Our representation was praised as "superb" by the club's chairman who commented on the case in their recent match day programme on 16th January 2010 as follows:

Justice Prevails. I would like to start with the obvious, I am delighted with the verdict of the FA’s Independent Commission. This Commission chaired by a leading QC, examined in minute detail the events of that evening and having left no stone unturned found Millwall Football Club not guilty of any offence with which the FA charged us. The Board’s decision to defend Millwall’s honour and hire excellent legal advice was both an expensive and risky proposition. We deemed it critical that we prove our case or else our future disappeared. Now that we have succeeded we must not waste this opportunity. Everyone who is part of the Millwall family must get on board and continue the task of changing people’s negative perceptions of our Club. There are many people to thank for their support in this process. Our legal team of Jim Sturman QC and Richard Egan of Tucker’s Solicitors were superb.

The case attracted widespread media attention, particularly in relation to the powers of the executive.

link text

Mr Inglis's case went to a full hearing at the court of appeal, where it was successfully argued that his conviction was unsafe due to flawed medical evidence at the first trial. The issues were complex and related to the difficulties of properly diagnosing Bi Polar disorder, and the effects that illness would have on the mental responsibility of a sufferer.

Mr Inglis has been granted a re- trial which is due to be heard in September this year.

The case has been ongoing for 3 years due to a re- trial, following a jury’s failure to agree a verdict on the most serious charge. The case has now gone to a third trial following the acquittal of one client on the most serious charge, but a failure to reach a verdict on the lesser charge. We continue to act for the other 3 defendants on appeals following the legal basis of the re- trial, and for a further defendant who has just been aquitted of all charges.

The case involved the assessment of a huge amount of diverse evidence from computer material, covert audio recordings, video evidence and e-mail intercepts.

The incident occurred on the 15 February 2007. The floor of the airbridge was being renovated by the defendant company, ROK Building Ltd. A self-employed flooring contractor, Mr. Sterry, was working on contract to ROK Building Ltd.

ROK Building Ltd, based in Exeter, pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 4 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates court on 14 May 2009. The company was fined today at the Old Bailey £20,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £ 17,397.14.

Immediately before the incident, the floor covering had been lifted but the underlying subfloor was found to be rotten. A ROK Building Ltd employee lifted the plywood panels so that only remaining floor was a thin, and poorly supported, metal sheet. When Mr Sterry stood on this he fell straight onto the concrete surface of the apron. As a result, Mr. Sterry received severe injuries to his legs. The defendant company (ROK) had identified that work at height might be an important factor in their earlier assessments, but failed to implement the control measures that they identified.

Steve Kirton, HSE Inspector said, “Any work at height or work near fragile surfaces needs to be properly planned and assessed. Any identified control measures need to be fully implemented.”

Notes to editors 1. Section 4(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: General duties of persons concerned with premises to persons other than their employees (1) This section has effect for imposing on persons duties in relation to those who: (a) are not their employees; but (b) use non-domestic premises made available to them as a place of work or as a place where they may use plant or substances provided for their use there, and applies to premises so made available and other non-domestic premises used in connection with them.

The incident took place on 16 March 2005 at a building site by the North Circular Road in Brent, London. A warehouse was being built by local developer Gargreen Ltd using its associated contractor Euro’s (London) Ltd, both based at the North Circular Road address. Workers were moving a two-ton concrete slab into position in the warehouse by rolling it across a mezzanine floor on metal tubes. The slab became jammed while it was being placed on the steel frame of the floor. Mr Szczotka and a colleague went under the slab in order to push it up into position on the frame using a prop. When Mr Szczotka attempted to jack up the slab, it fell on him.

Mr Szczotka, who is 33 and married with three young children, suffered major crush and fracture injuries to his pelvis and legs. More than two years on, he is still severely disabled, and medical experts doubt his ability to ever work again. He came to Britain as a migrant worker just weeks before the incident and, despite having no previous training or experience working on a construction site, he was employed by the contractor, paid cash in hand, and was not provided with any training.

HSE Inspector Simon Hester, who investigated the incident, said: "The working methods that were used in this case were not acceptable. Companies must ensure safe systems of work are in place to prevent this type of incident, and to ensure that this does not happen again.

"This case also highlights the risks that migrant workers can be exposed to when unaware of employers' health and safety responsibilities and their own rights. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 protects the rights of all workers regardless of their origin. Workers can find out more about their rights, and report incidents or bad practice by calling 0845 345 0055 in confidence."

The client for the project, Gargreen Ltd, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of regulation 6 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 for failing to appoint a Planning Supervisor to oversee safety requirements on the construction site.

The principal contractor building the warehouse, Euro's (London) Ltd, was found guilty of breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to ensure that a safe system of work was in place and for inadequate training and supervision of the work. The company had also pleaded guilty to a breach of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995 as they did not report the incident to HSE as required. The court imposed a total fine of £100 and ordered no costs to be paid.

Mr Vijay Kara, a director of both Euro's (London) Ltd and Gargreen Ltd, and who played a direct role in managing the construction work on the site, was charged with an offence under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 which alleged that the breaches by both companies were a result of his own personal negligence. The court found him guilty and he was fined £99,900 and ordered to pay costs of £150,000. Mr Kara was told he had six months to pay or he would face a custodial sentence.

During sentencing Judge Pratt said: "This was a case of putting a saving of money before the safety of the workers. I am convinced that you Mr Kara were playing every trick in the book to evade your responsibilities."

Notes to editors 1.Regulation 6 (1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 requires the client for a notifiable project to appoint a planning supervisor for the project. 2.Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states that "it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees". 3.Section 2(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:

"Without prejudice to the generality of an employer's duty under the preceding subsection (2(1), the matters to which that duty extends include in particular:

(a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;

(c) the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;

(e) the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work." 4.The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) require employers and others to report accidents and some diseases that arise out of or in connection with work. These reports enable the enforcing authorities to identify where and how risks arise and to investigate serious accidents. 5.Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 requires that where an offence under relevant health and safety legislation by a company is proved to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of a director, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. 6.In the magistrates court the maximum fine for breaches of regulations is £5,000 and for convictions under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 it is £20,000. On referral to the Crown Court the maximum fine is unlimited.

This is just one example of high profile multi-jurisdiction crime currently being handled by Tuckers Solicitors.