Practice Groups

Disciplinary and Regulatory Law

Overview

Members of 9 King’s Bench Walk regularly appear in high profile cases before various regulatory panels and tribunals.

Members of 9 King’s Bench Walk regularly appear in high profile cases before various regulatory panels and tribunals including, but not limited to;

The Nursing and Midwifery Council
The General Medical Council
The Care Quality Commission
Ofsted
The Government Legal Department
The General Pharmaceutical Council
The General Dental Council
The Health and Safety Executive
The Environment Agency

We undertake work in any case arising from, or related to, professional regulatory proceedings. This can range from, advising on pre-charge issues through to representation at the Tribunal, the High Court and Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

Counsel regularly prosecute and defend on behalf of a wide range of professional regulatory bodies, both within the private and government sectors, assisting with very large, high profile and complex investigations.

With members on the Government Legal Department (GLD) Attorney General’s List, we are often involved in advising the Government on complex human rights issues, disclosure and discovery exercises.

Members are also supported by an approachable, hardworking and very knowledgeable clerking team who can advise on the expertise of Counsel required for any particular type of regulatory or disciplinary hearing.

Our Experience

Counsel at 9 King’s Bench Walk are instructed in a range of cases involving breaches of the regulatory requirements and serious quasi–criminal / regulatory allegations such as sexual misconduct in the workplace, mental health and fatalities.

Members who practise within this area are thoroughly experienced, dedicated, analytical and have a proven track record of obtaining the desired results.

Many professional regulatory bodies are deciding to robustly charge matters of a criminal nature. Due to our overarching expertise in both criminal and regulatory law, members have been instructed to advise and represent professional regulatory bodies and individuals alike. Instructions have ranged from advice and representation, not only within regulatory proceedings where there is a criminal crossover, but also with regards to independent criminal prosecutions.

At 9 King’s Bench Walk we appreciate the important role of professional regulatory bodies and understand that those facing professional disciplinary proceedings are at risk of reputational damage and losing their livelihood. We always consider factors such as the seriousness of the charges, vulnerable witnesses, public interest and the risks to individuals. Accordingly, members of 9 King’s Bench Walk ensure that their advocacy is tailored, stylistically, to meet the needs and requirements of the case at hand.

NMC v G (2023) – Claire Stevenson p resented a case against a Registrant who breached professional boundaries and pursed a sexual relationship with a service user through sexually motivated conduct. The sanction imposed was a striking-off order.

NMC v SH: Louis Maskell represented the NMC in an eleven-day substantive hearing which concerned in total 29 allegations, most of which related to the Nurse’s treatment of, and behaviour towards, a vulnerable care home resident. Misconduct and impairment of fitness to practice were found and a striking off order was made.

GPhC v A (2022) – Claire Stevenson presented a case against a Registrant who inappropriately supplied an addictive and habit-forming medicine, liable to misuse and/or abuse, to a vulnerable patient who suffered harm as a result. The sanction imposed was a suspension order.

[GLD] M v The Home Office Instructed in advising the Home Office regarding an unlawful detention claim. The case concerned a ‘foreign criminal’ (as defined) being held in immigration detention following the conclusion of their sentence of imprisonment.

NMC v HC: Louis Maskell represented the NMC in a ten-day hearing. The nurse faced several charges, spanning over a year, which concerned lack of competence in areas such as patient care, patient handling and medication administration. Lack of competence and impairment were found and a conditions of practice order was made.

Reported at: http://carestandards.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Public/View.aspx?ID=1449
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/HESC/2019/1.html

GLD v P members instructed in the preparation of witness statements in advance of a contested hearing in the Employment Tribunal. This involved processing large amounts of documentation, and condensing this into relevant factual and legal disputes. Counsel was able to offer advice on any further documentation that may be sought to assist in the preparation of the case.

GMC v Dr U Claire Stevenson successfully represented Dr U before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (‘MPTS’) who found that Dr U’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired. The MPTS revoked the order of suspension on Dr U’s registration.