Training & Knowledge: Christopher Gillespie

26th May 2021Newsletters

Assessing credibility and the limits of demeanour – Khan v GMC [2021] EWHC 374 (Admin)

Last year in Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Warby J found the Tribunal’s reasoning contained at least three fundamental errors. First, the Tribunal had approached the resolution of the central factual dispute by starting with an assessment of the credibility of a witness’s uncorroborated evidence about events ten years earlier, and only then […]

16th Feb 2021Blog

The Identification Principle in the 21st Century – Chris Gillespie looks at the Law Commission’s remit in its review of corporate criminal liability.

Last November the Law Commission began its review of the law relating to the criminal liability of non-natural persons, including companies and limited liability partnerships. The review will focus in particular on the identification principle by which, where a particular mental state is required to prove an offence, only the acts of a senior person […]

22nd Jan 2020Newsletters

Football and Racism

It is only relatively recently that the psychological effects of racism and homophobia, such as anger, humiliation, loss of self-confidence and depression, have become the subject of focused research and inquiry. This issue is as relevant in the sporting context as it is in any other. Certainly, in the past BAME football players were expected […]

23rd Mar 2018Newsletters

Enforcement Notices Post Chevron

Peter Gray QC and Chris Gillespie examine the Supreme Court’s decision in HM Inspector of Health and Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd [2018] UKSC 7 and consider the implications for companies faced with Improvement or Prohibition Notices An Employment Tribunal hearing an appeal under s24 of HSWA 1974 against an Improvement or Prohibition Notice […]

24th Oct 2017Newsletters

Reasonable foreseeability after R v Rose

Chris Gillespie examines the case of R v Rose from a health and safety perspective. Honey Rose was an optometrist who negligently failed to perform her statutory duty to conduct an intra-ocular examination on her seven year old patient. As a result she failed to discover the clear indications of a life-threatening risk to the […]