Consultant Solicitor

Jonathan Meadows

Jonathan collaborates with Richardson Lissack as a consultant solicitor while concurrently holding a position at the GDC.

For over a decade Jonathan has been at the forefront of regulatory and disciplinary law within the healthcare sector, advising both individuals and statutory regulators. His experience extends to working on numerous complex and high-profile cases, both defending and prosecuting. Notably, he has represented clients facing serious allegations related to the Mid Staffs Trust hospital scandal and the Operation Jasmine care home Inquiry showing his adeptness in handling the most difficult of cases. He has also been instructed by regulators to conduct investigations into clinical incompetence, financial impropriety, and fraud.

Jonathan has a unique talent for unravelling complex matters, especially when defending professionals facing regulatory scrutiny. His wealth of experience and proven track record make him an invaluable resource for clients navigating the complexities of regulatory proceedings, including High Court appeals and judicial reviews.

His unique background in both defending and prosecuting provides him with unparalleled strategic insight. His comprehensive understanding of the prosecutorial approach allows him to anticipate and navigate regulatory proceedings with a depth of understanding that sets him apart. This insight ensures a nuanced and effective defence strategy when clients are referred to their regulator.

Jonathan accepts instructions from healthcare professionals in respect of the following statutory regulators amongst others:

–          General Medical Council

–          General Optical council General Osteopathic Council

–          Health and Care Professions council

–          Nursing and Midwifery Council

–          Social Work England.


Notable Cases

Acting for clients referred to the disclosure and barring service that are on notice that they may be prevented from working with vulnerable adults or children under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.  This includes making formal representations and considering appeal where necessary. Jonathan has a 100 percent success rate in respect of these proceedings meaning that none of my clients have been barred by the DBS.

Defence of professionals


Successfully representing a senior healthcare professional in respect of the regulatory case arising out of ‘Operation Jasmine’ in which it was alleged that residents of some care homes in the Caerphilly County Borough and Blaenau Gwent County Borough were subject to a widespread and sustained level of abuse which caused horrific injuries and premature deaths. SG was the only person involved to remain on the register with a Caution Order.


A serious case arose from the Mid Staffordshire Trust scandal, with allegations including that the Registrant had been unaware of a patient’s decline and death, since she had been shopping for clothes on eBay. At the conclusion of this contested case, the professional was able to return to practice immediately, and subsequently, all restrictions upon her practice were removed.


Successfully persuaded the regulator to agree to a five-year caution by way of consensual panel determination in relation to my client admitting to the theft of medication from a hospital ward.


In a complex case, a senior professional overseeing a secure mental health facility faced serious allegations of assaulting and mistreating vulnerable patients. After an initial attempt at criminal prosecution fell through, the regulatory body revisited the accusations before the Conduct and Competence Committee.

Jonathan conducted thorough investigations, uncovering a crucial detail: the main witnesses had previously filed complaints against a former manager who had sadly taken their own life. Leveraging this information, Jonathan discredited the witnesses and highlighted potential bias in their accounts. Notably, he used the complainants’ hearsay evidence to underscore underlying issues.

Jonathan’s meticulous work and strategic insights paid off. At the end of the Council’s case, he successfully argued for a ‘no case to answer’ on each count. The result: the senior professional was completely exonerated, marking a significant achievement in navigating a challenging and nuanced legal situation.


A case of alleged criminal sexual assault and unrelated poor clinical practice. The sexual assault element was found not proven after the complainant was discredited in extensive cross-examination. The clinical issues – admitted at the outset – resulted in a caution, and the registrant was ultimately able to return to practice without restriction.


Successfully persuaded the regulator to offer no evidence following submissions that the matter would unlikely amount to the impairment of the client’s fitness to practise.


Successfully achieved ‘no order’ at an interim order hearing on written submission to the panel, on the argument that a prima facie case to answer had not been established. The professional was able to practice unrestricted.

White v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Turner v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 520 (Admin): A significant case on the reliability of anonymous hearsay evidence arising from the Mid-Staffordshire Trust scandal.

Prosecutions for the regulator

Akhtar -v- General Dental Council [2017] EWHC 1986: Successfully defended an appeal on behalf of the regulator where the appeal questioned whether a registrant subject to an interim suspension should face further substantive suspension.

GDC v IH [2021] Instructed to act in an application for restoration to the register. The matter had been originally considered by a Practice Committee in June 2018 and the applicant was restored. This was however, quashed on appeal by the High Court (see PSA and GDC v Hussain [2019] EWHC 2640 (Admin) and remitted for reconsideration. The matter was complex and hard fought, involving several witnesses to character and uncovered evidence of further dishonesty of the applicant post erasure. The outcome was that the restoration was refused.

Darfoor v General Dental Council [2016] EWHC 2715 successfully defended an appeal to the high court resulting in costs being awarded against the appellant.

GDC v MS [2017]  Acting for a regulator concerning complex allegations of clinical incompetence and financial impropriety in the operation of the DenPlan capitation scheme with the professional being struck off.

GDC v GH [2017] Acting for a regulator in respect of a complex financial impropriety in the operation of UDA costs from the NHS, with the professional being struck off.

GDC v VA [2016] successfully concluded a prosecution case by way of an agreed statement of facts, meaning that significant savings were made, and a 12-month Suspension Order was achieved.


Let’s work together

Contact Us

arrow-downarrow-left-greyarrow-leftarrow-right-0c2535 arrow-right-ffffff arrow-right-greyarrow-rightbullet-icon-whitebullet-iconcloseicon-connecticon-cross-double icon-cross-right icon-email icon-nav-lefticon-nav-righticon-phoneicon-pinicon-reachlawyer-linkedin-icon nav-menu-arrow rl-logo-icon social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtube