Why health and care professionals trust Kings View Chambers

With over 30 years combined experience, Kings View Chambers have established itself as one of the best when it comes to fitness to practise defence.

Our Case Success

We pride ourselves on being one of the best in the business of defending health and care professionals facing fitness to practise (FtP) investigations and hearings. We specialise in FtP defence and representation, making us experts in this field. We thoroughly understand the fitness to practise processes of all the health and care regulators. With this, we are regularly successful in achieving ‘no case to answer’ for clients without the need for full, expensive and adversarial hearings.

When, however, cases do progress to a full hearing, health and care professionals can have confidence in our case success.

Compassion and Understanding

We fully understand that fitness to practise defence is not merely about processes and procedures. We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.

We never lose sight of the human aspects of FtP investigations and hearings. We will always give an open and honest assessment of cases, but we will marry that with an approach that also supports health and care professionals through the duration of a case.

“I was not optimistic about the case, I felt that it is a lost case that we couldn’t do much about and especially just before the start of the trial I lost my confidence and was very nervous. Mr McCaffrey was there to prove me wrong. He turned everything around in a victorious , panegyric manner. I was stunned.” – CL

What Our Clients Say

We are proud to be rated ‘excellent’ by our clients. Our commitment to client care is genuine in both seeking the very best outcomes for them, but also ensuring we do what we can to support them through the process.

We are thankful to all those who have taken the time to share their experiences of working with us. You can read them all on our Trustpilot page. Below are a few recent reviews:

“I know we are human and do make mistakes. But that one mistake can ruin your entire life. Hence, hire best in the business to represent yourself in any regulatory board. Immensely grateful to Kings View.” – MA

“They accepted my case in a difficult situation with a time pressure limit. They reassured me from the first session that they were confident to win it. I was under the impression from the previous barrister that my case will be lost. I would most likely end being suspended for at least a year. Kings View managed to study it in a short period of time. They were able to change the outcome and won the case for me. They proved to me beyond any doubt that they were very professional with long years of experience.” – CM

“I would not hesitate in the slightest to recommend Kings View, they are truly excellent at what they do!” – Z

Represented by the Best

Kings View are jointly headed up by fitness to practise defence barristers, Catherine Stock and Stephen McCaffrey with over 30 years combined experience.

Both Catherine and Stephen are specialists in healthcare law and regulation. As a leading regulatory law barristers, they have vast experience in defending all healthcare professionals in all courts and tribunals ranging from doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals including paramedics and social workers.

“Catherine and Stephen have razor-sharp legal brains, worked as a team, and provided me with a clear and concise strategy to approach the hearing. They helped me to construct a robust defence of my position. In the end, the outcome was much better than expected.” – NR

“There are no words to describe how grateful I am to Catherine and Stephen for helping me with my case. I had over 20 lawyers in the past and Catherine and Stephen are the best of all without question.” – GC

“You may be currently trawling sites for professional regulatory Barristers. I encourage you all to look no further. Barristers Ms Catherine Stock and Mr Stephen McCaffrey are no less than excellent”. – M

The Whole Package

Kings View are more than just lawyers, they are also trainers and facilitators. As part of our support for clients, Kings View also offers a range of remediation training packages through Insight Works Training.

Insight Works Training helps health and care professionals gain a clear and easy to follow understanding of the regulatory process, explanation of the central role of impairment, how to approach insight and remediation, how to evidence this at your hearing and a directed approach to presenting your learning with evidence in writing and verbally.

The training and coaching is delivered by both leading healthcare experts with years of experience in mentoring and coaching who also sit on regulatory tribunal panels and, leading legal experts in the field of defence at health and social care regulatory tribunals.

What you can Expect when Instructing Kings View

All clients are entitled to an initial, no obligation and free telephone consultation about their case. During this consultation, we will outline the stages and next steps, including indicative timeframes and fixed price quotations for preparation and representation and confirmed in writing at each and every stage.

We understand that timescales are entirely dependent on the stage you are at in proceedings, what work needs to be done and dictated by internal investigations or hearing dates. We always meet those timescales however should more time be needed, then we will apply for such on your behalf and with your permission.

Contact us today for a no obligation and free telephone consultation about your case in the knowledge that you are speaking to one of the best in the business.

In upholding the appeal, Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, said:

Failure to assess witness credibility and reliability The panel did not sufficiently evaluate the general credibility and reliability of key witnesses, whose evidence was essential to the charges. It failed to consider factors such as contradictions between witnesses' accounts and whether their testimonies should be approached with caution. This omission undermined the panel's ability to justify its conclusions.
Lack of explanation for preferred evidence The panel failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainants' evidence over the appellant nurse's and the paramedic's. Simply stating a preference for certain witnesses' accounts without detailed justification left the appellant without a clear understanding of why her evidence was rejected.
Errors in evidence evaluation The panel assessed each charge in isolation without considering broader patterns or contextual evidence. It failed to recognize that inaccuracies in one allegation (contradicted by CCTV) could cast doubt on the reliability of witnesses' accounts in other allegations, leading to flawed conclusions.
Improper handling of contextual evidence The panel neglected to evaluate the behaviour of the complainant nurses during the investigation, which was relevant to determining their credibility. Additionally, it overlooked the appellant nurse's claims that the allegations were fabricated to remove her from her managerial position.
Insufficient reasoning for findings The panel provided inadequate reasoning for its findings of misconduct. It did not fully explain how the evidence supported its conclusions, including why the NMC had met the burden of proof for each disputed allegation. This failure left the appellant with unsubstantiated conclusions, undermining the credibility of the process.

Lessons

This case highlights several critical considerations for fitness to practise tribunals. One key lesson is the importance of thoroughly evaluating the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly when their testimony is central to the charges. Without such assessments, the accuracy and fairness of the tribunal’s findings can be compromised. Witness accounts must be examined not only in isolation but also in a broader context, taking into account patterns and inconsistencies to achieve a holistic evaluation.

Additionally, tribunals must provide clear and rational reasoning for their decisions. Merely preferring one witness’s account over another without detailed explanations can lead to procedural unfairness. Ensuring transparency in decision-making fosters trust in the process and supports robust outcomes. Tribunals must also maintain procedural fairness by upholding the burden of proof on the prosecuting body. Accused parties should never feel pressured to disprove allegations, as fairness is crucial to preserving the system’s integrity.

Finally, the impact of procedural delays cannot be underestimated. Prolonged proceedings can cause undue harm to the accused, affecting their career and reputation. Timely resolutions are essential to upholding justice while minimizing unnecessary stress on all parties involved. By focusing on these principles, fitness-to-practise tribunals can enhance the fairness and effectiveness of their proceedings.

Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.