Ben Rich is ranked in Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners as a leading junior in the fields of Professional Discipline and Inquests & Inquiries.
He is described in Legal 500 as working with “impeccable attention to detail” and in Chambers and Partners as “an advocate who is up for a fight, will not be intimidated by more senior counsel and delivers brilliant results”.
He practices in Professional Discipline and Inquests. He appears in the Court of Appeal, High Court, Crown Court and a wide variety of tribunals including the MPTS, GDC, GOC and RICS.
Before being called to the Bar, Ben had a substantial career as a radio and television journalist at the BBC. He worked for six years as an editor on BBC2’s Newsnight, and ended up as Deputy Editor of the Six and Ten O’clock News on BBC1.
Ben accepts Direct Access instructions.
Ben has a substantial inquest practice, mainly representing medical professionals. He has represented clients in jury inquests, and in Article 2 inquests.
Inquest touching on the death of BO for Dr AO [2024]
This inquest concerned a patient with severe depression, which was resistant to a very wide range of treatments. Dr AO, his GP, prescribed a benzodiazepine which, three years earlier, a hospital specialist had suggested should not be prescribed for him again as it might have contributed to suicidality. The GP had to explain and defend his position that it was a reasonable calculated risk, given the patient’s extreme distress and the fact that this drug was the only thing which provided any relief. The asserted causation was also successfully challenged.
Inquest touching on the death of FP for Prof SR [2023]
Represented a distinguished heart surgeon where it was suggested that he had undertaken an inappropriate procedure which led to the death of an otherwise reasonably healthy patient, without getting her informed consent for it. The investigation concentrated on complex evidence concerning the risks of a particular heart valve device, and of the complication that arose and how that interacted with changing guidelines in the area.
Inquest touching on the death of SK [2019]
Ben represented an East of England Clinical Clinical Commissioning Group who were responsible for a package of care given to the deceased. Unknown to all the agencies dealing with her, she had stopped receiving any care and eventually died of sepsis. The inquest involved arguments particularly on the issue of causation, and whether there was sufficient link between the failure to ensure the care package was delivered, and the death.
Inquest touching on the death of TC [2019]
TC was murdered in an immigration detention centre. An Article 2 jury inquest was held. Ben represented a nurse who had attended on TC, who was accused of having failed competently to undertake emergency medical treatment. After detailed cross-examination of the witness who accused this nurse, the Coroner, with the support of the family, decided that no question relating to the nurse would be left to the jury.
Ben Rich is ranked as a leading junior in this field by both Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.
He defends doctors, dentists, and other healthcare professionals before their regulators. He presents cases for the General Optical Council, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Acupuncture Council.
Recent cases include successfully defending a doctor accused of bribing a patient not to complain, and defending a cancer specialist facing around 60 charges relating to his clinical practice. After cross-examination of the GMC expert none of the particulars deriving from the expert’s report were found proved.
In 2020 he secured a 9-month suspension for a doctor found to have had a sexually-motivated communication with a 13- year-old. Ben successfully defended this outcome in the High Court against a GMC appeal [GMC v Awan [2020] EWHC 1553 (Admin)].
Other cases have included charges of dishonesty, sexual impropriety with nurses, and a range of clinical failings.
Ben has advised on judicial review for healthcare professionals, and has conducted a number of (non-medical) judicial reviews in the High Court.
GMC v Dr N (2024)
The doctor was accused by three eyewitnesses of extensive failures in examining and treating a patient. After cross-examination the only charges proved were minor ones (mostly record-keeping) which the doctor had admitted.
GDC v TC (2023)
This dentist faced multiple charges of inappropriate touching of dental nurses, and further allegations concerning a relationship with a junior employee in a non-dental setting. The Committee decided that the touching of the nurses was not sexual in nature, and the relationship with the employee was consensual, albeit an abuse of trust. There was a finding of “no impairment”.
GMC v Dr MW (2023)
Dr MW was accused of bribing a patient not to make a complaint, following an incident in which the patient was allowed to order excessive amounts of opiates on repeat prescription. The prescription issue was dealt with at an earlier hearing where no impairment was found. In the second hearing the Tribunal concluded that the doctor did try to persuade the patient not to complain, but the allegation he offered money was not proved. He was subject to an order of conditions.
RICS v C&W (2023)
Ben represented RICS in this case against a large building management company. The company had been convicted in the Crown Court of Health and Safety offences after a passer-by was killed by a block of wood that was blown off a roof. The company had improved its safety and inspection procedures and its management systems. A fine was imposed on the company, but it retained its RICS affiliation.
GMC v SO (2022)
Dr SO faced nine separate charges accusing her of dishonesty in her clinical practice, and in what she told various employers and others about her difficulties. She also faced clinical allegations. One of the dishonesty allegations was deleted after a preliminary ‘Misra’ argument that the doctor had merely been setting out her account, and to charge it was oppressive. Six of the remaining dishonesty allegations were not proved. Two were proved, but the doctor got a sanction of conditions involving supervision.
GMC v Dr Awan [MPTS and GMC v Awan [2020] EWHC 1553 (Admin)]
This case involved a doctor who, against his denials, was found to have had sexually-motivated conversations with someone he believed to be 13 years old (in fact a police officer). The GMC appealed a 9-month suspension but it was upheld. The case is important for stating that a registrant should not face increased sanction simply for putting up a defence to the facts, however lacking in credibility that defence may be.
Welcome to the latest edition of the Professional Discipline Newsletter. Christopher GeeringEditors Foreword Welcome to…
There is a sort of ritual dance done by those of us who practise in…
Welcome to the latest edition of the Professional Discipline Newsletter. Christopher Geering Editors Foreword…
