Sandesh has experience of representing regulators and individuals in healthcare disciplinary proceedings before a variety of tribunals, including the General Medical Council, General Dental Council and General Optical Council.
In addition, Sandesh is regularly instructed in connection with appeals to the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal, eg: Akhtar v GDC  EWHC 1986; Ivanova v GDC  EWHC 1922, Phillips v GDC  EWHC 2584, GOC v Clarke  EWCA Civ 1463; Milerman v GDC  EWHC 2378 and PSA v GOC and Honey Rose  EWCA Civ 2888.
- GOC v Honey Rose – Represented Honey Rose in respect of her disciplinary proceedings before the Fitness to Practise Committee of the General Optical Council, following the PSA’s successful High Court appeal (PSA v GOC and Honey Rose  EWCA Civ 2888).
- GMC v Dr Donegan – Represented a GP alleged to be guilty of misconduct by reason of her writing misleading reports for the Family Division of the High Court in relation to the safety and necessity of childhood vaccinations. It was alleged that she had not provided a balanced expert opinion and had allowed her deeply held views on the subject to overrule her duty to the Court (led by KC).
- GDC v Bamgbelu – Acted for the regulator in a particularly sensitive case concerning a dentist who sent numerous abusive emails to colleagues and GDC staff members (Bamgbelu v GDC  4123)
- GOC v Jordan – Represented an optometrist alleged to have provided spectacles containing tinted lenses to numerous child patients, many with autism or other learning difficulties, without obtaining informed consent. The optometrist also faced allegations of inappropriate NHS claims and inadequate record keeping. Conditions were imposed. The co-defendant, a dispensing optician, was struck off: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-43332486/optician-struck-off-over-tinted-lenses-cures
- GOC v Styles – Defended an optometrist alleged to have dishonestly provided spectacles to 70 child patients, many with severe learning difficulties, when these were not clinically indicated and dishonestly charging for a non-evidence based assessment. A complex case involving around 500 individual charges, over 200 of which are allegations of dishonesty. Acquitted of all dishonesty charges, fitness to practise not impaired.
- GDC v Wasu – Acted for the regulator in a complex case concerning allegations of deficient clinical treatment, forgery, retrospective alteration of computer records and the submission of false documents as part of the regulator’s investigation. The dentist was represented by QC throughout (Wasu v GDC  EWHC 3782).
- GOC v Soni: Represented an optometrist alleged to have acted dishonestly over almost two decades by providing clinical interventions to patients which he knew were not required. On the third day of a three-week hearing, the GOC was forced to concede that it could not even establish that the approach adopted by the registrant was clinically inappropriate. This resulted in over 100 allegations of inappropriate prescribing, dishonesty and financial motivation being withdrawn. The committee ultimately found that any remaining failures in record keeping were insufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.
Professional Discipline Junior of the year (Chambers & Partners Bar Awards 2018)
- Jury acquittal in long running fatal accident prosecution
- Sandesh Singh & DWF successful in representation of charity at Article 2 ligature inquest
- LLB (Hons), University of Bristol
- BVC, College of Law, London
“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.”
“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.”
“He is very clever, insightful and has a great manner with clients.”
“Responsive, commercial and user-friendly with excellent strategic insight and strong advocacy.”
“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.”