Alexander West

Alexander has experience beyond his level of call representing clients in Article 2 and non-Article 2 inquests, with and without a jury, dealing with issues such as disclosure, appropriate verdicts and PFD reports. Having worked in a variety of client-facing roles in the past, Alexander is able to put clients at ease in what is often a very unfamiliar environment, enabling them to give their best evidence.

Typically representing public authorities, Alexander has a detailed understanding of issues surrounding Regulation 28 evidence, non-causative culpable conduct and the engagement of Article 2. He is able to provide advice on case strategy in addition or as an alternative to advocacy services.

Alexander also lectures across the country on Inquest Law – Procedure, Preparation and Presentation. Feedback includes:
“Excellent speaker – clearly knows his subject thoroughly” – Solicitor, London
“Very personable and a good communicator who knows his field extremely well” – Barrister, London
“Impressive in-depth knowledge of subject area” – Barrister, Manchester
“Obviously at the top of his game” – Solicitor, Manchester
“Knowledgeable and engaging” – Solicitor, Leeds
“Excellent. Thorough knowledge of subject and extremely polite, courteous and amenable” – Barrister, Leeds

Recent cases:

Re VT (2018) – represented the local authority in a death arising from an unwitnessed fall in a care home.

Re TC (2018) – represented an NHS Trust in an Article 2 jury inquest where the deceased died from a drug overdose having absconded from his hospital leave. Issues concerned the recent risk assessments, decisions around leave and suitability of the hospital setting. No failings were identified.

Re SB (2018) – represented HMP Peterborough, a privately-run prison in an Article 2 jury inquest where the deceased had taken their own life after opportunities to intervene and identify risk had potentially been missed. No causative failings were identified. The case attracted significant media attention.

Re CS (2018) – represented an NHS Trust in an Article 2 jury inquest where the deceased had taken a paracetamol overdose in circumstances where it was suspected she had purchased the paracetamol while on leave from the hospital where she was detained. No causative failings were identified, and the case attracted significant local media attention.

Re MS (2017) – represented a bereaved family in circumstances where the deceased had died from respiratory failure after consuming excessive alcohol in a friend’s flat.

Re PW (2017) – represented a local authority care home in circumstances where the deceased, a resident at the home, had died following an unwitnessed fall. Issues for the inquest were the measures in place to keep residents safe, including risk assessments and measures for emergency response. No critical findings were made.

Re FS (2017) – represented a private care home in circumstances where the deceased had become progressively weak and fragile in their care, as a result of a reduced diet. The case concerned allegations of neglect and mistreatment, and attracted significant interest from local media. No critical findings were made, and a natural causes conclusion was recorded.

Re DK – represented a Trust who had been responsible for the care of a young man who had been admitted informally on a number of occasions over the years. At the time of his death, the deceased had been admitted under section 3 of the Mental Heath Act 1983 and his care had been transferred out-of-area to a private provider due to lack of beds on mental health wards in the area. Issues for the inquest were the transfer of care, whether opportunities for treatment were missed and whether risk assessments for periods of section 17 leave were appropriate. The inquest was an Middleton-type inquest with a jury.

Re EW – represented a publicly-funded Care Home which had provided care to the deceased in the months leading up to her death. The circumstances of the death involved an unwitnessed fall in the Care Home, and the central issues in the inquest were causation and whether the Care Home had failed in its duty to safeguard the deceased’s welfare. The inquest was a Jamieson-type inquest without a jury.

Re RT – represented a Trust providing secondary in-reach mental health services to a prison in which a young adult took their own life. The advisory aspect of the case involved liaising with senior management on an action plan to mitigate any PFD report, and reassuring staff witnesses. After a seven-day inquest, the jury made no critical findings, and the coroner chose not to write a PFD report.

Articles:

Are we all agreed? Majority directions at jury inquests.

Clerk:
Nick Jeanes
E: nick.jeanes@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0307