Manslaughter and Corporate Manslaughter
- R v NELFT & Another – Currently representing the North East London NHS Foundation Trust, which is charged with corporate manslaughter in relation to a ligature fatality on an acute psychiatric ward (led by John Cooper KC). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c299x7wx427o
- R v AP & Another – Currently instructed to represent a company charged with two counts of corporate manslaughter following the death of two pest control workers at a chicken processing factory in Norfolk. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyj4eejz374o
- R v Boden & Others – Represented a managing director charged with four counts of gross negligence manslaughter following an explosion at Bosley Mill in 2015. Trial before May J. Acquitted of all manslaughter counts following a successful submission of no case to answer. Acquittals upheld by the Court of Appeal (R v WTL & Boden [2021] EWCA Crim 618) (led by Simon Antrobus KC). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50631845
- 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). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-41283631
- 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. Now one of the leading cases on foreseeability in gross negligence manslaughter ([2017] EWCA Crim 1618) (Led by KC). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/31/optometrist-honey-rose-wins-appeal-against-conviction-manslaughter-boy-8
- 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 [2016] EWCA Crim 741) (Led by KC). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/doctor-cleared-over-death-of-12-year-old-boy/
Selected Cases
Healthcare
- R v NELFT & Another – Currently representing the North East London NHS Foundation Trust, which is charged with corporate manslaughter in relation to a ligature fatality on an acute psychiatric ward (led by John Cooper KC). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c299x7wx427o
- 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 KC). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/17/priory-group-fined-300000-judge-death-teenage-girl-psychiatric
- R (HSE) v Priory Healthcare Ltd – Represented Priory Healthcare in relation to a ligature fatality at the Priory Hospital Roehampton. HHJ Baumgartner KC ruled that causation had not been established (led by John Cooper KC). https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-11-14-PRIORY-HEALTHCARE-LIMITED-Sentencing-remarks.pdf https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-67427462
- R (HSE) v PCH and Another – Represented a healthcare provider charged with offences relating to the risk of assaults (primarily incidents of biting) by patients on care staff at a hospital which cared for patients with learning disabilities, mental health and behavioural issues before it was closed in 2017. One care worker was bitten on the shoulder “through to the bone” and another required skin grafts following a bite to his forearm. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66158621
- CQC v S – Represented a manager in a prosecution by the CQC following the death of a service user who was assaulted in a care home.
- CQC v BC – Represented an organisation charged with offences in connection with the choking death of a service user in a care home.
- Re: SC – Represented a charity which provides health and social care services at a sensitive, two-week Article 2 inquest concerning the death of a patient at a specialist mental health unit. At the conclusion of the inquest, the Jury delivered positive findings that the care decisions made were reasonable and rejected a suggestion that the death was contributed to by neglect.
Selected Cases
Food Safety / Consumer / Product Safety
- London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v S Ltd – Instructed to represent a company at the inquest into the death of Hannah Jacobs, who died after drinking a hot chocolate purchased from Costa Coffee in Barking, and in the ongoing criminal investigation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77lr0ellddo
- 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 allergy death of Celia Marsh, who had purchased food from Pret a Manger in Bath. Acquitted upon the Prosecution offering no evidence following service of expert evidence (led by KC).https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7663977/Pret-Manger-food-supplier-Planet-Coconut-face-trial-death-woman.html
- Inquest into the death of Celia Marsh – Represented Planet Coconut Ltd at the inquest into the death of Celia Marsh, who died after eating a wrap purchased from Pret a Manger in Bath. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-62919404
- Re: X – Represented a retailer at an inquest which concerning a fatal fire. It was suggested that a product supplied by Sandesh’s client was the cause of the fire. The Coroner found that a causative link to product could not be established and no Regulation 28 report was issued.
- Re: Y – Represented a manufacturer of medical devices at an inquest relating to the death of a patient during an operation. It was suggested that the failure of a device manufactured by Sandesh’s client had contributed to the death. Sandesh argued that the most likely cause was an error by the consultant surgeon, who gave evidence at the inquest. The Coroner found no causative link between the device and the death and no Regulation 28 report was issued.
Selected Cases
View full profile »Awards
News
Events
Qualifications
- LLB (Hons), University of Bristol
- BVC, College of Law, London
Memberships
- ARDL
- HSLA
Recommendations
“Sandesh is definitely a silk in the making.” “Head and shoulders above any other junior working in health and safety.” “A class act, he is very smooth and succinct but does not take rubbish points.” “Has a forensic eye for detail which is unrivalled.”
(2025)
“Sandesh’s attention to detail is second to none. He is smart and thinks outside the box.” “Understated and technically brilliant which is a particularly good combination for difficult matters in this field of work.”
(2025)
“Excellent all round. Thorough, impressive, focused and meticulous in his preparation. He is all over a case and is a go-to for complex cases – he’s got it all.”
(2024)
“He is extremely intelligent and brilliant on technical cases involving science which he is able to bring down into a more simple form.” “Sandesh is an exceptional and articulate barrister. His tactical and strategic approach is impressive.”
(2024)
“Extremely bright, very thorough and has great attention to detail. He gets right to the heart of a case. His advocacy is clear and very impressive.” “His attention to detail and preparation are first class and he has great client care but can be firm when necessary …. he will always ensure that the client’s position is protected and stand his ground.”
(2023)
“Really gets into the detail and is very methodical. He has a great eye for detail and is able to anticipate the issues in advance.” “A very smooth and effective advocate.” “He is extremely diligent, thorough and very good with clients.” “He is incredibly impressive, a brilliant advocate. He is meticulous, thorough and one of the most hard-working barristers I know.”
(2022)
“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.”
(2021)
