Deans Court Chambers

Expert legal advice and advocacy, delivered by an outstanding team of Queen’s Counsel and barristers.

The Barristers at Deans Court are regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

Robin Kitching

View All
Robin Kitching - Deans Court Chambers


  • BA (Hons) History; Victoria University of Manchester
  • Inns of Court School of Law


  • CPS Advocates Panel - Cat 3
  • GMC Panel of Advocates

Professional Associations

  • Northern Circuit
  • Criminal Bar Associations


For most of the last decade my criminal practice has consisted almost exclusively of defending in the Crown Court. That work has encompassed all types of crime including money laundering, serious drugs cases, rape and murder (led by QCs).

That has inevitably entailed dealing with a huge variety of defendants, all of whom need dealing with on an individual basis. Although the content of advice tendered cannot be compromised I believe the way in which I give that advice is successfully tailored to suit the individual defendant concerned.

I am robust in dealing with defendants, witnesses in cross examination and, where necessary, the judiciary.

Regulatory Work

I have been acting on behalf of the General Medical Council for almost 10 years. I believe I have amassed an almost unrivalled amount of experience in this field. I have conducted many lengthy and complex Fitness to Practise cases. I have also been instructed to advise the GMC in relation to areas of law of general applicability (as opposed to advising merely on individual cases).

I have experience in conducting Inquests, representing local authoritiesties as well as companies and private individuals.

Notable Cases

  • R v W - Dangerous Dogs Act case.

    Instructed on behalf of the owner of a retired police dog (S) who had become involved in a fight with another dog (C) and then bitten C’s owner badly (several days in hospital skin graft operations necessary).

    There were factual issues between the parties such as which dog was the initial aggressor but the complainant’s dog, C, had not bitten anyone (nor had he bitten S). The offence is one of strict liability so required no fault on the part of W.

    Not guilty verdict in front of a District Judge who was not sure of the account of the complainant. The main basis for the acquittal, however, was a legal submission that there was no act or omission on the part of the defendant which had a sufficiently causative effect on the incident for criminal liability to arise. Case of R v Pierre-Robinson relied upon.

  • GDC V Dr PS

    Registration Appeal

    The case involved a dentist who had qualified in a non-EU country and after qualification had practised for a number of years both abroad and in the UK.

    He ceased practice approximately 10 years ago in order to qualify as a doctor which he has done. He wished to progress in his chosen field of oral and maxillofacial surgery but found that dual registration with the GDC was necessary so he reapplied for GDC registration. He has no intention of practising again as a dentist. His application was refused on the basis of the age of his dental qualifications and lack of recent experience. The GDC’s position was that that meant he could not demonstrate the “requisite skills and knowledge” demanded by the Dentists Act. The GDC did, however, acknowledge that his qualification was a “recognised overseas diploma” for the purposes of the Act. The case centred on consideration of the arcane complexities and legal interpretation of Article 34 of “Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications” and sections 15 and 16(2)(2A) and (2B) of the Dentists Act.

  • Inquests

    Inquest Re: CT

    Represented a care home (Warrington coroner's court).

    Resident with MS refused food and treatment but was deemed by a psychiatrist to have sufficient mental capacity to make his own decisions and admission to a psychiatric unit was not appropriate because he didn't have sufficiently significant mental health issues.

    He died in a very poor physical state.

  • Inquests

    Inquest touching upon the death of Levi Smith.

    Representing a prison officer in an Article 2 jury inquest. The officer had care of the deceased (LS) overnight in the segregation unit of HMP Elmley. LS was on hourly observations (following the opening of an ACCT) but was later found hanging in his cell. The evidence from CCTV footage showed the observations of the deceased which should have been conducted by the officer in question had not been carried out adequately (and in some cases not at all). The coroner was persuaded that the failings of the officer were not such as could be said to have contributed more than minimally etc to the death.

    The inquest ran for 3 weeks.

  • Professional Discipline

    L. NHS teaching hospitals v Dr B

    Represented a Dr at a disciplinary hearing in which it was alleged that he sexually abused a patient during the course of 2 hospital consultations. Dr B was exonerated of any wrongdoing.

  • Inquests

    Inquest touching upon the death of BK

    A two week article 2 jury inquest following a death in custody (suicide) at HMP Leeds. Acting for GeoAmey who had been responsible for the transportation of BK to and from Leeds Magistrates’ Court and whilst in the cells there. The inquest focused on whether GeoAmey and HMP Leeds (including healthcare) had adequately responded to warnings about BK’s risk factors. Ultimately no criticisms were made of GeoAmey or any of their employees who were found to have followed correct procedures and had passed on the information in their possession to the prison.

  • Professional Discipline

    GMC v Dr S Robinson

    Sexual relationship with a patient. Involving issues of abuse of process/admissibility of covert tape recordings.

  • Professional Discipline

    GMC v Sharief

    Research fraud during significant trials relating to MS.

  • Crime

    R v P

    Represented the elder of 2 brothers charged with sexually abusing a foster sister over a period of 2 years in the early 1990s. The defendant was aged 18 – 20 at the time of the alleged offences and the complainant aged 12 – 14. The defendant’s father had kept meticulous farming diaries of the years in question and by careful cross referencing of the diaries against the allegations it was possible to demonstrate that the complainant’s account could not be true. Defendant was acquitted.

  • Crime

    R v C

    Represented a defendant who was charged with the rape of a woman with whom he lodged. He claimed that he had been drugged by her and could recall nothing of the evening in question but denied rape. He accepted taking drugs and alcohol himself before the incident. Despite legal arguments, the defendant’s previous conviction for rape (on a different complainant) was adduced and he was convicted but did not receive a life sentence. Appeal currently in progress.

  • Crime

    R v H

    Represented a defendant in a 9 day trial in relation to numerous counts on the indictment, relating to allegations of a 27 year campaign of rape against his wife. Other counts included assault by penetration (and ABH x 3. All charges denied, though many of the acts alleged were admitted. The defence was that his wife had consented to all acts performed upon her, and he was Acquitted on all counts.

  • Crime

    R v JW (and another)

    Represented a defendant who was charged (along with co-defendant) with allegation of rape. Both defendant and co-defendant were aged 17 at the time of the incident, the complainant was aged 15. The defendant suffered from autism and ADHD. Both defendants accepted that they had had sexual intercourse with the complainant (within a few minutes of each other) in a tent. The Defence was consent; the prosecution alleged that the complainant was too drunk to consent. He defendant also maintained that he believed the complainant was over 15. A Defence expert was called to give evidence about the defendants various deficiencies and the impact of those matters on issues such as reasonable belief in consent, ability to assess the level of another person’s intoxication etc. Defendant was acquitted.

  • Crime

    R v M

    Represented a defendant (aged 24 and of good character) who faced allegations of rape of his female cousin on a fortnightly basis over a period of 6 or 7 years from when she was aged 7 to when she was aged 13 (and he was aged 11 - 17). Thereafter it was alleged that the abuse continued until she was 15. In the aftermath of the complaint the defendant had sent text messages which were highly damaging, indeed the prosecution relied upon them as admissions. After a 5 day trial the defendant was acquitted of all 16 counts on the Indictment.

  • Crime

    R v S

    Represented a 48 year old defendant who was alleged to have raped his niece 13 years earlier (when she was aged 12). The matter had been reported to the police twice before and investigated but never pursued. All documents relating to those accusations and CPS charging decisions had been lost. The defendant was acquitted.

  • Crime

    R v MR (and another)

    Defendant was charged with child cruelty. His 5 week old stepdaughter sustained a badly displaced fracture of the femur. The prosecution expert witnesses said the injury was non accidental but the prosecution could not prove which defendant had caused the injury. The case was therefore put on the basis that the child would have experienced such excruciating pain when the injury occurred and whenever the leg was moved that the defendants must have known she required medical treatment. The defendants accepted knowing that there was something wrong with the child's leg but not that it was seriously injured. There was a delay of at least 7 hours before medical help was sought. R was acquitted.

  • Crime

    R v Ping Lin and others

    Serious money laundering (arising out of the production of drugs).

  • Trading Standards

    R v Automart online Ltd and others

    Trading Standards case involving several defendants and thousands of allegedly fraudulent transactions involving members of the public (Indictment stayed as an abuse of process).

What the directories say

"Incredibly solid."

Chambers and Partners, 2022

"He is a very able advocate." "He is very good with both tribunals and the High Court bench. A smooth performer who is very knowledgeable."

Chambers and Partners, 2021

"He has good judgement and is understated and efficient - he just gets on with things."

Chambers and Partners, 2020

Known for his work for the GMC on sensitive and high-profile cases, with expertise in handling fitness to practise cases. He handles professional discipline matters as part of a broader practice that also encompasses criminal law work. "Very well prepared and very thorough." "Succinct and effective."

Chambers and Partners, 2019

‘An imperturbable barrister with razor-sharp advocacy skills.’

Legal 500, 2018

Known for his work for the GMC on sensitive and high-profile cases, with expertise in handling fitness to practise cases. He handles professional discipline matters as part of a broader practice that also encompasses criminal law work. "He's encyclopaedic when it comes to law and practice. He is impressive." "He has many years' experience and good judgement. He is user-friendly and very persuasive on his feet before the tribunal."

Chambers and Partners, 2018

‘A polished performer.’

Legal 500, 2017

Known for his work for the GMC on sensitive and high-profile cases, with expertise in handling fitness to practise cases. He handles professional discipline matters as part of a broader practice that also encompasses criminal law work. "He is outstanding. A very incisive, sharp advocate." "His knowledge of regulation is just fantastic - encyclopaedic."

Chambers UK, 2017

Well-reputed for representing the General Medical Council in disciplinary proceedings. He has represented the organisation in numerous complex fitness to practise cases. "He's just absolutely first class. A good advocate who's well organised and on top of all the issues." "He's a tough cookie who sees the point quickly."

Chambers UK, 2016

Has a great deal of experience in prosecuting fitness to practise cases on behalf of the GMC. "My most feared opponent is Robin Kitching. I call him 'Rapier Robin'. He has done me in a couple of times and there is not a thing you can do to stop him. He is serious business."

Chambers UK, 2015

"superb" He impresses with his excellent cross-examination skills.

Chambers UK, 2013


More Articles

© 2022 Deans Court Chambers | All rights reserved