Matthew Corrie Barrister
Matthew was called to the bar in 2006 and is a Barrister in the Professional Regulatory team based in our London office. Prior to joining Blake Morgan he practised in crime, employment, personal injury and professional regulation and so has a wealth of experience across a range of sectors, courts and tribunals. He prosecutes and defends across a range of regulators in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, dishonesty and complex clinical failings and deficient professional performance.
Main area of practice
Matthew now practises exclusively in professional discipline and regulation and is regularly instructed to appear at all hearings before Fitness to Practise Committees across a range of regulators. Matthew both prosecutes and defends and he has extensive experience of dealing with cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, dishonesty and complex clinical failings.
Matthew is often instructed to appear hearings before the Fitness to Practise Committees and in the High Court by the General Dental Council, the General Optical Council and the General Pharmaceutical Council. Matthew also has significant experience presenting cases before the Health and Care Professions Council and defends across a range of regulators.
Articles by Matthew
This case provides guidance on whether and in what respect a registrant having retired can be taken into account when considering whether fitness to practise is impaired.
The High Court holds that it does have jurisdiction, quashes decision not to find sexual motivation and remits case to MPTS in first review brought under provisions of section 40A of the Medical Act 1983.
The Court's conclusions in relation to the dishonesty are, put simply, a victory of common sense. More interestingly, and of wider application, was the way in which the Court approached the issue of providing treatment to friends
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.