Tim is a prominent advocate in Coroners’ and jury inquests including those concerning prison, probation, police and clinical care, self-inflicted deaths, drugs related deaths, accidental deaths and issues relating to unlawful killing.
A substantial proportion of his inquest work comprises Article 2 inquests arising out of deaths in custody, of which he has very considerable experience.
Tim acts on behalf of Government departments, including the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Ministry of Defence and on behalf of Chief Constables, doctors, insurers and bereaved families and advises at all stages of proceedings.
As with other aspects of his practice he is instructed to undertake inquest work nationally.
He was recommended for inquests in the Legal 500 2016 and has delivered seminars on the subject of inquest law and procedure.
Examples
INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF A (anonymised) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Article 2 jury inquest arising out of a death in custody in which the issue arose of whether the Deceased had taken synthetic cannabinoids and, if so, the circumstances in which he had done so and whether that had been done voluntarily.
INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF B (anonymised) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Article 2 jury inquest involving 9 properly interested persons arising out of a death in custody following an aborted prosecution of a prison officer for an alleged offence of misconduct in public office and further criminal investigations.
The inquest concerned the self-inflicted death of a prisoner following his high profile arrest and charge on 48 counts of sexual offences relating to the alleged abuse of children.
The inquest concerned the medical and pastoral care provided to the deceased in the context of ostensibly deliberate attempts to self-harm and the interplay between the responsibilities of escort, medical and disciplinary staff.
INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF C (anonymised) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Article 2 jury inquest arising out of a death in custody concerning the medical and pastoral care provided to the Deceased who was known to self-injure.
INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF D (anonymised) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Article 2 jury inquest arising out of a death in a custody by hanging concerning the issues of whether there was a background of bullying and/or debt and the Deceased’s mental state.
INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF E (anonymised) (representing the Ministry of Defence)
Article 2 jury inquest arising out of the death of a contractor as a consequence of an unexplained fall between the decks of a naval vessel berthed in Birkenhead docks.
INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF F (anonymised) (representing the bereaved family)
Inquest arising out of the accidental death of a young child for which specialist pathological evidence was required to explain the medical cause of death. The issues included the appropriateness of the clinical care provided prior to death.
CIVIL LIBERTIES / HUMAN RIGHTS / POLICE AND PRISON LAW (INCLUDING CLAIMS IN FALSE IMPRISONMENT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE, TRESPASS TO THE PERSON, BREACH OF CONFIDENCE/MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION AND RELATED TORTS)
Outline
Tim acts for Government departments, the Crown Prosecution Service, Chief Constables, claimants and others in claims concerning civil liberties, human rights, police and prison law. His experience encompasses the conduct of civil jury trials.
Areas of work covered include claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 referable to alleged contraventions of the ECHR, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment, trespass to the person, breach of confidence/misuse of private information and related torts and claims under the Data Protection Act 1998.
As a member of the Attorney General’s Regional Panel of Counsel to the Crown, Tim has developed considerable experience of claims relating to prisons including claims relating to detention pursuant to determinate and indeterminate sentences.
He is presently instructed on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service in a High Court claim in malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office pursued by 3 claimants acquitted of conspiracy to murder in a high profile Crown Court trial.
Examples
MOHAMMED JAMA v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2012] EWHC 533 (QB) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Above
BYNOE V MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (2017) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Above
A & OTHERS v (1) CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE (2) CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (anonymised) (2017) (representing the Crown Prosecution Service)
High Court claim in malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office arising out of the prosecution of the claimants on charges of conspiracy to murder.
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE v A (anonymised) (2017)(representing the Chief Constable)
Matter concerning an application in the Crown Court pursuant to section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the background to which included the execution of a warrant at the home address of the Respondent pursuant to PACE s8 and a judicial review pre-action protocol letter to the Chief Constable and Greater Manchester Magistrates Court’ challenging the issuance and execution of the warrant, contending that devices sought under the warrant consisted of or included excluded material and special procedure material.
The issues involved the appointment of independent Counsel to address the issue of whether material in respect of which objection to examination was raised contained excluded or special procedure material which was not material that could be retained lawfully in the circumstances listed in sections 55 and 56 of the CJPA 1991, the management of a related public interest immunity application and legal issues relating to R (on the application of El-Kurd) v Winchester Crown Court [2011] 1 Lloyd’s FC Rep. 1 469 (discretionary power conferred by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 s.59(6) to order retention of property seized by the Serious Organised Crime Agency extends to property seized pursuant to a search warrant which was, by reason of a technical defect, unlawful).
B v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE & OTHERS (anonymised) (2016) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Claim pursued by a life sentenced prisoner in misfeasance in public office and under the Data Protection Act 1998 concerning allegations that, by reason of bad faith and a data protection breach he had lost the chance of being granted escorted absence. The legal issues included those of whether there was a loss of “residual liberty” or any other recoverable loss, the distinction to be drawn between the principles applicable to the tort of misfeasance in public office and public law principles applicable to judicial review proceedings and the application of sections 13, 14 and 70 of the Act.
C v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (anonymised) (2017) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Claim pursued under section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in which the Claimant prisoner alleged that his right to respect for his correspondence under Article 8 and his right of freedom of expression under article 10 had been contravened by the interference by the Defendant with material intended by him for publication and concerning the application of the principles established in R (on the application of (1) BBC (2) Dominic Casciani v Secretary of State for Justice & Babar Ahmad [2012] EWHC 13 (Admin), R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 and Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167.
D v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST MIDLANDS POLICE (anonymised) (2016) (representing the Chief Constable)
Personal injury claim arising out of a police dog bite injury pursued in the tort of trespass to the person (battery) and under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 by reference to articles 3, 5 and 8 of the ECHR, the Claimant also seeking to rely upon section 37(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 11 of the Children Act 2004 and certain provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Issues included the question of estoppel and abuse of process referable to a prior partial settlement, the extent of entitlement to a jury trial under section 66 of the County Courts Act 1984, the application of and the exercise of discretion under section 7 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the powers of individuals and constables under section 3(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to use force.
E & OTHERS v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE & OTHERS (anonymised) (2016) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Claim arising out of a death in custody and pursued under section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act referable to alleged contraventions of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR and under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1974 referable to alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office.
F v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (anonymised) (2015) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Human rights claim arising out of the alleged wrongful opening of the Claimant prisoner’s legal correspondence.
G v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (anonymised) (2014) (representing the Ministry of Justice)
Personal injury claim arising out of a serious assault on a prisoner who had been acting as a “listener” by the prisoner into whose cell he had been placed and concerning the extent of any duty of care, following Ellis v Home Office [1953] 2 All ER 149 and Hartshorn v Home Office [1999] Prison LR 4 LTL 21/1/99.
