Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
Resources
Blogs and Publications
Trending Topics
Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I will take all reasonable steps to protect your personal information. I will do all that I reasonably can to ensure I do not infringe your rights or undermine your trust. This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it.
Data Controller
I am registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a Data Controller for the personal data that I hold and process as a barrister. My registered address is Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London, EC4Y 9DA and my registration number is ZA285106.
Data Collection
All of the information that I hold about you is provided to me or gathered solely in the course of and for the purposes of your case, proceedings or any related matter.
Lawful Basis For Processing Your Information
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a Lawful Basis for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:
Examples Of Legitimate Interests
My Lawful Basis is Legitimate Interest namely the provision of professional services to you and the proper exercise of my professional obligations and responsibilities. My Lawful Bases may also include: consent and/or performance of a contract with you or steps to enter a contract with you and/or compliance with a legal obligation. In so far as I process sensitive personal data that is necessary in relation to legal proceedings and/or obtaining legal advice and/or otherwise for establishing, exercising or defending legal rights and/or for administering justice.
I Use Your Information To
I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.
I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This includes:
I May Share Your Personal Data With:
Transfers To Third Countries & International Organisations
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
Retention
I retain your personal data while you remain a client and for as long as in necessary for me to meet my legal and professional obligations. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held.
Your Rights
The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask me to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask me to stop sending you direct mail, or emails, or in some circumstances ask me to stop processing your details.
Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
Accessing & Correcting Your Information
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing at my registered address.
Marketing Opt-Outs
You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.
Cookies
Cookies are small text files that are stored on your browser or device by websites, apps, online media, and advertisements. The Chambers website use cookies to:
I May Update My Privacy Notice
When I make significant changes, I will publish the updated notice on my website profile.
Updated: 01/11/2022
Harriet Gilchrist
Harriet specialises in inquests, inquiries and criminal regulatory law.
She is recognised as a leading junior by Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 and is described as a “rising star” in Inquests and Inquiries.
Harriet is regularly instructed in Article 2 and jury inquests on behalf of public authorities and individuals and as Counsel to the Inquest. She is currently instructed as Counsel to the Inquest in the matter of Carter, Carter and Payne.
Harriet has experience acting in criminal regulatory cases spanning a wide range of industries, defending both individuals and organisations. Harriet is adept at providing strategic preparatory advice and in assisting clients to navigate the investigation and enforcement process in proceedings brought at by a wide range of authorities from the earliest stages through to hearings at all levels.
Harriet “has good tactical judgment” and is “quick on her feet”. Her advocacy experience encompasses first hearings, jury trials, sentencing and appeals. Harriet is a skilled advocate and sound witness handler, with considerable experience of questioning expert and vulnerable witnesses.
Harriet frequently accepts instructions to provide written legal advice within her sphere of expertise.
Harriet Gilchrist is a dynamic and versatile barrister whose expertise spans criminal, public, and regulatory law making her particularly well-positioned to represent clients in Health & Safety matters. Her robust experience in serious criminal hearings, combined with her nuanced understanding of procedure and evidence, equips her to effectively navigate complex legal and factual landscapes.
A strong advocate in jury trials, sentencing, and appeals, Harriet demonstrates a careful and persuasive approach to expert and vulnerable witness handling. She routinely offers written legal and strategic advice at every stage of investigations, enforcement, and prosecution.
Her experience acting in criminal regulatory cases encompasses a wide range, including: road traffic breaches; fire safety breaches, food safety hygiene offences; breaches of gas safety regulations; environmental waste offences; planning; management and maintenance of buildings and retail.
Harriet is consistently praised for her clarity, diligence, and sensitivity to client needs.
Harriet is particularly well placed to advise in fire safety matters, having been instructed as Junior Counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Harriet has significant experience on the application of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, Approved Document B, the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022.
Harriet’s involvement in a recent fire-safety prosecution, where she successfully challenged the reliability and admissibility of expert evidence, reflects her practical knowledge of fire-safety regulation. Her inquest practice further supports her Health & Safety work, sharpening her ability to analyse complex investigations.
Harriet also has comprehensive knowledge of the Road Traffic Act and linked regulatory breaches. She has experience acting in a wide range of cases, from death by careless driving to overweight vehicles. Harriet is also frequently instructed by the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to appeals following the revocation of driving licences.
Harriet represents prosecuting authorities and organisations in statutory nuisance cases and enforcement/improvement/prohibition notice matters. Harriet is well placed to advise on the application of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Housing Act 2004.
Rex (Chester Fire and Rescue Service) v Avantage (Cheshire) Ltd, Your Housing Ltd, Morgan Sindall Property Sservices Ltd, WSP UK Ltd, Total Fire Group Ltd and M.A.C (Roofing and Contractors) Ltd (2025)
Prosecution arising out of a fire in an independent living accommodation in Crewe relating to alleged breaches of the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order. CFRS prosecuted Avantage and 5 other organisations. Harriet acted for D1 and D2 led by Dominic Adamson KC. We were successful in dismissing a number of the counts against his two clients and resisting an application to add counts to the trial indictment. At trial, following argument on the admissibility of quasi-expert evidence the prosecution offered no evidence. Our two clients were acquitted.
Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service (“CFRS”) v YHG (2025)
Successful appeal against an Enforcement Notice (“EN”) against YHG resulting in the withdrawal of the notice by CFRS before the final appeal hearing. The EN alleged failures under Articles 8 and 15 of the FSO at an Extra Care Retirement Village. It relation to the Article 8 breach it was argued that YHG had taken all reasonable steps to protect the safety of those at the premises. In relation to Article 15 it was argued that there was no basis for the alleged contravention as it was founded on a misunderstanding of the FSO and associated guidance.
London Borough of Merton v WHA (2025)
Successful out of court disposal of a Section 36 Notice against WHA. The notice alleged numerous contraventions of the Building Regulations. Involved analysis of the underlying lease and Building Regulations/associated guidance. An expert in relation to fire doors and the FD30 standard was instructed. The withdrawal of the notice prior to the appeal time limit was sought on the ground that many alleged contraventions were not demised to WHA & that if WHA were to replace the fire doors it would be in breach of its lease as the door frames did not form part of the demised premises.
DVSA v OIL (2025)
Successfully secured a fine of £3,000 for OIL who had been charged with using a vehicle which exceeded the permitted weight by 1600 kilograms, or 45.71%, contrary to Regulation 80(1)(a) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and use) Regulations 1986 and Section 41B of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This is an offence of strict liability. OIL had a weekly trun over that exceeded £5 million with the Sentencing Guidelines setting a starting point of 150% of weekly income. There is an additional uplift of 10% for each additional 1% over overload after the first 10%.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham v Superdrug Stores Plc
Prosecution of Superdrug PLC under Regulation 3 of the Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015 and Section 92(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 following the sale of an e-cigarette to an underage person from store during a planned trading standards operation using an under aged person. Case defended on the grounds that (1) LBHF had not complied with their duties under Section 25C of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008; (2) statutory due diligence defence.
Harriet is ranked as a leading junior by Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 in this field, where she has appeared in a wide variety of cases.
Harriet is instructed in complex Article 2 and jury inquests on behalf of physical and mental health care providers, care organisations, prisons, local authorities and public and private organisations and companies.
Harriet’s experience means she is well placed to provide advice and representation at all stages of inquest proceedings. Harriet is consistently praised for her clarity, diligence, sensitivity to client needs and tactical judgment.
Harriet is adept at advancing legal arguments at all stages, including on the potential engagement of Article 2, whether an inquest should resume following further independent investigations and/or criminal trial, conclusions, causation, Regulation 28 and neglect.
Recent examples of inquests in which Harriet has been instructed include:
Counsel to the Inquest - Inquests Touching Upon the Death of Roger Carter, Dick Carter and Anthony Payne (Ongoing)
Harriet, led by Andrew O’Connor KC, is instructed as CTI in this Article 2 jury inquest listed for 5-weeks in September/October 2026. The inquest will consider whether there were any missed opportunities by Police and Medical Practitioners who interacted with/assed ALR whilst in police custody. ALR was first in custody on 8/9 February 2019 before being released. He was then arrested again on 9 February and seen by the FME who determined that a referral for a mental health act assessment was not required. ALR was released on 10 February 2019 and proceeded to kill 3 elderly males that day. At the criminal trail he was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.
Counsel to the Inquest - Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Thomas Orchard (2023)
Acted as junior counsel to the inquest, led by Nicholas Moss KC. Controversial death in police custody following the prolonged restraint of a man suffering from an acute psychotic episode.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Dariusz Kieselewski
Harriet is instructed on behalf of a care home. The inquest, listed for April 2026, will look at how DK came by his death following a fall at the care home.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Sarah Henry (Ongoing)
Harriet is instructed on behalf of a private mental health care provided. The inquest involves the death of a former employee and is listed for May 2026.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Jake Softely (Ongoing)
Harriet is instructed on behalf of a private mental health care provided. The inquest involves the death of a former employee and is due to be listed in 2026.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Abbigail Smith (2025)
Harriet was instructed by a private mental health hospital. A 2-week, Article 2 inquest with a scope of 10 years. Case considered the diagnoses attributed to AS (EUPD and simple schizophrenia), by the specialist psychiatrist at Cygnet and in the community and the extent to which AS’ autism was considered whilst she was detained under Section 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act. Complex evidence, including from an autism expert and numerous psychologists and psychiatrists who were questioned over a 3-week period. Inquest highlighted the challenges of not retrospectively applying current standards and understandings, in this instance in relation to autism, to medical understanding as it was in 2017-2019.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Bonnie Newton (2025)
A complex Article 2 jury inquest involving 8 IPs into the death of BN. BN died whilst receiving mental health treatment whilst detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. The Inquest heard expert evidence and factual medical evidence over a 2-week period. Harriet, led by Claire Watson KC, was instructed for the private hospital. In submissions on conclusion it was successfully argued that unlawful killing should not be left to the jury, that the acts of the Hospital were not probably causative of death and that no Tainton admissions were required in this case. The jury returned a narrative conclusion which was not critical of the Organisation.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Karl Howell (2025)
Harriet was instructed by a Housing Trust in this inquest. The inquest considered the extent of the services provided by the Trust to those in their accommodation. The Trust provide landlord services to tenants but do not deliver care or support services in their sheltered or general needs housing. PH was a known hoarder and alcohol dependent. Safeguarding issues had been raised with the relevant Adult Social Care team. KH died following a fire at his property. No adverse findings were made in relation to the Housing Trust.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Josephine Rogers (2025)
Harriet was instructed to represent an individual carer at this inquest. JR was a vulnerable elderly woman with significant medical needs. She was assessed as lacking capacity and at high risk of falls. On 21/22 October 2023 the carer unplugged JR’s care mat against care home policy. JR died in hospital following complications on 3 November 2023. No adverse findings were made in relation to the carer.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Witold Peszko (2025)
Harriet was instructed on behalf of an NHS Trust at the inquest. The inquest considered whether there were any failings by the trust in relation to WP, who had presented at the Trust’s A&E numerous times before being taken into hospital and admitted to ICU. No adverse findings were made in relation to the Trust.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Mark Apperley (2025)
Harriet was instructed by the Ministry of Justice in this 2 week Article 2 and jury inquest, the scope of which spanned 5 years. The inquest considered the care and treatment of MA during his detention in two prisons and the medical care provided by numerous NHS Trusts (both within the prison and outside the prison). Considered the circumstances of MA’s death, including the process and applicability of early/compassionate release from prison, restraints used by prison officers during the transport of critically ill prisoners to hospital and bed-watch and the processes in place for those in custody who can no longer reside in prison as they require 24-hour care/palliative care.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Peter Hardwicke (2025)
Harriet was instructed by an NHS Trust in this 3-day inquest. The inquest concerned the care provided to PH in relation to an unstable neck fracture he sustained and received ongoing treatment for. No adverse findings were made in relation to the Trust.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Ronald Bainborough (2024)
Harriet was instructed on behalf of an NHS Trust. Complex Article 2 jury inquest that heard evidence in relation to the referral process for Mental Health Act Assessment, Local Authority Safeguarding referrals, management of complex physical and mental health care and mental capacity. At the inquest legal argument was heard regarding the application of Article 2 to specific IPs following Gorani and causation. At the conclusion of the Inquest, the Coroner made a PFD at a national level highlighting concerns in relation to the Mental Health Act Assessment Process, including the lengthy and complex nature of this process where a warrant is required in order to undertake the assessment.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Curtis Birch (2024)
Harriet was instructed on behalf of an NHS Trust. 5 day Article 2 jury inquest into the death of Mr Birch, who died in hospital having been found hanging in his cell the previous day. Mr Birch had a complex medical history, previously been detained at a secure hospital under the Mental Health Act.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of John Eyre (2024)
Harriet was instructed on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. Harriet successfully argued that whilst this was a death in custody, Article 2 did not apply, following the case of Tyrell, as the death was from natural causes. No adverse findings were made against the prison.
Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Anthony O’Connell (2024)
Harriet was instructed by the Ministry of Justice. 5-day Article 2 and jury inquest into the death of AO’C who was found dead in his cell. AO’C had a history of self-harm and attempted ligatures. The inquest, in relation to the prison service, heard evidence on the ACCT process and whether there had been any failures in relation to it and delays in the code blue and ambulance being called.
Transport for London Inquests
Harriet is frequently instructed by TfL in relation to deaths on the road and rail network.
Inquest into the Death of Sharon Harman
Harriet is recognised as a leading junior and is often instructed in high profile and complex matters as Junior Counsel for the Inquiry and Core Participants.
Harriet has been instructed on the following inquiries:
Such work means Harriet is adept in the forensic analysis of complicated and voluminous material and has experience of working closely with experts, drafting Rule 9 and Rule 10 letters, closing submissions and cross examination plans.
Harriet’s work on the Undercover Policing Inquiry, coupled with her background, means she has a comprehensive knowledge of police law and regulations.
On the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, Harriet was involved in two key areas, namely the regulatory regime for fire safety and the testing and certification of construction products. Consequently, she has developed a broad knowledge of fire safety legislation and guidance, the Building Regulations, Part B, Approved Document B and related policy. Harriet worked with the Inquiry expert providing further detailed understanding of fire spread and protection measures.
COVID Inquiry
Instructed as Junior Counsel for the Department of for Business and Trade. CP for Module 1, Module 5 and Module 9
Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan (2024)
Instructed as Junior Counsel for the Ministry of Defence. Independent Inquiry investigating alleged extrajudicial killings by UK special forces in Afghanistan between mid-2010 and mid-2013
With regards to environmental law, Harriet’s experience coupled with her knowledge of criminal and civil sanctions makes her well placed act in environmental law cases. Harriet has provided advice to and prosecuted on behalf of public authorities and private prosecutors; and for individuals and/or companies being prosecuted for environmental offences, including regulation of waste, environmental permitting and statutory nuisance.
The Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, published his Final Report 20th May 2024. The Inquiry was established to examine the circumstances in which men, women and children were given infected blood or infected blood products in...
Read more
Nicholas Moss KC and Harriet Gilchrist were instructed as Counsel to the Inquest in a 7 week Inquest into the death of Thomas Orchard before the Senior Coroner for Exeter and Greater Devon Philip Spinney. The inquest heard evidence from...
Read more
On 15 December 2022, the Ministry of Defence announced the Government’s decision to formally establish the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan (“IIRTA”) under the Inquiries Act 2005.The IIRTA is to investigate matters arising from the deployment of British Special Forces...
Read more
The Undercover Policing Inquiry was set up in 2015 to get to the truth about undercover policing across England and Wales since 1968 and provide recommendations for the future. David Barr KC is lead Counsel to the Inquiry. Daniel Walker...
Read more
The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has been set up to examine the UK’s response to and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and learn lessons for the future. Andrew O’Connor KC, Fiona Canby, Zeenat Islam & Alice Hands form part of the...
Read more
On 19 March 2025 on the M25, Leatherhead, the DVSA stopped a 3.5 tonne goods vehicle transporting bags of cement and timber from Dartford to Leatherhead. The vehicle had a maximum gross permitted weight of 3,500 kilograms. The vehicle was…
Dominic Adamson KC, leading Harriet Gilchrist, instructed by Mark London, Kathryn Kligerman and Yaasica Hamilton-Haye at Devonshires represented two corporate defendants in a fire safety prosecution relating to a fire which resulted in the near total destruction of an ‘Extra…
Temple Garden Chambers are proud to announce its performance in the recently published Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2025, achieving a total of 52 individual rankings and securing recognition across 14 practice areas. In a notable highlight, Temple Garden…
Temple Garden Chambers is proud to announce its remarkable performance in the 2025 Legal 500 UK Bar Guide, receiving a total of 54 rankings across 9 practice areas. This year’s edition reflects the continued excellence and dedication of our barristers…
Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I will take all reasonable steps to protect your personal information. I will do all that I reasonably can to ensure I do not infringe your rights or undermine your trust. This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it.
Data Controller
I am registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a Data Controller for the personal data that I hold and process as a barrister. My registered address is Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London, EC4Y 9DA and my registration number is ZA285106.
Data Collection
All of the information that I hold about you is provided to me or gathered solely in the course of and for the purposes of your case, proceedings or any related matter.
Lawful Basis For Processing Your Information
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a Lawful Basis for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:
Examples Of Legitimate Interests
My Lawful Basis is Legitimate Interest namely the provision of professional services to you and the proper exercise of my professional obligations and responsibilities. My Lawful Bases may also include: consent and/or performance of a contract with you or steps to enter a contract with you and/or compliance with a legal obligation. In so far as I process sensitive personal data that is necessary in relation to legal proceedings and/or obtaining legal advice and/or otherwise for establishing, exercising or defending legal rights and/or for administering justice.
I Use Your Information To
I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.
I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This includes:
I May Share Your Personal Data With:
Transfers To Third Countries & International Organisations
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
Retention
I retain your personal data while you remain a client and for as long as in necessary for me to meet my legal and professional obligations. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held.
Your Rights
The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask me to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask me to stop sending you direct mail, or emails, or in some circumstances ask me to stop processing your details.
Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
Accessing & Correcting Your Information
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing at my registered address.
Marketing Opt-Outs
You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.
Cookies
Cookies are small text files that are stored on your browser or device by websites, apps, online media, and advertisements. The Chambers website use cookies to:
I May Update My Privacy Notice
When I make significant changes, I will publish the updated notice on my website profile.
Updated: 01/11/2022
