Charles Elton

Charles is a committed and determined advocate with a busy practice, instructed by firms of solicitors across the country to act in criminal cases, professional disciplinary proceedings and inquests.

His criminal practice encompasses a wide spectrum, including offences of violence, sexual offences, drugs, dishonesty offences, financial crime and motoring offences. He has defended in cases brought by various prosecuting authorities such as the DWP, Trading Standards, Ofcom and the RSPCA. He has experience of civil and criminal POCA proceedings.

His regulatory practice often involves complex and high-profile cases. He regularly appears in fitness to practise proceedings brought by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Health and Care Professions Council, the General Dental Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council, the Genetic Counsellors Registration Board and the National College of Teaching and Leadership. He has led training events for the Royal College of Midwives. He also has experience of enforcement actions brought by the Financial Conduct Authority through his time spent there on secondment.

Criminal and Courts Martial

 R v PH (Court of Appeal). Successful appeal against sentence from Maidstone Crown Court. 25% reduction in sentence and quashing of unlawful surcharge order.

R v EA (Blackfriars Crown Court). Defendant acquitted of two counts of perverting the course of justice. Defence case that the complainant’s barrister, a witness of fact, was lying.

 R v DN (Blackfriars Crown Court). Defendant acquitted of common assault at half time and ABH at the conclusion of the trial.

R v CG (Snaresbrook Crown Court). Third-strike dwelling burglary which involved DNA expert evidence. Hung jury.

R v SO (Blackfriars Crown Court). Trial for defendant charged with s.18 GBH.

 R v KJ (Inner London Crown Court). Represented defendant charged with conspiracy to defraud. Crown finally offered no evidence after jury had been sworn.

R v LP (Isleworth Crown Court). Represented defendant charged with exposure, contrary to s.66 SOA 2003.

SPA v Tpr LG (Court Martial). Represented British soldier charged with desertion. SPA eventually accepted a plea to AWOL.

SPA v LCpl MP (Court Martial). Represented British soldier charged with ABH.

Regulatory

NMC v JC. Represented Community Psychiatric Nurse charged with numerous charges arising from allegations of deficient practice in the prelude to a patient’s death, as well as giving dishonest evidence at the patient’s inquest. Hearing involved sensitive cross-examination of the patient’s father. No case to answer in respect of four charges. Six further charges subsequently found not proved. One charge proved and one had been proved at the outset by way of admission. One of those charges amounted to misconduct. No impairment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-35860763

NMC v JP. Represented Maternity Risk Manager at Furness General Hospital, Morecambe Bay, who prior to her retirement had conducted Root Cause Analyses into incidents involving two maternal deaths, two neonatal deaths, one stillbirth and one intrauterine death. Successfully negotiated Consensual Panel Determination. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-40251623

 NMC v HP. Represented midwife whose actions caused a neonate to lose a significant chance of survival. Cross-examination of NMC expert led to finding of no case to answer in respect of allegation that HP’s actions went so far as to contribute to the death. Suspension Order imposed. Co-registrant struck off. HP has since returned to unrestricted practice. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/19/midwife-suspended-for-nine-months-over-death-of-joshua-titcombe/

NMC v LG. Instructed to represent Risk Management Midwife at the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, Guernsey, in three-handed, eight-week hearing.http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017-07-18/guernsey-midwife-apologises-to-parents-of-baby-a-who-died-at-peh/

 NMC v NG. Registrant’s fitness to practise allegedly impaired by reason of lack of competence. 34 charges, almost all of which were technical in nature. Seven charges dismissed following successful submission of no case to answer and a further nine dismissed following the conclusion of the evidence.

NMC v MW. Registrant’s fitness to practise allegedly impaired by reason of conviction (serving a suspended sentence for s.20 GBH). Panel persuaded that fitness to practise not currently impaired despite the operational period of the suspended sentence remaining active, notwithstanding the authority of Fleischmann.

 HCPC v CH. Represented paramedic who had dishonestly tampered with ambulance’s tracking device to go ‘off-grid’ whilst on duty. Sanction kept to a one-year Caution Order. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/20/paramedics-tampered-trackers-avoid-999-callsat-scandal-hit-nhs/

 HCPC v TK. Represented paramedic charged with urinating in the back of an ambulance whilst a patient was on board. Further charges relating to receipt of a conviction for drink-driving and failure to disclose that conviction to the HCPC. Impaired (on broader public interest grounds only). No sanction. http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/paramedics-allowed-urinated-back-ambulance/

HCPC v BK. Represented Registered Manager at a major provider for children’s services who had been dismissed by employer for gross misconduct. All three charges dismissed following successful submission of no case to answer.

HCPC v JT. Panel persuaded to depart from their Guidance and impose a Conditions of Practice Order in circumstances when there had been an adverse finding of dishonesty at the facts stage.

GDC v RG. Represented one of two registrants found to have been engaging in verbal and physical altercations in the workplace. RG’s sanction a caution, whereas other registrant suspended from practice.

GPhC v SB. Impairment by reason of multiple acts of dishonesty, a criminal conviction and a criminal caution. Erasure avoided, with short-term suspension (without a review hearing) imposed instead.

GCRB v AS. Represented the first registrant in respect of whom this regulator has initiated proceedings.

 NCTL v JO. Instructed to represent teacher accused of making a succession of homophobic remarks in the classroom.

Inquests

Re GOF (Inquest touching on the death of DW). GOF carer responsible for checking on vulnerable individual. The deceased was found dead in his bed on the day when GOF had visited his address that morning and determined he had been elsewhere. No finding of neglect. http://archive.islingtontribune.com/death-home-care%20

 Re LCB (Inquest touching on the death of Baby W). Article 2 inquest. LCB one of the nurses involved in the administration of Vamin to the baby, using an unapproved method that she did not escalate to her superiors, that went wrong and, according to the post-mortem, was directly causative of the baby’s death. Conflict of interest with the Hospital Trust. No finding of neglect that related to LCB. Finding of ‘system neglect’ insofar as Hospital management concerned.

Re CO (Inquest touching on the death of PT). CO nurse who provided care to the deceased on the night shift preceding his death. Allegation that CO had misplaced nasogastric tube into the lung, when it should have been the stomach. Warning from coroner to CO of privilege against self-incrimination (i.e. acknowledgment of scope for Police investigation into gross negligence manslaughter). Key evidence in support of a misplacement was the reading of the pH strip on the internal end of the tube. Disclosure eventually obtained from Trust which bolstered CO’s contention that the pH strip was part of a faulty batch. Open verdict. Pathologist’s initial opinion that the death had been ‘exacerbated by Administration of Mediation through Misplaced Nasogastric Tube’ conspicuously absent from narrative verdict. NMC referral had been on hold pending inquest outcome.

 Re ST (Inquest touching on the death of SM). ST nurse-in-charge on the night shift immediately preceding the deceased’s cardiac arrest. Evidence that ST failed to escalate a concerning ECG (electrocardiogram). Cross-examination of pathologist and five doctors. No finding of neglect.

Education

2010: Bar Vocational Course, City Law School.

Lord Denning Scholarship and Hardwick Entrance Award, Lincoln’s Inn.

2009: Graduate Diploma in Law, City Law School.

2008: BA (Hons) Modern and Medieval Languages, Cambridge University.

Other Experience

Prior to commencing pupillage Charles worked as a paralegal at Corker Binning, a leading London firm, where he gained invaluable hands-on experience of Defence work in cases concerning fraud, corruption, cartel activity, cash forfeiture, illegal importations of goods and general crime. He also spent three months working for International Bridges to Justice (Cambodia Programme), during which time he helped draft a ‘Defender Manual’ for local practitioners.