23rd Oct 2020 Read more
2nd Nov 2018 Read more
2nd Nov 2017 Read moreSee all news
Stephen’s practice is principally concerned with the defence of healthcare professionals accused of misconduct and the defence of other professionals under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive before the criminal courts and at Coroners Inquests and is frequently instructed to represent Hospital Trusts at complex inquests.
Westminster Bridge Terror Attack
Stephen appeared Pro-Bono for victims of the Westminster Bridge attack at a pre-inquest hearing.
R (Parkinson) v HM Senior Coroner for Kent
Stephen represented the Trust who were an interested party in Judicial Review proceedings concerned with allegations of system failures, including an alleged Trust policy not to actively resuscitate elderly patients. The claim was dismissed and Stephen secured costs for the Trust.
Inquest touching upon the death of Katie Hamilton
Katie Hamilton died from hypoxic brain injury following self ligature whilst detained under s.2 Mental Health Act at the Becklin Centre in Leeds. Stephen represented the interests of Leeds and York Partnership Trust and Community Links Limited. Expert opinion obtained by HM Coroner contended that the Becklin centre failed to provide adequate supervision for Ms Hamilton whilst she was at significant risk of serious harm. The Coroner determined no neglect by the Trust.
Inquest touching upon the death of Craig Barratt
Craig Barratt was a 16 year old student studying for a Diploma in Animal Welfare who volunteered at Northamptonshire Animals Need Nurturing and Adoption (“NANNA”) where the HSE had previously investigated rat infestations. Craig contracted and died from complications of Leptospirosis. Stephen represented the interests of NANNA.
Inquest touching upon the death of James Morris
James Morris died as a result of complications arising from heart valve replacement surgery. Stephen represented the interests of the cardiac surgeon who performed the surgery. It was suggested that the surgeon had conducted the wrong type of surgery and inadequately. The case involved complex and competing expert surgical evidence.