Michael is a highly experienced solicitor advocate with over 20 years of practice in criminal and regulatory law. He specialises in defending healthcare professionals in fitness to practise proceedings, with expertise in complex and high-profile cases.
Prior to joining our firm, Michael held roles at the Nursing and Midwifery Council, where he led on investigations and presented cases before the Fitness to Practise Committee. He also spent several years as a senior Crown Court advocate, representing clients in serious criminal trials.
November 2025. Represented Pharmacist in Fitness to Practise proceedings before the General Pharmaceutical Council. Five star review left by client:
“I would like to share my experience with Michael Smalley from VHS Fletchers, who acted as my Solicitor Advocate during my recent Fitness to Practise case. From the very start he was calm, approachable and incredibly reassuring. He spoke with real experience and confidence, and he took the time to fully understand my situation, the allegations, the evidence and the background. He then explained clearly what steps I could take to support my case.
Michael did all the hard work behind the scenes. He chased up references and testimonials, organised my bundle, and put together all of my evidence and my defence. He went through my reflections, statements and training records in detail, and then arranged meetings where he explained the plan, what he needed from me and what I should expect. At every stage he answered my questions and made sure I understood what was happening.
During the hearing he was an enormous support. Before I gave my oral evidence he went through every area of concern with me, helped me prepare and made sure I felt as calm as possible. Throughout the hearing he explained each step and what the panel would be doing at that moment. He took a genuine interest in my personal situation and I could tell he cared. At one point when I became nervous he noticed and asked for a break which made a big difference.
Looking back at previous fitness to practise outcomes in cases similar to mine, the result I received was far better than I expected. I believe that is down to how carefully and effectively Michael handled my case.
Michael was sharp, well prepared and even picked up on an error the opposition made when citing case law. He helped deal with and dismiss allegations, including some I originally admitted to, by presenting the facts properly and fairly.
I am extremely grateful for everything he did and would recommend him to anyone who needs someone steady, knowledgeable and committed to securing the best possible outcome for their client.”
Archives
Tim Haines
Derby Criminal Defence and Regulatory solicitor Tim Haines
Tim qualified as a solicitor in 1993, initially practising in all areas of litigation. In 1995 he began to concentrate solely on criminal defence work and soon found himself heading the Criminal Department of his then employer, a position he held for 6 years before joining VHS solicitors in 2001.
He was made a partner in 2006, and undertook an important role in the merger of two firms to form VHS Fletchers. Thereafter, he has been instrumental in developing the Derby and Mansfield areas of our successful practice.
Tim has a key role in practice development, as combined with his strong leadership qualities, he provides the best quality advice and assistance at the police station and is a much respected Magistrates’ and Youth Court advocate. His many years of experience have involved him representing clients being investigated or charged with all forms of matters from road traffic offences through to murder.
He is renowned for his straight talking pragmatic style, an approach highly valued by his clients. A personable and committed defence specialist, Tim is a Duty Solicitor.
Tim is a member of our Regulatory team and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience with him. He is able to provide a complete service to the clients he represents. His skills allow him to give comprehensive advice to professionals who find themselves subject to investigations by statutory bodies. He is one of a very small band of solicitors who is competent to advise individuals who are subject to both regulatory and criminal investigation/prosecution.
He has many years experience of undertaking advocacy before the Magistrates Court and is an expert litigator in healthcare cases before the Crown Court. Recently he played an integral part in successfully defending a client in a multi-handed bribery and fraud trial which lasted 7 weeks before the Crown Court.
Tim has developed the appropriate skills and knowledge to represent individuals and companies called as interested parties in Coroner’s enquiries. He is able to advise the client throughout the process including preparing statements and undertaking the advocacy at the full Inquest.
Over the years Tim has advised individuals facing investigations and proceedings before the General Pharmaceutical Council; not only has he prepared full responses to investigations, but he has also undertaken the advocacy and represented clients facing matters before both the Investigating Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee of the GPhC. Tim uses his experience and skills as a well-established criminal defence advocate to thoroughly prepare responses to emergency applications for Interim orders.
Tim brings together the various attributes required in the field of regulatory law. He is approachable, caring and will stand his client’s corner whilst giving rounded and detailed advice.
R v C Murder. An elderly client with dementia killed his wife. The Crown Prosecution Service were ultimately persuaded that a finding of fact hearing rather than a trial was the most appropriate way for such a sensitive case to proceed. Ultimately the client received a hospital order.
R v R Excess Alcohol. The client was a schoolteacher who collided with a vehicle while on school grounds whilst significantly over the legal limit to drive. Following a guilty plea and the advancement of careful and sensitive mitigation the case resolved by way of a low tariff community order despite the presence of significant aggravating features.
R v H Criminal Behaviour Order. The client was an extremely vulnerable individual with longstanding mental health issues. The case involved a high level of care and compassion and resolved by way of a conditional discharge and a Criminal Behaviour Order in terms very much reduced from those originally being sought by the police.
R v W Abuse of Process. The client was accused of physically assaulting a 3 year old child as part of a long running neighbour dispute. Following lengthy submissions to the Crown and a successful abuse of process argument the Magistrates dismissed the charge.
R v M Joint Enterprise. The client was a youth jointly charged with a street robbery. Following a full evidential trial before a District Judge which included extensive legal argument on the issue of joint enterprise the client was acquitted whereas the co-accused separately represented was convicted.
R v J. Bad character evidence. Not guilty verdict for Mansfield client despite poor record for similar offending. Read more here.
R v S. Domestic violence. Not guilty verdict for Mansfield client alleged to have assaulted his partner. Read more here.
R v B. Drink driving. Prison sentence avoided for Mansfield driver four times over the limit. Read more here.
R v P. Drug driving. Not guilty verdict for Mansfield client said to be driving whilst under the influence of drugs. Read more here.
R v P. Drink Driving. Client sentenced to a community order following mitigation demonstrating a wish to change. Read more here.
Helen qualified as a Solicitor in 1995, joining VHS Fletchers in 2004 having already specialised for 11 years in criminal defence work at another local practice. She became a Duty Solicitor in 1996 in Nottingham and began to specialise in working with young people who fund themselves both in the police station and in the Youth Court.
She has experience of defending those charged with offences ranging from shop theft to murder, and is aims to provide exceptional client care whatever the charge may be. She is an able advocate and she enjoys the challenge of conducting trials.
In 2014, she branched out from her daily appearances in the Magistrates and Youth Court and joined the regulatory team at VHS Fletchers. She prosecutes for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on a national basis, in complex and serious cases. She is part of a well-regarded team who undertake this work for the HSE, and now appears at inquest hearings representing the HSE, as well as prosecutions in Magistrates and Crown Court. Her extensive experience in defending in the first part of her career, has proved invaluable in providing advice on procedure and evidence in regulatory prosecutions.
In the time that she has been in the regulatory department, Helen has undertaken a wide range of prosecutions including the prosecution of a company who failed to protect its employees during asbestos removal, to prosecutions of companies following serious and fatal accidents sustained at work, and prosecution of gas fitters who are not registered, and undertake defective work.
R v C Historic Sexual Abuse. The client was a head teacher charged with historical abuse allegations. Advice and representation provided from the police station through to trial where the client was acquitted
R v DZ Attempted Murder. A vulnerable Chinese national who had been trafficked to the United Kingdom and who spoke no English was charged with an attack on a madam running a brothel. The Crown were persuaded to accept a lesser charge of s20 Wounding.
R v SS Conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The Client was interviewed unrepresented in the police station but diligent post charge investigations led to the interviews being ruled inadmissible due to the police’s actions.
R v K Murder. This client was extremely vulnerable due to his physical and learning difficulties combines with a lack of English. The case involved spending 4 days with him at the police station during the interviews, providing advice and support to him from that point through to sentencing.
R v A CCTV. A youth with no previous convictions was charged with robbery. Thorough preparation and analysis of the CCTV footage that had been available to the police from the outset showed that her client could not have committed the offence.
R v C Assault. The client was a care home worker of good character charged with assaulting a resident during an outing. He was found not guilty after trial.
R v N and S Regulatory defence. A company and an individual director were prosecuted for serious breaches of fire regulations with regard to a student lettings development. A custodial sentence for the Director was avoided.
Archives
Martin Hadley
Nottingham Regulatory Consultant Solicitor Martin Hadley
Martin Hadley specialised in criminal defence work from being admitted as a solicitor in 1988. He gained over 30 years’ experience representing individuals at police stations or before criminal courts.
This knowledge and experience gained over many years has equipped him well, enabling him to review cases from a balanced and independent view point. His clients receive the benefit of this unbiased advice, always given in their best interests.
Since 1999, Martin has used these abilities to specialise in representing healthcare professionals, including staff of a major pharmaceutical company as well as those self-employed. He provides advice on investigations by the police, statutory and regulatory bodies. He has advised many professionals at the police station, court, Coroner’s Inquests and disciplinary proceedings. He has undertaken the advocacy and presentation of cases before the General Pharmaceutical Council and Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland.
Martin has dealt with the full range of issues that will arise when representing professionals, including corporate manslaughter, fraud and regulatory breaches. Martin undertook his own advocacy before the tribunals, bringing continuity that cannot be achieved by the use of external counsel. Although now retired from the partnership and no longer on the roll of solicitors, Martin continues to prepare and litigate such matters.
His abilities were recognised in 1997 by the Legal Services Commission (now the Legal Aid Agency) when he was appointed to the Funding Review Committee where he sat as both Chair and member.
R v M Fraud. Client was a pharmacist accused of a fraud valued in excess of £80K. Unfortunately the Crown Prosecution Service failed to understand the technical processes of the client’s business and his ability to make a legitimate claim for costs. The client was acquitted after trial.
L. Gross Negligence Manslaughter. The clients were a pharmacist and his colleagues interviewed by the police, overseen by the Special Cases Unit of the Crown Prosecution Service, during a period of 5 days. Ultimately, no action was taken as we helped demonstrate that the pharmacy had robust systems in place and these systems were routinely used.
P. Inquest. Representing a pharmacist and her colleagues who were ‘interested parties’ at an inquest lasting 5 days. The Coroner in his conclusion highlighted shortcomings in the practices of others while making no criticism was made of our client’s practice.
R. Investigation. The client was a pharmacist being investigated by the General Pharmaceutical Council for failing to dispense medication requested on a prescription. Written representations were submitted denying wrong doing. Thereafter the Council closed its investigation into our client and took no action, instead giving advice to our client’s employer.
J . Fitness to Practice. Advocacy undertaken before the Fitness to Practice Committee of the General Pharmaceutical Council on behalf of a client accused of making various dispensing errors. It was alleged that due to the number and frequency of these errors he was not fit to practice. It was demonstrated, however, that the error rate was below the national average and the Committee found that the client was fit to practice and that his performance was ‘nearer to excellent than poor’. Unsurprisingly, no action was taken.
General Pharmaceutical Council v P. Successful representations made on behalf of a pharmacist technician who had failed to disclose a police caution. Further information can be found here.
