New Park Court Chambers

Crime, Regulatory

Stephen Uttley defends exclusively in serious crime. He will fight unfalteringly on behalf of his clients and has an exhaustive list of cases of importance.

In regulatory matters, he often deals with a wide range of complicated HSE cases including fatal accidents. Stephen also appears in the Court of Appeal in relation to potentially unsafe convictions and excessive sentences.

Crime

• R v Q [2024] - Q was charged with three serious offences arising out of an incident where whilst driving a car in the Halifax area he mounted a pavement and drove directly at a group of boys causing serious injuries to them. After a medical assessment had taken place he pleaded guilty to all matters and the Court made an order under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 together with a Restriction Order under Section 41 of the same Act.
• R v M (2024) - M was charged with offences arising out of an incident where he was said to have been the aggressor carrying a knife which resulted in him being attacked by others and receiving life threatening injuries. Another person was also murdered during the incident. The Defence were able to establish the unreliability of the evidence against him including DNA evidence which the Prosecution ultimately accepted, and a not guilty verdict was directed by the Court. Two others were convicted of murder arising out of the incident.
• R v T (2023) - T was charged with an offence of Armed Robbery involving two others. The Prosecution relied upon DNA evidence on a weapon used in the offence which was recovered at the scene and the purported identification of T by the Complainant. During a five-day retrial the Defence were able to undermine the credibility of the Prosecution’s identification evidence and establish that the DNA was not compelling when considering all the evidence in the case. T was acquitted under two hours by the Jury.

Regulatory

• R v Edwin Hodge (2009) - Insolvency case in relation to non-disclosure of assets in UK and abroad. Convicted.
• R v Kerry Harrison (2009) - Insolvency case and non-disclosure of assets. Convicted.
• R v Bakish Alla Khan & Others [2008] EWCA Crim 531 - [Prosecution of Michael Arshad Khan on behalf of BERR]. Leading case on persons who can sit on a jury. Case before The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Applications rejected by the Court in applying the principles as laid down in the House of Lords in Abdroikof. Court ruled that conviction was safe and ruled against the Appellants Grounds of Appeal.

Health & Safety

• R v The Mission to Seafarers (2024) - The Prosecution was as a result of an investigation by Stockton‑on‑Tees Borough Council in relation to a fatality that occurred at The Seafarers’ Centre, Seal Sands Road, Stockton on Tees TS2 1UA where the deceased fell from height whilst attempting to replace a loft ladder. The Mission to Seafarers, who are one of the largest maritime charities in the world, faced one offence contrary to Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in that they failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare at work of all their non- employees including the deceased. Mr Uttley advised on the case from the outset. The Mission to Seafarers pleaded guilty to the offence and were dealt with at Teesside Crown Court.
• R v Britcon (2021) - The Prosecution was for one offence contrary to Section 3(1) of the HSW Act 1974. Mr Uttley advised the HSE from the outset of the Prosecution. The case related to their failure to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the safety and welfare at work of all their non- employees including the complainant in the case who was struck by a seven meter sheet pile weighing approximately 190 Kg whilst cleaning sheet piles as they were removed from a surge pit by a Doosan excavator causing serious injuries to the complainant. Britcon were fined £570K.
• R v G (2019) - G was successfully prosecuted for an offence contrary to Section 2 of the HSWA. G had been the sole Director of a company which had been subsequently dissolved after the incident but before the Prosecution commenced­­­­­­. The Prosecution was brought against G when applying Sections 2 and 37 of the HSWA. The case involved a worker using a lorry loader crane to deliver soil, but when he brought the crane down his left arm was impaled on a spike protruding from the control system. The impact resulted in leaving him with life-changing injuries. The HSE investigation found that the safety system had been disabled and part of the safety guard around the controls had been cut off, leaving an exposed spike which impaled the man’s arm.

Bar Pro Bono Unit Junior Counsel to the Attorney General’s Panel of Prosecution Advocates List A (2012) Specialist Regulatory Advocate in Health & Safety and Environmental Law (List A)