What We Do…
- Professional Discipline
- Health and Safety
- Sports Law
- Civil Asset Recovery/Forfeiture
- Financial Services Regulation
- Coroners Inquests
- Public Inquiries
- Judicial Review
- Environmental Enforcement
- Military Law
Ian Stern QC
Year of call: 1983
Year of silk: 2006
Email : email@example.com
Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School
University of Warwick B.A. (Hons) Political Science
City University Diploma in Law
Inns of Court School of Law
Ian Stern Q.C., Head of the Chambers Regulatory Group, is recommended as a ‘leader in the field’ in the Professional Discipline, General Crime and Fraud sections of the Chambers & Partners Directory, an independent guide to the legal profession. In 2012, Ian was one of three nominees as ‘silk of the year’ in Professional Discipline.
The 2012 Chambers & Partners Directory described Ian as:
an "impressive advocate with a measured style and a delicate touch who always makes the right decisions."
"a fraud practitioner in the classic mould," who has many years of experience and is noted for his expertise in money laundering.
"absolutely first class" and a silk "who will fight his corner for the client." He is noted for his advocacy, and for his ability to win over clients by "dealing with them with the necessary level of respect for their professionalism."
Principal Areas of Practice
- Professional Discipline and Regulatory work
- Commercial Fraud
Professional Discipline and Regulatory work
Chambers & Partners directory 2011 stated that Ian Stern Q.C. "is regarded throughout the field as an "exceptional talent," who is able to prosecute and defend across a range of professions and in front of a variety of professional bodies. Clients marvel that "he never takes a bad point," and further appreciate the fact that he combines a very nice personal manner with the capacity to be "fantastically aggressive in court when appropriate."
In earlier directories he has been described as "highly prized" and as "a skilled operator who smoothes over the wrinkles however fraught the case". "A stalwart of the market, he was recently appointed as silk and is regularly instructed to appear before an array of disciplinary bodies..."
"an exceptional advocate, who puts up a terrific fight", "good at the details" and "clients reported that they are "confident that he has left nothing unconsidered".
Chambers & Partners directory described Ian Stern Q.C. as "instructed by top solicitors and major prosecuting authorities alike... he is armed with "bags of common sense" and "excellent judgment"..." and as having "the ability to handle the most complex of fraud trials". Ranked again in this area in the 2011 directory.
Ian Stern Q.C. has been involved in a number of high profile inquests. He represented the Specialist Firearms Officers (C1 and C2) who shot Jean Charles de Menezes at the Stockwell Inquest. He has represented companies, doctors, banks and police officers, including Specialist Firearms Officers, in the aftermath of fatal shootings.
Having spent many years defending and prosecuting serious crime this is an area of practice in which he is still very much involved and is ranked again in this area in the 2011 directory.
In addition has also appeared before and been instructed by a variety of other Tribunals including the General Optical Council, the Actuaries and Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board, the British Psychological Society, General Osteopathic Council and the Farriers Registration Council.
Assistant Recorder (1998)
Advocacy Teacher (Inner Temple)
'A' List on H.M. Customs/Attorney General's Panel of Prosecution Advocates (1996-2005)
Founding member of Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers.
Called to the New South Wales Bar (Australia) (1989)
Regulatory and Professional Discipline
GMC v Prof R – a three week hearing representing a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon who was alleged to have failed to provide good clinical care to a patient who died during an operation. All allegations not proved.
GMC v S – sexual allegations by a nurse against a doctor. Allegations found not proved.
GOC v D – represented an optometrist who was alleged to have failed to diagnose and act upon symptoms of a patient. Allegations not proved.
HPC v HH – represented a psychologist who was alleged to have been having an improper relationship with a prisoner. Allegations not proved.
GMC v M - Representing a Consultant Cardiologist at a 5 month hearing. All clinical allegations not proved.
GMC v S - Following acquittal at the Crown Court, the GMC sought to bring an identical case against the doctor. Application to stay the proceedings for abuse, granted.
RE:C - Written advices to a Hong Kong accountant on disciplinary proceedings. Case compromised.
GOC v P - Clinical allegations regarding sight test of children. Case dismissed following cross examination of the expert for the Council and submissions at the close of the case for the Council.
GOC v K - Allegation of missed pathology. Case dismissed following cross examination of the expert and submissions at the close of the case for the Council.
VALI v GOC - Represented optometrist on appeal to the High Court. Appeal allowed.  EWHC 310].
GMC v K - Represented doctor following his conviction at the Crown Court where a suspended prison sentence was imposed. Following a 5 day hearing at the GMC, the Panel agreed that undertakings were sufficient.
Re GB (deceased) – represented a doctor at a six week Inquest. The doctor was in charge of the medical care at a prison where a patient died. It was alleged by the police and the family that the doctor (and other health workers) had failed to provide basic care. After legal submissions, the Coroner rejected the argument that causation could be left to the jury or any verdict of unlawful killing based on gross negligence.
Chandler's Ford - Represented two Specialist Firearms Officers who fatally shot two armed robbers.
R - Represented a surgeon who had carried out an operation that led to the death of the patient.
R v R - represented a defendant charged with attempted murder. The prosecution alleged that he had fired three shots at a woman when she opened her front door to him as a result of a grievance between him and the woman’s son. The jury acquitted the defendant in under half an hour.
R v H – represented a defendant who was alleged to have sexually groomed a young girl who was a family friend. Submissions at the conclusion of the prosecution case were accepted by the Judge who directed the jury to return ‘not guilt’ verdicts.
R v F - Allegation of murder. Jury could not agree and the prosecution offered no evidence shortly before the retrial.
R v P - Represented a doctor at the Crown Court on appeal against conviction.
R v C - Death by careless driving - acquittal.
R v R - Represented a defendant accused of organised drug supply and violence.