Guy Micklewright Senior Associate and Barrister
“He's very pragmatic and very resourceful.”
A leading practitioner with recognised expertise in prosecuting and defending before a wide variety of disciplinary tribunals in the healthcare, accountancy, legal, teaching and engineering sectors.
Main areas of practice
Guy specialises in prosecuting and defending fitness to practise cases before a wide variety of professional regulators. He has particular expertise in cases in the healthcare and accountancy sector. Many of these cases are complex and sensitive in nature.
Guy has presented cases before the various fitness to practise committees of the majority of healthcare regulators, in particular the General Dental Council and General Osteopathic Council, and also has significant experience across the accountancy regulation sector. In addition, he has experience in the professional regulation of engineers and is regularly instructed as a prosecutor by the Bar Standards Board.
Guy defends a variety of professionals in proceedings brought by the Health and Care Professions Council, as well as the General Medical Council and the General Chiropractic Council.
Guy has acted in appeal proceedings arising from decisions of Performers List Decision Panels.
Guy sits as a Legal Advisor to Professional Conduct Panels of the National College for Teaching and Leadership.
- Appeared for the GDC in R (on the application of Rothschild) v General Dental Council  EWHC 1632 (Admin), successfully defending proceedings to overturn an immediate suspension order imposed by the Professional Conduct Committee.
- Appeared on behalf of a paramedic before the Health and Care Professions Council defending misconduct allegations arising from the death of a patient.
- Acted for an accountancy regulator defending judicial review proceedings challenging the compatibility with Article 6 ECHR of the regulator's costs provisions in its Disciplinary Tribunal rules.
- Extensive experience of prosecuting complex NHS fraud and multi-patient clinical misconduct allegations before healthcare regulators.
Instructed in a number of inquests, including being instructed to represent a former director of a travel company following the death of a teenage girl on a sailing holiday, a case which attracted substantial media attention.
Provides training to regulators in fitness to practise law and procedure, including members of disciplinary panels, as well as being a regular speaker at national seminars on subjects such as disclosure and evidence.
Guy regularly advises professional regulators on the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 and associated legislation.
Having previously trained and practised at the criminal Bar, Guy moved in-house at the General Dental Council in 2007, where his work focussed on presenting cases before the conduct, competence and health committees of the GDC.
Guy joined Blake Morgan in 2009, where he has been an integral part of Blake Morgan's Professional Regulatory Team's rise to being one of the leading teams of professional regulatory lawyers in the country.
Articles by Guy
Currently, where a barrister is referred to a Disciplinary Tribunal for professional misconduct and the matter is not disposed of under the Determination by Consent procedure.
General Medical Council v (1) Nwachuku; (2) Professional Standards Authority  EWHC 2085 (Admin)
Dr Nwachuku was a full-time trainee GP in a surgery. He was also undertaking several shifts as a locum, in various capacities, he submitted a timesheet with the incorrect times that led to the legal proceedings. Our expert looks at the case.
In March 2015 the PSA appealed under section 29 of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 against the HCPC’s decision to impose a five-year caution order in respect of a registered prosthetist.
Related Knowledge & Resources
An appeal by the Professional Standards for Health and Social Care against the decision of the NMC not to pursue allegations that a Registrant was responsible for non-accidental injuries to her son and/or a failure to protect Baby A from harm.
The Divisional Court allowed the GMC’s appeal against the decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (“MPT”) to suspend Dr Bawa-Garba’s registration for 12 months and substituted the sanction of erasure from the Medical Register.
This case concerns an appeal against the Respondent SRA’s Adjudication Panel, on the grounds that the panel’s finding of dishonesty were based upon a two-stage test of dishonesty, namely the objective and subjective test.