Zoe Dawson

Notable Cases

• NMC v D

  Zoe represented a nurse who had admitted making misguided and inappropriate comments to a transgender patient. Zoe successfully defended the nurse against further more serious allegations including that she had requested to view the patient’s genitalia. Zoe’s client received a caution.

• GMC v Dr D

  Zoe presented for the GMC in a case involving the doctor’s use of another clinician’s name against patient records over a period of 3 months in conjunction with a temporary smart card, due to the doctor’s failure to obtain a personal card. The doctor had also admitted making a number of inappropriate posts on social media, some concerning internal disciplinary decisions within the Trust. After a detailed examination of IT data, the Tribunal found dishonesty on the doctor’s part and imposed a period of suspension.

• GMC v Dr J

  Zoe represented the GMC in a fitness to practise case involving a Football Club’s doctor and his failure to apply for therapeutic exemption for a Player’s use of a prohibited substance, contrary to doping regulations. The doctor had covered up said failings by fraudulently backdating an application form that was then sent to the UK Anti-Doping Authority, and went on to lie to the FA within the FA’s regulatory proceedings.

• GMC v Dr S

  Dr S had been erased from the Medical Register following findings that he had sexually assaulted 2 patients under the guise of clinical examinations. Dr S sought restoration to the Register – Zoe acted for the GMC and successfully opposed restoration.

• R v (youth)

  Zoe represented a youth charged with sexually assaulting a child under 13. Zoe successfully raised s.76 / s.78 PACE arguments in respect of the admissibility of two ‘confessions’.

• R v B

  Zoe defends in case involving 5 charges of indecent exposures to women and girls near to a school in Eccles. Client avoided an immediate custodial sentence – receiving a 2 year community order.

• DBR v (Company A)

  Zoe successfully applied to the High Court to remit a case stated appeal back to the Crown Court for amendment of the stated case. The application was granted, following which Zoe successfully opposed an application to set aside the Order.

• R v K

  Zoe acted for a client charged with assault. A successful application was made to the Family Court for disclosure of material from family proceedings in which the Client was not a party.

  At trial, Zoe advanced submissions that the prosecution had failed in their disclosure obligations, and following this the prosecution offered no evidence.

• R v W

  Zoe defended a client for assault– victim had retracted due to purported intoxication at the time of preparing their statement – Judge withdrew case from Jury after voire dire and legal argument.

• Health & Safety

  Zoe represented a company who entered a guilty plea to 1 charge of failing to protect the health and safety of employees contrary to s.2 Health and Safety at Work Act. The case concerned an employee who had contracted Silicosis. Zoe referred to medical evidence in mitigation, showing that whilst Silicosis had been diagnosed, the employee was currently a-symptomatic and the risk of progression of the disease was low. The Court accepted that the percentage risk of progression was relevant to the degree of uplift required, and a sentence was imposed below the range provided for in the sentencing guidelines.

• Zoe, instructed by McHale & Co, represented a company who entered a guilty plea to 1 charge of failing to protect the health and safety of employees contrary to s.2 Health and Safety at Work Act. The case concerned failures by the defendant company to adequately protect an employee against the risk of contracting Silicosis - a respiratory disease affecting the lungs as a result of exposure to dust. Zoe referred to medical evidence in mitigation, showing that whilst Silicosis had been diagnosed, the complainant was currently a-symptomatic and the risk of progression of the disease was low. The Court accepted that whilst a move upwards in the range was necessary to reflect actual harm caused, the percentage risk of progression was relevant to the degree of uplift required.
   

  Once mitigation was accounted for, the Defendant company received a sentence below the range provided for in the guidelines.