David Baines

David has extensive experience in coronial law, frequently appearing for bereaved families in addition to other interested persons including state bodies such as the Ministry of Justice (Grade B of the Attorney General’s Panel, Junior Counsel to the Crown), companies, schools, care homes etc. David is often instructed in proceedings where Article 2 is engaged before juries, including deaths in custody or mental health units, and is experienced in document-heavy complex cases.

Listed below is a selection of cases David has recently appeared in:

Representation of bereaved families

Inquest Re AT: Representation of family. Article 2 jury inquest (eight days). The jury found multiple causative failures to prevent self-harm and suicide and multiple missed opportunities at all levels in the prison. The failures which probably contributed to the deceased’s death included failing to adhere to policy and procedure, lack of professional curiosity, assessments and documentation. Further failures relating to minimal/inadequate MH interventions were also found to have possibly contributed to death. Regulation 28 report issued to both MOJ and healthcare. Link to further information and press coverage.

Inquest Re MF: Representation of family. Article 2 jury inquest (nine days). Death of prisoner from self-suspension. Multiple issues explored included effect of absence of care & crisis management plans, MH support/intervention and decision making in ACCT reviews (including effect of increase in risk and application of policy).

Inquest Re AK: Representation of family. Article 2 jury inquest (six days). Death of prisoner from multiple primary causes including mixed drugs toxicity. Issues explored included causative effect of controlled medications and illicit substances (expert evidence on additive effect on respiratory depression and QT prolongation), measures to control supply of drugs and whether symptoms prior to death were causally related to drug-induced cardiac arrest.

Inquest Re BJ: Representation of family (widow of the deceased). Jury inquest (three days). Tragic death of a young father. Following the adverse effect of investigations by police and social services into unfounded allegation of assault, the jury found that omissions (non-Article 2) by each public body contributed to the deceased taking his life, including the police not confirming in writing bail revocation and NFA, and social services not completing their written assessment.

Inquest Re KJ: Representation of family. Death of highways worker following home invasion whereby home owner stabbed and car stolen, and high speed pursuit thereafter by offender who was later prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving. Six different national organisations appeared at the inquest including the police, national highways and traffic management organisations. Issues included exploration of risk assessment by police prior to and during the pursuit and safety of traffic workers during construction smart motorway.

Inquest Re MB: Representation of family. Article 2 jury inquest (two weeks). Death of prisoner from drug (Amitriptyline) toxicity, which staff misdiagnosed as the effects of NPS. Prisoner left on floor of his cell being monitored without treatment for 15 hours prior to death. Jury found failures to recognise that the deceased had not been prescribed Amitriptyline or to consult TOXBASE which would have led to hospital referral contributed to his death. Regulation 28 report issued. Link to further information and press coverage.

Inquest Re CB. Representation of family. Inquest explored the death of a patient who suffered a stroke whilst undergoing TKR under spinal anaesthetic, inquest considered risk management of medication, consideration of prospective thromboprophylaxis as a preventative measure, and appropriateness of operation proceeding in light of presenting symptoms.

Inquest Re GL: Representation of family. Death of a vulnerable formerly detained MH inpatient whose body was discovered in a reservoir weeks after being reported missing. Previously discharged into the care of his mother under a rarely used Nearest Relative power NRP). Regulation 28 report issued to Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care with concerns regarding the use of NRP under MHA1983.

Inquest Re CD:  Representation of family. Death of an elderly patient who was being treated with immunosuppressant chemotherapy drugs who went on to contract PJP.  Regulation 28 report issued with respect of recording of prescriptions on different systems and lack of consistency of approach to record keeping.

Inquest touching upon the death of LI: Represented deceased’s family (pro bono). Death of young baby in hospital, issues surrounding positioning of NG tube.

Inquest touching upon the death of GT: Representation of family of deceased; inquest relating to a fatal road traffic accident.

Inquest Re RB: Representation of family. Article 2 jury inquest (two weeks). Self-inflicted death of a prisoner through ligature, inquest explored adequacy of assessment of risk, whether the level of observations was appropriate and whether risk minimisation measures should have been enacted.

Inquest touching upon the death of FS: Representation of family of the deceased; inquest relating to the death of an elderly man following a fall in a care home and subsequent death in hospital. Issues relating to the administration of morphine, interactions and overdose.

Representation of other interested persons

Inquest Re FH: Representation of MOJ (Probation & Lord Chancellor/Secretary of State). Article 2 compliant jury inquest (two weeks). Death of a prisoner with dementia. Inquest explored whether natural death rendered unnatural by human failure, treatment in prison and whether absence of compassionate release being applied for/granted contributed to death. Complex expert evidence from five clinicians (three independently instructed). Legal argument on Article 2 (held, not engaged). Consideration of Regulation 28, duty held not to arise.

Inquest Re RC: Representation of MOJ (Prison & Probation). Article 2 complaint inquest. Death of newly released prisoner under ECSL scheme. Issues explored included implementation of scheme in the context of housing referrals and statutory duty to refer under HA1980. Article 2 held not to be engaged after oral evidence, no criticism of the conduct of actions of prison or probation staff, no contributors to death. Regulation 28 report not issued.

Inquest Re KR: Representation of MOJ. Article 2 jury inquest (five days).  Death of prisoner from cardiac event, exacerbated by citalopram toxicity, issues explored included sufficiency of welfare checks. Legal submissions on whether discretion should be exercised to possible causes or as Tainton admissions (not left). Regulation 28 evidence and submissions (no report issued).

Inquest Re CT: Representation of a care home (four days). Death of resident with advanced dementia from acute-on-chronic subdural haemorrhage, complex issues on causation. Written questions to independent neuropathologist. Issues relating to sufficiency of pre-admission assessment and care plans on admission/following a fall, with a particular focus on falls, behaviour and cognition. No critical findings made nor Regulation 28 report issued.

Inquest Re AB: Representation MOJ. Self-inflicted death of offender on licence (railway tracks), issues included assessment of risk of SASH and exploration of whether there was any third party involvement.

Inquest Re CG: Representation of managing agents for a housing complex. Issues relating to sufficiency of inspection and maintenance of carpeting on stairs which was allegedly loose and further issues with lighting.

Inquest Re CT: Representation of a prison. Issues relating to conduct of officers on escort duty and use of restraints.

Inquest Re OBW: Representation of a governmental office (five days) in an Article 2 inquest relating to the self-inflicted death of a teenager. Issues relating to whether death was a ‘notifiable accident’ and the adequacy of a post-death inspection of a children’s home.

Inquest Re HM: Representation of a care home in an inquest relating to the death of resident from ischemic stroke. Article 2 compliant inquest (held not engaged). Issues included prescription of anti-coagulants, systems for sharing information between primary care providers and secondary care, CQC inspection.

Inquest Re DS: Representation of a local authority, death of a voluntary mental health patient who took his own life whilst on leave from a MH ward. Issues relating to provision of LA funded care support package and inter-agency communication.

Inquest Re EC: Representation of a prison in an Article 2 jury inquest, delayed diagnosis of cancer.

Inquest Re VS: Representation of a prison, Article 2 jury inquest, death of an inmate from septicaemia.

Inquest Re PR: Representation of a Locum Consultant Anaesthetist (five days). Issues relating to misinterpretation of chest X-rays during emergency procedure leading to incorrect treatment and premature withdrawal of CPR (found to not be unreasonable), vascular injury during treatment a rare but recognised complication. No finding of neglect (not left).

Inquest Re WM: Representation of a local authority. Article 2 compliant inquest (five days), held not to be engaged after legal argument. Death of former MCA inpatient who had been discharged into a private care home. Issues relating to the adequacy of handover information, assessment of suicide risk, effect of CQC inspection and resources under Covid 19.

Inquest Re HM: Representation of a residential care home in an inquest relating to the death of a resident who died of an ischemic stroke. Issues relating to an anti-coagulant Edoxaban not being repeat prescribed, systems for sharing information between primary care providers and secondary care, CQC inspection. Regulation 28 report issued in respect of a hospital.

Inquest Re RA: Representation of a housing association relating to a house fire. Conflicting expert evidence on cause and origin of the fire, and issues relating to the functioning of smoke detectors.

Inquest Re AP:  Representation of school (direct access). High profile Article 2 inquest (four weeks), tragic death of a girl from self-suspension. Wide ranging issues exploring sufficiency of safeguarding in schools and local authority social care, including early intervention. Multi agency serious case reviews. National media coverage included BBC & The Times.

Inquest Re AH: Representation of a pharmacist. Analysis and exploration of shared care agreements relating to the prescribing of anti-coagulants.

Inquest Re ZP: Representation of a social worker in inquest (four days). Unlawful killing, death of a young baby killed by her mother (following criminal prosecution for infanticide). Issues explored relating to the role, responsibility and interaction of different police forces and social services (EDT), in the context of joint protocols relating to children at risk of harm. BBC coverage.

Inquest touching upon the death of AC:  Representation of paramedic. Inquest relating to the death of a drug user (overdose). Analysis of JRALC Guidelines etc. Issues included effectiveness of EMAS emergency procedures and communications.

Inquest Re TW: Representation of senior prison officer. Article 2 jury inquest (two weeks) relating to a death in custody through hanging. Issues explored included ACCT monitoring reviews and procedures, efficacy of multi-agency approach and causation issues.

David has a busy civil practice with a particular emphasis on personal injury, clinical negligence and medical law. David advises and represents parties in catastrophic and fatal accident claims, in addition to post-inquest claims following the conclusion of coronial proceedings (frequently retaining consistency of representation in both jurisdictions).

David acts for both claimants and defendants (including for governmental bodies as Junior Counsel to the Crown) in fast track, intermediate and multi track proceedings in both the County Court and High Court, often in high value claims which exceed a million pounds.

Having an extensive background in criminal law as a former jury advocate (defence and prosecution) David is also frequently instructed in fraud cases where credibility and fundamental dishonesty are in issue (including low velocity impact claims, ‘ghost’ passengers and alleged contrived accidents).

David’s practice ranges considerably which includes claims arising out of road traffic accidents, occupiers or employer’s liability, highways claims, product liability, food poisoning, criminal injuries compensation, credit hire, actions against the police or prison service, fatalities including deaths in custody etc.

David is also experienced in acting in claims where there is a crossover with and includes human rights claims (various ECHR rights), other statutory schemes such as the Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR, and various common-law torts (such as misfeasance in a public office and false imprisonment).

David is available to settle pleadings and Schedules of Loss, and advise in conference and in writing.

David is also an accredited civil and commercial mediator.

Recent cases

B v MOJ & NHS: Pre issue (multi track). Representation of various claimants (family members) following representation at Article 2 inquest where jury made findings of failures which contributed to death. Substantial settlement reached, encompassing equivalent bereavement awards, PSLA and special damages.

R v C v S: Multi track. Representation of landlord. Claim pleaded to £1.25 million, brought by former tenant against landlord and managing sub-agents. Claimant discontinued the day before hearing following receipt of comprehensive skeleton argument filed on Defendant’s behalf.

NY v NHS: Multi track. Representation of claimant. Clinical negligence leading to death of newborn baby, issues included causation of future effects on bladder dysfunction and fertility.

D v A: Fast track trial, representation of Defendant insurer. Robust cross examination of Claimant led to finding he had fabricated injuries and had been ‘fundamentally dishonest’. Application for costs and enforcement of costs pursuant to CPR44.16(a) granted and costs recovered in full.

CH v MOJ: Representation of MOJ over four years. Claim pleaded to £180,000, aggravated/exemplary damages sought, multiple causes of action (Articles 3, 8, 9 & 13 ECHR), EA2010, Trespass to Person, OLA1957, following alleged assault by multiple prison officers. Following various legal argument and interim hearings, claim ultimately struck out.

D v MOJ: Multi track. Representation of MOJ. Employers liability. Claim by former prison officer for substantial claim for damages (in excess of £1 million), purported exposure to Legionella bacteria during course of employment. Complex medical evidence.

AH v M v U v K v Z: Fast track. Representation of defendant, complex multi-party proceedings, claim against leaseholder of vehicle (D1) who left car with garage for repairs (D3), subrogated RTA insurer (D2) and alleged driver, employee of garage (D4 – LIP). Fundamental dishonesty in issue, including fabrication of evidence & collusion between witnesses and solicitors.

X v MOJ: Fast track. Representation of MOJ. Proceedings brought by prisoner (well known musician) who had been placed on VP wing due to MH history and subsequently attacked. Advice on specific disclosure application, right to withhold and public interest immunity before trial.

T v B & C: Multi track. Representation of claimant, serious injury following ingestion of a caustic substance at work, expert evidence on causation and issues over quantum.

M v P: Multi track trial. Representation of a prison in a claim brought by a prisoner who was the subject of a violent attack for alleged negligence in failing to protect and keep him reasonably safe. Successful defence, claim dismissed.

P v U: Fast track. Representation of Defendant. Successful oral application to strike out the claim following a couple of questions in cross examination which established the claimant could not fully understand the contents of his statement, supporting an argument that there had been multiple breaches of CPR32PD & CPR22PD.

NS v NHS: Clinical negligence (advisory). Intra-uterine death and stillbirth due to negligence, advice on recovery of damages for primary and secondary victims for psychiatric injury.

T v B: Fast track (Defendant). Following extensive cross examination of C and unsuccessful oral application thereafter by C to add a second defendant part way through trial, thereafter a rarely used “submission of no case to answer” in civil proceedings was granted. Claim dismissed.

I, I & Q v U: Fast track trial. Representation of three claimants where defendant raised fundamental dishonesty (allegations of ghost passengers, low velocity impact and causation of injuries).

IH v NHS: Clinical negligence (advisory). Advice on negligent operation following an assault in prison.

C v J v K: Multi track proceedings. Representation of claimant (pleaded £50,000+), serious injuries after car stolen and driven into him. Issues relating to uncertainty of correct identity of defendant.

SK v NHS: Clinical negligence, Claimant. Negligent hypospadias repair.

SM v MA: Fast track. Representation of national airport. Accident at work, claimant slipped allegedly on black ice. Claim advanced against airport as employer in error, at trial advanced against them in their capacity as occupier. Claim dismissed.

B v C Insurance: Fast track. Representation of insurer. Large credit hire claim. Judge acceded to summary dismissal of claim part way through cross examination on the basis the agreement was void and unenforceable, finding inter alia there had been a clear positive misrepresentation by the hire company. Successful wasted costs order (show cause) secured in defendant’s favour.

B v O’C v MIB: Fast track. Representation of MIB. Substantial credit hire claim exceeding FT limit by taxi driver successfully dismissed, on account of none of exceptions in Hussain v EUI being found, failure to supply financial documentation in breach of court order and finding of exaggeration by the claimant during cross-examination.

C v P: Fast track. Representation of Police. Resisted application to debar the defendant from relying upon evidence at trial on the basis of purported failure to disclose, successful CPR45.29J application (‘exceptional circumstances’) and significant non-fixed costs award made at interim hearing.

VG v MOJ: Fast track. Representation of MOJ. Fundamental dishonesty in issue. Successful strike out following earlier ineffective trial due to procedural deficiencies in pleadings and statements, and legal argument on contended multiple procedural failings, extreme delay, inability of defendant to have a fair trial.

G v T: Fast track. Representation of Defendant. Successfully argued that a claimant presenting inaccurate/incomplete fee remission request on issuing without appropriate fee, failed to ‘set the wheels of justice in motion’ within the meaning of Barnes, Page and Bhatti, therefore not brought within limitation. Application to extend limitation under s33 LA1980 unsuccessful. Claim dismissed.

M v S: Fast track. Proceedings for a statutory declaration seeking enforcement of costs order. Legal argument over interpretation of ss151-152 RTA1988 and whether any or any adequate “notice” was given.

David’s mixed practice broadly encompasses public and administrative law, arising out of both his coronial practice (acting for both bereaved families and other interested persons most particularly emanations of the State) and civil practice (acting for both claimants and defendants).

David is regularly instructed in human rights claims where various rights afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are in issue, including but not limited to Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition against torture and inhumane treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 6 (right to fair trial), Article 8 (right to private/family life), Article 9, Article 10, Article 13 (right to effective remedy).

David also acts in claims which involve and cross-over with other statutory schemes such as the Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR and various common-law torts (such as misfeasance in a public office and false imprisonment).

David advises and represents parties in judicial review claims, acting both for applicants challenging decisions of the state and for respondent public bodies.

Case examples

KP v NHS v MOJ: High Court. Representation of Secretary of State. £100,000+ claim, multiple causes of action including ECHR (Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 14), EA2010, misfeasance in public office. Legal argument on res judicata, jurisdiction of High Court and the right to sue the Crown in the context of the principle of judicial immunity and limited circumstances where HRA1998 provides mechanism for redress. Claim dismissed and costs order made in favour of defendant.

DW v MOJ: Representation of MOJ. Claim by prisoner for misfeasance in a public office (successfully struck out following skeleton argument prepared, but permission to amend); later re-pleaded particulars of claim (ECHR Article 6 right to fair trial, Article 13 right to effective remedy, and data protection/rectification under DPA2018 and GDPR), also successfully struck out following further comprehensive skeleton argument and costs order obtained.

X v MOJ: Fast track. Representation of MOJ. Proceedings brought by prisoner (well known musician) who had been placed on VP wing due to MH history and subsequently attacked. Advice on specific disclosure application, right to withhold and public interest immunity before trial.

CH v MOJ: Representation of MOJ over four years. Claim pleaded to £180,000, aggravated/exemplary damages sought, multiple causes of action (Articles 3, 8, 9 & 13 ECHR), EA2010, Trespass to Person, OLA1957, following alleged assault by multiple prison officers. Following various legal argument and interim hearings, claim ultimately struck out.

DW v MOJ: Representation of MOJ. Claim for misfeasance in a public office, and later re-pleaded particulars (Article 6 and DPA2018) successfully struck out with costs order.

WJ v PB v MOJ: Representation of MOJ. Human rights claim, purported violation of Article 5(4) ECHR leading to prolonged detention and conditional loss of liberty.

BB v D v R: Representation of governmental department. Defence of a claim pleaded to £200,000 for alleged breach of Article 3 ECHR. Against litigant in person who had made complaints to his Member of Parliament. Claim struck out and declaration of ‘totally without merit’.

WJ v PB v MOJ: Representation of MOJ. Article 5(4) claim, speedy review of lawfulness of detention.

C v P: Fast track. Representation of Police. Resisted application to debar the defendant from relying upon evidence at trial on the basis of purported failure to disclose, successful CPR45.29J application (‘exceptional circumstances’) and significant non-fixed costs award made at interim hearing.

VG v MOJ: Fast track. Representation of MOJ. Fundamental dishonesty in issue. Successful strike out following earlier ineffective trial due to procedural deficiencies in pleadings and statements, and legal argument on contended multiple procedural failings, extreme delay, inability of defendant to have a fair trial.

DMBC v K v T v C v A v Persons Unknown: Representation of local authority in various trespass proceedings against members of traveller community. Mandatory and prohibitory injunctions obtained.

BA v SC, RT & MJ: Defence. Private prosecution brought by an individual against three members of a local community organisation. Alleged offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Liaison with CPS, and extensive legal argument/abuse of process. All defendants acquitted after successful half time submissions.

David has a broad range of experience in commercial disputes which include contractual, bankruptcy, mortgage possession, landlord and tenant, insurance law and mortgage fraud.

David is also an accredited civil and commercial mediator.

Case examples

R v C v S: Multi track. Representation of landlord. Claim pleaded to £1.25million, brought by former tenant against landlord and managing sub-agents. Claimant discontinued the day before hearing following receipt of comprehensive skeleton argument filed on Defendant’s behalf.

L v M: Fast Track. Representation of Claimant. Large diminution in value claim regarding high value luxury motor vehicle following accident damage. Following legal argument and expert evidence, court Payton v Brooks in C’s favour, adopting a ‘man of the forecourt’ test; even if the damaged vehicle had been repaired to satisfactory standard, a prospective buyer would look at it less favourably than a vehicle which had not been damaged or repaired. Full judgment for the claimant, and interest awarded from the date of loss.

SM v MA: Fast track. Representation of national airport. Accident at work, claimant slipped allegedly on black ice. Claim advanced against airport as employer in error, at trial advanced against them in their capacity as occupier. Claim dismissed.

B v C: Fast track. Representation of insurer. Large credit hire claim. Judge acceded to summary dismissal of claim part way through cross examination on the basis the agreement was void and unenforceable, finding inter alia there had been a clear positive misrepresentation by the hire company. Successful wasted costs order (show cause) secured in defendant’s favour.

B v O’C v MIB: Fast track. Representation of MIB. Substantial credit hire claim exceeding FT limit by taxi driver successfully dismissed, on account of none of exceptions in Hussain v EUI being found, failure to supply financial documentation in breach of court order and finding of exaggeration by the claimant during cross-examination.

G v T: Fast track. Representation of Defendant. Successfully argued that a claimant presenting inaccurate/incomplete fee remission request on issuing without appropriate fee, failed to ‘set the wheels of justice in motion’ within the meaning of Barnes, Page and Bhatti, therefore not brought within limitation. Application to extend limitation under s33 LA1980 unsuccessful. Claim dismissed.

B v C v T v C v T v G:  Fast track. Negligence and breach of contract, significant damage caused to underground cabling, causation and procedural issues, technical expert evidence.

E v H: Fast track. Property damage claim advanced against a contractor for alleged negligent works purportedly causing power surge

M v S: Fast track. Proceedings for a statutory declaration seeking enforcement of costs order. Legal argument over interpretation of ss151-152 RTA1988 and whether any or any adequate “notice” was given.

DMBC v K v T v C v A v Persons Unknown: Representation of local authority in various trespass proceedings against members of traveller community. Mandatory and prohibitory injunctions obtained.

BDC v E: Prosecution. Private prosecution on behalf of local authority against rogue builder for breaches of the Building Act 1984, failing to submit prior notice and variously breaching regulations by performing substandard building work. Substantial financial orders made on sentence, including maximum compensation order permitted in magistrates.

BA v SC, RT & MJ: Defence. Private prosecution brought by an individual against three members of a local community organisation. Alleged offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Liaison with CPS, and extensive legal argument/abuse of process. All defendants acquitted after successful half time submissions.

David formerly had a busy Crown Court practice as a criminal jury advocate (both defence and prosecution) and continues to accept instructions in regulatory work.

Case examples

BDC v E: Prosecution. Private prosecution for local authority against rogue builder for inter alia breaches of Building Act 1984 and regulations for substandard building work. Substantial financial orders made on sentence, including maximum compensation order permitted in magistrates.

BA v SC, RT & MJ: Defence. Private prosecution brought by an individual against three members of a local community organisation. Alleged offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Liaison with CPS, and extensive legal argument/abuse of process. All defendants acquitted after successful half time submissions.

BDC v B: Prosecution. Breach of planning permission conditions, notwithstanding permission being granted separately through Temporary Event Notice. Interplay of Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and Licensing Act 2003.

NLC v D: Defence. Representation of landlady who was prosecuted for vicarious breach of s146 of the Licensing Act 2003 (sale of alcohol to a person under 18 by default of another). Successful reliance on the defence of ‘all due diligence’ securing acquittal.

RMBC v H: Defence. Appeal against suspension of taxi licence.

• Attorney General’s Regional B Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown (2025 – 2030)
• Grade 3 Prosecutor

• Personal Injury Bar Association
• South Yorkshire Medico-legal Society
• Criminal Bar Association
• Jananeethi Institute (Kerala, India)