Criminal Regulatory & Environmental
Health & Safety Cases
- LB Camden v William Hill Organisation Ltd – Successfully defended William Hill in relation to a fatal accident in which a large metal advertising sign fell from above the William Hill bookmakers on Camden Road in North London and struck a member of the public. After a 6-week trial and 8 days of jury deliberation, the company was found not guilty of two health and safety offences (led by John Cooper QC).
- R (HSE) v Priory Healthcare Ltd – Represented Priory Healthcare in relation to a prosecution brought by the HSE following the death of a patient at the Priory Hospital Ticehurst House. A guilty plea was entered but it was disputed that the offence was a significant cause of the death. Dingemans J found that causation had not been established (led by John Cooper QC).
- Bath & North East Somerset Council v Pret a Manger UK Ltd and Planet Coconut Ltd – Instructed to represent Planet Coconut Ltd in respect of a prosecution concerning the death of a customer who had purchased food from Pret a Manger in Bath (led by QC).
- R (HSE) v MS Ltd – Instructed to represent a water utility company charged with a health and safety offence relating to the death of a football fan who died after falling into an excavation close to his home.
- R (HSE) v TF & Others – Represented a Principal Designer charged with a health and safety offence in relation to the design and construction of a new timber framed building immediately adjacent to an occupied residential building.
- R(HSE) v UEFS Ltd – Represented a company charged with breaches of electricity regulations after two men were severely injured in an explosion which occurred during electrical maintenance work.
- R(HSE) v FUK Ltd – Represented a major delivery company charged with a health and safety offence following a forklift truck incident at a parcel sorting depot.
- R (HSE) v C Ltd – Represented a farming business charged with health and safety offences after a worker sustained crush injuries when his arm became trapped in the moving parts of a potato grader.
- R (HSE) v R Ltd – Representing a company charged with health and safety offences relating to explosion which occurred when oxy-acetylene cutting equipment was being used to cut an oil drum, resulting in serious injuries.
- R (HSE) v S Ltd – Representing a roofing company and director charged with health and safety offences following a fatal fall from height.
- R(HSE) v B Ltd – Represented a manufacturing company charged with health and safety offences following a series of accidents in which three workers were injured by falling metal fencing panels.
- R(HSE) v A & Another – Represented an individual charged with health and safety offences following the collapse of a concrete pumping lorry, as a result of which a worker sustained serious head injuries.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
- R v Boden & Others – Instructed to represent a managing director charged with four counts of gross negligence manslaughter following an explosion at Bosley Mill in 2015 (led by Simon Antrobus QC).
- R v Oakes & Another – Represented a site foreman charged with gross negligence manslaughter and a health and safety offence following the death of a carpenter who fell from height during the conversion of stable blocks at Stanmer Park in Sussex. The case involved complex issues of causation. (Led junior).
- R v Honey Rose – Represented an optometrist charged with gross negligence manslaughter following the death of a child. This was a complex and high-profile case involving the first prosecution of an optometrist for manslaughter. The defendant was convicted following a trial before Stuart-Smith J and a jury. The conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal on 31 July 2017 on the basis that the submission of no case to answer made to the trial judge ought to have been allowed ( EWCA Crim 1618) (Led by QC).
- R v Dr Lyndsey Thomas & Another – Represented a GP charged with gross negligence manslaughter arising out of an alleged failure to visit a child who was suffering from a rare endocrine disorder. Nicola Davies J upheld a submission of no case to answer. The Court of Appeal’s judgment in relation to the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal in the co-defendant’s case is reported (R v Rudling  EWCA Crim 741). (Led by QC).
- R (Natural England) v Benham-Crosswell – Represented a retired army colonel charged with destruction of great crested newt habitat. It was alleged that he had drained a number of inter-connecting ponds which were known to be a great crested newt breeding ground.
- Environment Agency v Starbuck – Represented a haulier charged with unlawfully depositing controlled waste on a number of occasions as part of a commercial fly-tipping operation around the M25 in Kent. Twelve defendants.
- Environment Agency v Lee & RBPC Ltd – Represented a company director charged with unlawfully depositing approximately 5000 cubic meters of controlled waste on land in Berkshire.
- Environment Agency v I Ltd – Represented a company charged with multiple breaches in respect of two waste transfer stations in West London.
Professional Discipline Junior of the year (Chambers & Partners Bar Awards 2018)
- Sandesh Singh has successfully represented a housing association at an Article 2 inquest concerning the fatal stabbing of a resident
- Mike Atkins and Sandesh Singh represent Principal Contractor and Principal Designer in timber frame fire safety case
- LLB (Hons), University of Bristol
- BVC, College of Law, London
“Whether leading or being led, Sandesh has an intimate knowledge of the documents and facts from the very outset in a case. This ability to “get into” the case stand him apart from his competitors and his preparation is unrivalled. He is able to adapt and think on his feet at a moments notice and it really gives clients faith that they are in good hands. He is always thinking about the bigger picture and understands the commercial implications for clients.”
“He’s incredibly diligent, hard-working, and his attention to detail is second to none. A brilliant junior.”; “He is very smooth, pragmatic and efficient.”; “He’s organised, meticulous and very good at getting into the details of a case and working through a large amount of documents.”
“Extremely clever and very thorough, he always gets to the heart of the case. Personable and great to work with, he is very hardworking, too.”
“He is brilliant, incredibly hard-working and pleasant to work with.”
“Sandesh has a very sharp eye for detail and a confident manner in court, and is good with clients as well.”
“A real pleasure to work with. He is extremely clever, thorough, positive and always responsive to queries.”
“His advocacy is measured, persuasive and smooth.”
“He has forensic attention to detail”
“An effective advocate who prepares very thoroughly and rolls up his sleeves to get on top of the issues in even the most technical of cases.”
“He has a great eye and mind for detail.”
“An effective advocate even when pitched against silks and senior juniors twice his call.”
“Incredibly user-friendly and well prepared.”