Sunyana Sharma considers the High Court's decision in Sudheer Shabir v. General Medical Council  EWNH 1772 (Admin), a useful reminder of the core principles that will be applied in professional disciplinary misconduct hearings and/or at the appeal stage.
Sunyana Sharma is a regulatory and inquest barrister who practices in professional disciplinary work, maritime and fishing law, health and safety law and all areas of regulatory compliance and consumer protection.
She has been appointed to the C list of Regulatory Advocates for the Health and Safety Executive, Office of Rail Regulation and the Environment Agency.
Sunyana sits as an Assistant Coroner for Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth and as a Deputy District Judge in Civil and Family law. To read more about Sunyana’s relevant expertise, please see her specialist inquests profile.
Prior to joining Chambers, Sunyana worked for the Solicitor International Human Right’s Group (‘SIHRG’) with whom she organised the Zimbabwe Fundraising Event called 'Protecting Lawyers in Zimbabwe' in collaboration with the Bar Human Rights Committee. She also worked as part of a team in researching and drafting legal submissions on the rule of law and the importance of an impartial tribunal following the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan in March 2007. In addition, she undertook an internship with the criminal justice department of 'JUSTICE', the all party law reform and human rights organisation. She assisted with the research on policy papers commissioned by JUSTICE, which included changes to the rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and responses to the Home Office paper on 'New powers against organised and financial crime’.
 EWCA Crim 109;  1 Cr App R (S) 36
The Court considered whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying the court in not imposing the required minimum sentence for the possession of firearms.
Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law
Sunyana Sharma has developed a strong practice in professional disciplinary regulation following secondments as a case presenter at the Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘NMC’) and in house lawyer at the General Chiropractic Council (‘GCC’). She appears regularly in various healthcare tribunals which includes the NMC, GCC, Health and Care Professions Council (‘HCPC’), Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal Service (‘MPTS’), General Optical Council (‘GOC’), British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (‘BACP’) and General Dental Council ‘GDC’ for substantive misconduct and health hearings, interim order applications and substantive order reviews. In addition, she is regularly instructed by nursing, care homes and GP Surgery’s appealing CQC decisions before the First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber).
Having developed an in depth and robust understanding of the ‘fitness to practise’ regime, she takes instruction in all professional disciplinary cases.
Sunyana was seconded to the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) from 2019 to 2020 to assist in two high profile dual tracked investigations into systemic failures by two major global banks.
HCPC v. x (2023): Instructed to represent practical psychologist for plagiarism allegations in a PhD thesis.
NMC v. x (2023): Represented a nurse in an interim order hearing for being charged with gross manslaughter and misconduct allegations in which responsible nurse failed to attach monitoring equipment of a child with co-morbidities and sleep apnoea, which caused and/or contributed to patient’s death.
GPhC v. PP (2022): Advised a pharmacy group for potential allegations in relation to staff at the pharmacy being unqualified and large volumes of Phenergan and Codeine Linctus going missing during COVID-19 lockdown. Pharmacy unable to account for missing medication.
BACP v. SE (2022): Representing a counsellor for misconduct allegations for conducting a joint counselling sessions for a couple with instance of domestic violence. Expert instructed to show the changing clinical approach to counselling sessions in domestic violence cases where joint sessions were permissible in certain circumstances.
GDC v. MB (2022): Instructed to represent a Harley Street dentist in 14-day misconduct case in respect of inadequate care given to five patients and inappropriate offensive communication with a sixth patient. Complexities in the case included the instruction of an expert due to the technical nature of the implants provided, further disciplinary findings that the Committee were made aware of at the later stages of the proceedings and representing a challenging client with mental health issues.
GDC v. x (2021): representing CDT for multiple allegations relating to working out of scope, breach of an interim order and various dishonesty allegations.
BACP v. x (2021): Representing a counsellor for misconduct allegations in relation to joint counselling sessions for a couple with a history of domestic violence.
GMC v. x (2020): Instructed to represent a consultant anaesthetist for incorrect and dangerous intubation pre-surgery of two patients leading to near deaths.
GDC v. SK (2020): Successfully represented a dentist in an IO hearing who faced allegations of sexual abuse.
CQC v. YSL (2020): Successfully represented care home in an appeal to cancel its registration before the First Tier Tribunal (Care Standards).
Human Givens Institute v. LM (2019): Advised an integrative therapist specialising in mental and emotional health on an appeal of the decision of the Human Givens Institute for practising out of scope.
NMC v. RP (2018): Represented a nurse for a number of failings in which he was blamed for the death of a patient. Following the week’s substantive hearing none of the allegations were found proved.
GMC v. x (2017): Represented a Doctor for carrying out medical practise whilst not holding a licence to practise.
HCPC v. KC (2017): Represented a social worker for receiving a caution for disclosing sexual photographs of his ex partner.
GOC v. AP (2016): Represented an optician for over 50 misconduct allegations relating to the adequacy of sight testing, the fitting of contact lenses, record keeping and dishonesty for a patient with keratoconus.
NMC v. JN (2015): Instructed to advise a registrant on an appeal to the High Court relating to a Substantive Order determination on dishonesty.
NMC v. PN (2015): Represented the NMC at a misconduct substantive hearing in which the registrant was undertaking shift work when signed off sick and working excessive hours, including a continuous 37 hour shift.
GDC v. IK (2014): Instructed to represent a dental technician for acting outside his scope of practice.
NMC v. KA-A (2014): Successfully represented the NMC for a 9 day substantive misconduct hearing against two nurses for restraining a vulnerable dementia patient to a hospital bed with a bedsheet and cable ties.
NMC v. AA (2014): Represented the NMC for dishonesty allegations against the Registrant who had produced and provided false references to an NHS Trust to obtain a Band 5 Nursing post. The five day substantive hearing resulted in the Nurse being struck off.
GCC v. X (2014): Represented the GCC for a substantive order review hearing of a Chiropractor who had been convicted of acts of voyeurism.
GCC v. EJ (2013): Successfully represented EJ in a four day substantive hearing for allegations of unacceptable professional conduct relating to a sexual relationship with a patient, confidentiality breaches and dishonesty.
GOC v. AP (2012): Appeared on behalf of a student optician for dishonesty allegations.
The established legal framework in professional disciplinary misconduct hearings29th Sep 2023
Help I’m an expert, what are my duties?12th Jul 2021
Sunyana Shama looks at the case of Zuber Bux v. General Medical Council  EWHC 762 (Admin) in which the opportunity is given to revisit the key duties and obligations inherent in good expert witnesses.
A case on nonclinical intimate examinations without consent12th Jul 2021
Sunyana Shama examines the case of Raied Haris v GMC  EWCA Civ 763 in which a doctor is found to have undertaken nonclinical intimate examinations on patients without their informed consent.
Racist language is incompatible with professional practice or is it?3rd Feb 2021
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health and Care Professions Council, Roberts  EWHC 1906 (Admin)
Specialist regulatory law barrister Sunyana Sharma reviews the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health and Care Professions Council, Roberts  EWHC 1906 (Admin). Th case concerned a member of staff that had used racist language.
High Court concludes that Regulator overstepped the mark into Solicitor’s private life3rd Feb 2021
Beckwith v. Solicitors Regulation Authority  EWHC 3231 (Admin)
Sunyana Sharma, a regulatory and criminal law barrister reviews the case of Beckwith v. Solicitors Regulation Authority  EWHC 3231 (Admin). In this case, the High Court concludes that Regulator overstepped the mark into Solicitor’s private life.
Sunyana Sharma is ranked in the Legal 500 2024/Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law/Leading Juniors/London Bar
Sunyana Sharma is ranked in the Legal 500 2024/Inquests and Inquiries/Leading Juniors/London Bar
[Sunyana Sharma is] ‘Able to assimilate large volumes of information quickly and focus on the key issues, with questioning that is succinct but focused – a highly competent barrister.’
Legal 500 2023/Inquests and Inquiries/Leading Juniors/London Bar
‘Strengths include a wealth of knowledge, strategic acumen and impeccable client care. In addition to being incredibly talented, Sunyana is also efficient, approachable, and always easy to reach and happy to advise. Instructing solicitors cannot rate the service provided by Sunyana highly enough.’
Legal 500 2022/Inquests and Inquiries/Leading Juniors/London Bar
'She understands both sides of nursing and midwifery cases.'
Legal 500 2016/Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law (including police law)/Leading Juniors
“Sunyana has conducted numerous prosecutions for us as a regulator over several years. Sunyana is a diligent hard-working barrister who provides clear advice with absolute clarity on a consistent basis.
A barrister who always appears to be pro-active, on the front foot and seemingly always one step ahead of the game. Sunyana serves us as a client timely and measured response in all instructions and is keen to work with us the regulator at an early stage in all matters.
In the court room is where you see the real deal with Sunyana, strong and robust advocacy, fast thinking and good on her feet, clearly respected by the bench and peers alike and consistently builds strong working relationships with all parties in every case we have worked on together.
In all Sunyana is hugely knowledgeable, highly effective whilst still being a delightful person to work with.”
Head of UK Maritime Investigations Team, Maritime & Coastguard Agency
“I just wanted to say a big thank you for your hard work on our recent case. Considering you only received the papers at very late notice, your knowledge and understanding of the case was outstanding. I was so impressed by your meticulous preparation and would have no hesitation in instructing you again or recommending you to any of my colleagues. Thank you again”.
Partner, Law firm
"Hardworking, intelligent, very approachable and a pleasure to work with. She is always available to speak to and bounce ideas off and is very good both at advising clients and managing their expectations".
Senior Associate, Law firm