Tom Day

Tom Day

"A highly responsive, efficient and effective advocate."

Chambers UK 2018
Year of call: 2008
For enquiries please call: 020 7353 5324 or email vcard cv linkedin save

Criminal Regulatory

Tom began his practice as a general criminal practitioner defending and prosecuting in serious and complex crime. Building on this experience he has developed an expertise providing advice and appearing in criminal regulatory related litigation and inquests. He advises and acts in all matters involving alleged breaches of criminal regulations including alleged breaches of the Health and Safety Act 1974, Environmental Protection Act 1990 (including statutory noise nuisance), Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, Housing Act 2004, Security Industry Act 2001 and Food Safety Act 1990. Tom is a regular contributor to the 2 Hare Court Criminal Regulatory newsletter and is a member of the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers and the Health and Safety Lawyers Association.

Individual Cases:

HSE v LP

Tom represented a national storage solution company who were charged with an offence contrary to section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The charge arose out of an incident in Carlisle where the company, through its subcontractor, was installing 200kg racking. During unloading of a different item, one of the racks fell on an employees leg, fracturing it in multiple places. Following Tom’s detailed defence statement, the prosecution offered no evidence.

Lancashire Fire & Rescue v P

Tom represented the former Chairman of Lancashire County Council who faced 12 charges relating to breaches of The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 placing one or more people at risk of death or serious injury. The prosecution arose as a consequence of a fire in a building owned by Tom’s client and let out to tenants. Tom negotiated acceptable guilty pleas and the matter was committed for sentence to Preston Crown Court. The sentencing judge was persuaded to impose a suspended sentence of imprisonment and a fine.

DB v Newbury Town Council

Tom advised and represented Newbury Town Council defending proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court whereby the claimant alleged a statutory noise nuisance emanating from a play equipment and area owned and maintained by the Council.  Experts were instructed by the claimant and the defendant.  After cross-examination the claimant’s expert conceded that he could not say that the noise amounted a statutory noise nuisance and the application was rejected by the District Judge

HSE v B

Tom advised and represented a private education establishment following an accident where an employee fell while undertaking remedial work to a bay window roof. The Health and Safety Executive originally suggested that the ultimate fine ought to begin with a starting point of £950,000. Having considered detailed written and oral submissions the Crown Court imposed a fine of £40,000.

HSE v BL

Tom advised and represented the company in a prosecution brought as a result of asthma developed by an employee owing to exposure to solder. The matter concerned the exposure to solder over period of decades and necessitated careful examination of the guidance applicable over those years, the remedial efforts undertaken by the company and the extent of the injury to the employee.  After written and oral submissions the court imposed a fine of £12,000.

 Flintshire County Council v WBS

Advised and represented a company charged with three offences under the HSWA 1974 arising out of an incident on the company’s premises that resulted in the amputation of a customer’s fingers.

Environment Agency v H

Tom advised and represented a waste management company charged with breaches of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The case involved complex issues in particular the definition of hazardous waste in relation to various compounds of antimony.

Security Industry Authority v ES

Tom represented one of the largest private security providers in the country and two directors in a prosecution brought by the Security Industry Authority. After careful negotiation the prosecution accepted pleas to only one offence by the company and one of the Directors and the other Director was found not guilty of all offences. Following mitigation the multi million pound turnover company was fined £500 and the Director recited a Band C fine (the equivalent of one week’s salary).

London Borough of Newham v PP and KT

Tom represented a company and director accused of numerous offences under the Housing Act 2004 and the Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations 2006 after a property owner by the company was found to be in a poor state of repair and to be occupied by 10 – 15 individuals when licensed to provide accommodation to only one family of 5 individuals.

HSE v MC

Tom advised and represented a roofing company, acting as sub contractor, in relation to charges arising out of a fall from height through a roof aperture. Tom secured a total financial penalty approximately a tenth of that imposed upon the main contractor.

HSE v E

Tom advised and represented a scaffolding company charged with breaches of health and safety legislation arising out of the collapse of a three-storey scaffolding tower onto Leicester High Street. The collapse injured two pedestrians and caused damage to passing vehicles. Tom secured a fine of £8,000. The matter received national press coverage from the BBC, ITV, Daily Mail among others.

London Borough of Newham v FTC, FL and CM

Tom represented a company and its two directors accused of offences under the Housing Act 2004 and the Houses in Multiple Occupancy Regulation.  The prosecution offered no evidence on all charges after considering written representations.

London Borough of Southwark v B

Tom advised in relation to a criminal summons issued to this FTSE listed multinational company for an alleged breach of section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.  The summons was withdrawn following Tom’s legal advice and written representations to the prosecution asserting that the summons were invalid, proceedings were time barred and that the defect in the summons could not lawfully be amended.  the prosecution withdrew the summons.

 

portfoloo Barrister Portfolio [10]
Barrister Portfolio close
Barrister Call CV Email

Remove All


Click here to email this list of barrister to a colleague.