Jack Murphy

“Jack Murphy is always very good. He is very detail-focused and very good with clients. He is an all-rounder.”  (Chambers and Partners 2025)

Jack is an established member of Crown Office Chambers’ market-leading criminal regulatory team. He regularly represents corporate clients of all sizes (including large multi-nationals), as well as individuals. His cases range from manslaughter prosecutions, to HSWA 1974 cases, as well as  niche areas of the field (including product liability, wilful neglect prosecutions, and fire safety offences).

He is regularly instructed and led by some of the leading practitioners in the field. He has considerable Crown Court trial experience as a junior and, rare for his level of call, as sole counsel.

Health and Safety

His health & safety work covers a broad range of industries and issues. He has represented a range of corporate clients, from micro companies up to very large organisations with turnovers in excess of £1 billion; has been instructed in manslaughter cases (corporate manslaughter and gross negligence); regularly advises companies and individuals regarding prosecutions under the 1974 Act; and is familiar with niche areas of the field, including wilful neglect and fire safety offences.

Selected health and safety cases include the following:

• R v Alutrade Limited & Others (Wolverhampton Crown Court, March 2022) – One of the major manslaughter cases of 2022, Jack was led by Mark Balysz KC for a large metal recycling company charged with corporate manslaughter relating to a death due to unguarded machinery. The Crown accepted the company’s guilty plea to corporate manslaughter, alongside pleas to non-causative HSWA offences from three co-defendant managers originally charged with gross negligence manslaughter. This plea deal, coupled with the Company’s sentence (£2m, with four years to pay) was a favourable outcome.
• R (HSE) v Balfour Beatty Construction Limited (Birmingham Crown Court, September 2024) – A prosecution arising from a work at height fatality involving a crane, Jack was led by Simon Antrobus KC, having previously represented the defendant at inquest.
• R (HSE) v Shell UK Ltd (Chelmsford Crown Court, December 2023) – A prosecution arising out of an accident on an offshore crew transfer vessel, Jack was led by Simon Antrobus KC on behalf of the oil major. The case concerned complex issues related to design, sea state, and weather conditions.
• R (HSE) v West Sussex County Council (July 2024) – Jack represented the County Council in this prosecution relating to an accident in one of its schools. The Council was at risk of being deemed a “Very Large Organisation” and therefore subject to a very high fine. However, in the event, the Court accepted Jack’s submissions on all key areas, and imposed a fine of less than £20,000.
• R (HSE) v McFarlane Telfer Ltd & Others (Southwark Crown Court) – Jack was led by Ben Compton KC (Outer Temple Chambers) in this 7 week trial focusing on electrical safety, product liability duties under EU Machinery Directives, and the scope of a catering equipment installer’s duty of care in circumstances where the equipment purchased from a third party supplier was inherently but unforeseeably dangerous.
• R (HSE) v McLaren Technology Group & Others (Reading Crown Court, February 2023) – Led by John Cooper KC, Jack represented the Formula 1 racing team McLaren in this HSE prosecution concerning the death of a specialist engineering inspector (employed by the co-defendant, Zurich) following a fall at McLaren’s premises. Whilst the company was found guilty at trial, on sentence the judge accepted the defence argument (drafted by Jack) that significant safety systems had been in place, that only a small number of individuals had been exposed to risk, and (crucially) that the company’s breach was not a significant cause of the death.
• R (HSE) v Douglas (Reading Crown Court, December 2021) – Jack was instructed as sole counsel to represent a high-performance boat builder charged with a breach of regulation 11 of PUWER regarding the use of an unguarded table saw. Jack secured an acquittal following a week-long trial. The case was challenging, and the outcome exceptional given the strict nature of the duty under regulation 11 and the absence of a reasonableness defence.
• R (Thanet DC) v S (Folkestone Magistrates’ Court, April 2022) – Jack represented a multi-national building materials company (with a turnover in excess of £1 billion). The case concerned alleged inadequate training in regards to the movement of heavy steel mesh products using fork-lift trucks, and a consequent serious accident involving 3 employees. A significant aspect of the case was the comprehensive fort-lift truck training provided to all employees involved, and the enforcement of exclusion zones. The prosecution contended for a fine of between £1.5 to £3 million. The Judge accepted Jack’s arguments and imposed a fine of £400,000 only.
• R (HSE) v R&J Ltd and Others (Swansea Magistrates’ Court, September 2021) – Jack represented one of two directors of a specialist roofing firm charged with s.37 HSWA offences regarding a serious work at height accident. On sentence, the prosecution’s argument that a custodial sentence and a directors’ disqualification order should be imposed were rejected, and a community order only imposed.
• R (HSE) v S Ltd and Others (Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, September 2020) – Acting as sole counsel at sentence for a company with turnover in excess of £300 million, in relation to a workplace accident caused by inadequate isolation and lock-off procedures. A favourable fine of £200,000 was obtained.
• R v E (Leicester Crown Court, July 2017) – Led in a s.47 wilful neglect Crown Court trial involving the near-fatal drowning of a vulnerable pupil at a specialist school, in which a conditional discharge was obtained on the basis of unused material Jack identified.
• Being led in a prosecution of an Approved Inspector under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, in which the prosecution offered no evidence following legal submissions on the applicability of the Order.

Environmental Law

Jack is developing an environmental law practice, and he has particular experience of prosecutions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Recent work in this area includes successfully defending Waitrose (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland) and a large national housebuilder (instructed by Gowling) in respective statutory nuisance prosecutions.

Motoring Offences

Jack’s motor offences work includes regular trials and sentencing hearings for a range of motoring offences, from careless driving up to fatal offences, as well as s.170 Road Traffic Act failure to report / failure to stop offences.

Recent highlights include:

• Securing non-custodial sentences in both a death by careless driving case and a serious injury by dangerous driving case,
• Securing two acquittals at trial in respective careless driving cases involving collisions with cyclists
• Securing a discontinuance by means of a bad character application, which demonstrated that the complainant and key prosecution witness was routinely involved in illegal road racing and other reprehensible behaviour.
• Successfully applying to withdraw a guilty plea, and securing a discontinuance in a careless driving case on medical grounds.

“Jack is a very skilled and talented junior”. (Chambers and Partners 2025)

Jack has an established specialist Inquests and Public Inquiries practice, and is ranked in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.

Clients include infrastructure companies (Balfour Beatty, RATP); public services (South Central Ambulance Service, G4S, Mitie); international healthcare providers (Bupa, HCA); local authorities (Surrey County Council); and government departments (the Ministry of Justice).

He appeared in the first well-publicised case involving unlawful killing after the Supreme Court case of Maughan, represented South Central Ambulance Service in the Forbury Gardens Terrorist Attack Inquests, was instructed regarding the Grenfell Inquiry; and is currently instructed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the Cranston Inquiry into small boat crossings of the Channel.

He was appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel in 2021, and accepts instructions on behalf of government departments.

He is regularly instructed by leading solicitors in the field.

Selected Cases

• The Cranston Inquiry (March 2025) – Let by James Maxwell-Scott KC, Jack is Junior Counsel for the MCA in the Cranston Inquiry, set up to investigate the events of 24 November 2021, when at least 27 migrants lost their lives crossing the English Channel. The Inquiry chair is Sir Ross Cranston, a former High Court Judge. The Inquiry is of national significance, given the significant amount of political, press and public interest into the recent phenomenon of migrant small boat crossings of the Channel.
• Forbury Gardens Terrorist Attack Inquests (Central Criminal Court, January to April 2024) – Jack was sole counsel for South Central Ambulance Service (the NHS emergency medical service for southern England) in the high-profile inquests into the well-publicised 2020 terrorist attack in Reading. The case was of national significance, with a Court of Appeal judge (Sir Adrian Fulford) appointed as Judge Coroner. Multiple state agencies were involved, with a focus on the preventability of the attacks and the effectiveness of the emergency service response.
• Inquest into the death of F Ospina (West London Coroner’s Court, October 2024) – A high-profile 2 week jury inquest concerning the death of a Colombian national detained at Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre. Jack acted for the operators of the Centre.
• Inquest into the death of I Malka (Birmingham Coroner’s Court, September 2022) – A two-week jury inquest into a work at height fatality, involving a collision between an overhead crane and an elevated work platform during the construction of a testing facility at the University of Birmingham. Jack acted for the Principal Contractor, the national construction and engineering company Balfour Beatty.
• Inquest into the death of N Saunders – (Reading Coroners’ Court, November – December 2022) – A 3-week jury inquest that gained national media attention, it involved a death during ambulance transport due to cocaine-toxicity and the associated phenomenon of ‘Acute Behavioural Disturbance’ (or ‘ABD’) following over 1 hour of restraint in handcuffs by the police. Jack acted for South Central Ambulance Service.
• J Barnes Inquest (Manchester City Coroner’s Court, February 2021) – Acting for the former operators of the Manchester Metrolink tram system in a sensitive, well-publicised inquest involving the death of a young man following a cardiac arrest, suffered during a contentious physical restraint performed on him by four Metrolink contractors in central Manchester. This was one of the first cases concerned with unlawful killing and the lowered standard of proof following Maughan.

Jack has a busy defendant personal injury practice, encompassing both casualty and industrial disease claims, and with a particular focus on liability disputes in which novel duty of care issues arise. His regulatory crime practice complements his personal injury practice in this regard, with Jack frequently far more familiar with relevant regulations than his opponents.

He regularly drafts pleadings, provides advice on liability and quantum, and undertakes settlement negotiations in cases ranging in value from £50,000 to c.£500,000.

His cases frequently involve three or more disciplines of expert medical evidence, or claimants with complex pre-existing medical conditions. Several of his more recent cases have involved occupational stress and psychiatric injury.

Selected Cases

• Marica v Berkeley Homes (Central London County Court, November 2022, HHJ Baucher)– Jack successfully defended a claim valued at c.£300,000, involving an accident on one of Berkeley’s large housing development sites, when a subcontractor attempted to climb over a locked security gate. The claimant’s argument sought to equate duties owed under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 with an construction company’s duty of care at common law as occupier of its own site. Following a three day trial, HHJ Baucher rejected the claim on all points, and accepted Jack’s argument that the Defendant did not owe any duty of care to guard against the risk of individuals permitted to be on site from climbing over a security gate, the fundamental purpose of which was to deter climbing.
• Advising on both liability and expert evidence in an occupational asthma claim pleaded in the region of £400,000, involving a novel mode of alleged exposure (a domestic battery), and raising fundamental questions of foreseeability and remoteness. At the CCMC Jack successfully persuaded the court to order a split trial and grant permission for expert engineering and occupational hygiene evidence. This evidence subsequently led to Claimant discontinuing the claim, with even the Claimant’s expert concluding that exposure to injurious fumes from a domestic battery was unforeseeable, if indeed possible at all.
• A chronic pain syndrome case valued in excess of £400,000, which Jack was able to compromise for a global figure less than £150,000.

Jack is frequently instructed in cases involving concerns of fraud: to conduct trials, proof witnesses, advise on prospects, and settle pleadings. Much of his fraud work arises out of road traffic accidents or public liability personal injury claims, and he has successfully defended several low velocity impact, induced accident and exaggerated injury claims at trial. He also undertakes more general insurance fraud work.

His criminal court and inquests advocacy experience compliments his fraud work.

Jack has extensive experience of fundamental dishonesty, QOCS, and s.57 CJCA 2015 applications. He has obtained several dishonesty findings following cross-examination at trial. He has also obtained four dishonesty findings without trial following discontinuance, one of which being the first instance dishonesty finding in Rayner v Raymond Brown Group (2016) CC (Oxford) (Judge Harris KC) 03/08/2016, referred to in the leading case of LOCOG v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB).