Jack Gilliland has a broad practice spanning inquests, public inquiries, professional discipline, and criminal law. He is regularly instructed in complex and high-risk cases by NHS Trusts, healthcare professionals, and corporate entities, particularly in matters involving deaths in custody, mental health, and other healthcare issues.
Jack appears in serious criminal cases before the Crown Court, acting for both the prosecution and defence in matters involving violence, firearms, drugs, fraud, and money laundering. He has also been instructed to provide pre-charge advice on significant investigations, including by the Attorney General of Jersey.
He has experience in statutory public inquiries and judge-led investigations involving highly sensitive material, including as junior counsel to the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan. He is currently instructed in a judge-led government investigation and has been appointed as junior counsel to the Lampard Inquiry.
Jack represents healthcare professionals in regulatory proceedings, including before the GMC, GDC and other regulators. He has experience at both interim and fitness-to-practise stages and is regularly instructed in cases involving serious allegations.
Before coming to the Bar, Jack served as a commissioned officer in the British Army, where he worked extensively with sensitive material in both domestic and international contexts. He also gained experience in financial services and public affairs, having worked for Citi Private Bank in New York and a public affairs firm in Washington, D.C.
Jack has a strong defence practice and extensive experience in various aspects of general crime. His background prior to joining the Bar has honed his ability to quickly and effectively assimilate large volumes of information, a skill he applies in cases involving allegations of fraud, money laundering, and other complex offences.
R v RT
RT was charged with one count of intentional strangulation of their partner.
R v DC
DC was charged with two counts of conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of class A.
R v RT
RT was charged with affray for using a crossbow against the siblings of a former partner, and with assault by beating against the former partner. After cross-examining the complainant, three siblings, a neighbour, and the OIC, RT was unanimously acquitted of both counts.
R v SM
SM was charged with two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), one involving the use of a knife and the other involving biting. An application to rely on non-defendant bad character evidence was granted. SM chose not to give evidence in their defence, and no other defence evidence was called. SM was acquitted of both counts.
Jack has a well-established inquest practice, representing NHS Trusts, healthcare professionals, and corporate entities. He is regularly instructed in Article 2 and jury inquests, including cases involving deaths in custody and mental health settings.
He is particularly experienced in identifying the central issues at an early stage and in ensuring that individual failings are not wrongly characterised as systemic deficiencies.
Inquest into the death of RS
Instructed to represent an NHS Trust in an Article 2 jury inquest concerning the death of a prisoner following a paracetamol overdose, where two investigations had been critical of the care provided.
Inquest into the death of LH
Instructed to represent a consultant psychiatrist in an inquest concerning the death of a detainee following a section 136 assessment conducted in a police custody environment.
Inquest into the death of NH
Instructed to represent an NHS Trust in an inquest concerning the death of a patient following a reduction in anxiety medication.
Inquest into the death of SF
Instructed to represent a patient transport company in an inquest concerning the death of a woman following injuries sustained during transport from hospital to home.
Inquest into the death of MS
Instructed to represent a GP in an inquest concerning the death of a patient following a workplace injury which led to deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
Jack has experience in statutory public inquiries and judge-led investigations involving highly sensitive material. He was instructed as junior counsel to the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan and is currently instructed in a judge-led government investigation. He is also instructed in the Lampard Inquiry, chaired by Baroness Lampard CBE, which is investigating deaths of mental health inpatients across NHS Trusts in Essex over a period of more than twenty years.
Jack represents doctors, dentists, and other healthcare professionals in proceedings before their regulators. He is regularly instructed in cases involving allegations of dishonesty, clinical failings, and professional misconduct.
He has experience in cases involving contested evidence and procedural fairness, including issues relating to the admissibility of hearsay and material said to be sole or decisive.
BACP v DL
Represented a psychologist in proceedings involving allegations of failure to safeguard. Successfully opposed the admission of hearsay evidence said to be central to the regulator’s case, on the basis that it was incapable of being tested and would amount to sole or decisive evidence. The panel refused the application and found the allegations not proved.
GDC v B
Following a serious criminal conviction, the GDC sought an interim suspension. Jack successfully argued that the conviction resulted from a momentary lapse in concentration, was not ‘dangerous’, and emphasised the registrant’s clean record, cooperation with the GDC, and strong professional reputation. The Committee accepted his arguments, ruling that an interim suspension was unnecessary and would not harm public confidence in the profession.
NMC v S
A nurse faced allegations of dishonesty, improper prescribing practices, and misuse of a prescription pad. While one dishonesty charge was found proven, Jack successfully argued against the NMC’s submission for a strike-off. The Panel instead imposed a five-year caution order, allowing the nurse to continue practising.
SWE v A
Jack represented a social worker who faced charges of sending inappropriate messages and harassment. The Panel found the messages were not misconduct, as they were not related to his professional duties. While misconduct was found for harassment, the Panel determined the behaviour was out of character, remediated, and unlikely to recur, concluding there was no need to find the social worker’s fitness to practise impaired.
Jack prosecutes on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecuting authorities. He previously spent eight months on secondment to the Law Officers’ Department in Jersey, where he provided written advice on a range of criminal investigations at the pre-charge stage.
Jack spent eight months on secondment to the Law Officers’ Department in Jersey, where he provided written advice on a range of criminal investigations at the pre-charge stage. He also has experience in the field of Mutual Legal Assistance.
Jack has experience in regulatory and health and safety matters, including prosecutions brought by the Care Quality Commission. He advises and represents organisations in cases arising from serious incidents in healthcare and care home settings, often involving issues of risk management, systems, and regulatory compliance.
Welcome to the summer edition of the Professional Discipline Newsletter Christopher Geering Editor Foreword Welcome…
Dr Thillainayagam was found guilty of misconduct by the MPTS, resulting in a one-month suspension….
Welcome to the spring edition of the Professional Discipline Newsletter Christopher GeeringEditor Foreword Welcome to…
