable style of advocacy which gets the best out of witnesses.”
Chambers & Partners

“He has a thoroughly professional approach, and delivers advice in a manner which is effective but not overly complicated, which really benefits lay clients.”
The Legal 500

“Without doubt one of the most talented juniors in his field. His attention to detail is second to none, and he has an exceptional ability to deal with lay clients with empathy but at the same time firmness when needed. He is a QC in the making, without doubt.”
Chambers & Partners

“He has a lovely advocacy style: it’s very low-key and measured, and the judges really like it. He is thoughtful, smart and switched on.”
Chambers & Partners

‘He is an excellent, hard-working barrister who is careful and precise in his work. He has excellent attention to detail and is very patient with clients. He has a fantastic ability to support clients through difficult circumstances.’
The Legal 500

“He’s got good judgement and a nice easy manner in his questioning.”
Chambers & Partners

“A brilliant advocate.”
Chambers & Partners

“He has good judgement and a nice manner. He is personable with clients and effective in cross-examination.”
Chambers & Partners

“He does an amazing job in terms of analysis.”
Chambers & Partners

“I’ve been impressed by him. He works very hard.”
Chambers & Partners

“His advocacy is very good.”
Chambers & Partners

“Impressive on the advocacy side, he has intellectual weight and understanding of the police operational context.”
Chambers & Partners

“An excellent junior with a very good eye for detail. He deals with a lot of peripheral issues in a very flexible way and has a quick turnaround time.”
Chambers & Partners