Craig Hassall KC

Year of call:

1999 · Silk 2021


1993 - Thomas Sumpter Comprehensive School, Scunthorpe

1995 - John Leggott Sixth Form College, Scunthorpe

1998 - University College, Oxford, BA Jurisprudence (2:1)

1999 - Inns of Court School of Law, BVC (‘very competent’)


1999 - Pupil at Sovereign Chambers

2000 - Tenant at Sovereign Chambers

2004 - Young Barristers’ Committee of the Bar Council

2006 - Junior of the North Eastern Circuit

2012 - Accredited advocacy trainer

2015 - Sovereign Chambers becomes Park Square Barristers

2015 - Head of the regulatory & public team at Park Square Barristers

2016 - Legally Qualified Chair of Police Misconduct Hearings for the Police & Crime Commissioners of the North Eastern Region

2017 - Vulnerable Witness - Advocacy Training Facilitator

2021 - Silk


2009 - Pupillage supervisor

2012 - Grade 4 Prosecutor and appointed to the Rape Panel List A of the Panel of Specialist Regulatory Advocates

2013 - Panel A of the Prosecution Counsel for the Serious Fraud Office

2015 - Head of regulatory & public team

2019 - Judicial appointment to the First-Tier Tribunal Criminal Recorder appointment


North Eastern Circuit

Criminal Bar Association

Health and Safety Lawyers Association

United Kingdom Environmental Law Association


1999 - Sweet & Maxwell Prize, Inner Temple

2017 - Certificate of Commendation, Immigration Enforcement

Ranked in Tier 1 for Business and Regulatory Crime (including Health and Safety) and Inquests & Inquiries – Legal 500 (2024) 

Ranked as a Band 2  Silk for Health & Safety – Chambers & Partners (2024) – 3 years ranked

Ranked as a Band 2 Silk for Inquests & Public Inquiries – Chambers & Partners (2024)

Ranked as a Band 2  Silk for Health & Safety – Chambers & Partners (2023)

Craig is a fearless and technically brilliant advocate. He is a pleasure to work with and to watch.’ Legal 500 (2024)
Craig is knowledgeable and well-prepared; a probing and effective questioner; a persuasive and powerful presence, and above all, a pleasure to be in a case with.’ Legal 500 (2024)
“Craig is excellent and can cut through any complex case to the heart of the issues. He gives clients confidence and handles sensitive issues extremely well.” Chambers & Partners (2024)
“Craig has a commanding courtroom presence. He cross-examines defendants with measured – and devastatingly effective – calm. His jury speeches are hugely persuasive.” – The Legal 500 (2024)
“Craig is insightful and incisive. He is accessible, empathetic and hungry to do more in the space.” Chambers & Partners (2023)
Craig is a fantastic barrister. The quality of the work he produces is first class, and his advocacy is powerful but in tune with the mood of the room. Legal 500 (2023)’
A superstar. Craig is personable, exceptionally intelligent, driven and empathetic. Clients warm to him instantly.’  ‘an excellent silk‘ and ‘fantastic with the most vulnerable clients‘.  Legal 500 (2023)
“He strikes exactly the right tone at health and safety hearings and inquests and has a good rapport with clients.” “He is calm under pressure, level-headed and strategic.” “He’s able to deal with technical, complex cases.” Chambers & Partners (2022)
Craig is an exceptionally gifted counsel. He quickly instills confidence in clients. A silk with an eye for the details but never loses sight of the bigger picture.” Legal 500 (2022)
“The consummate professional – calm under pressure with the ability to think quickly on his feet” ” a key name to note” Legal 500 (2021)

Head of the Regulatory and Public Law Team at PSQB, Craig prosecutes and defends in a wide range of regulatory cases. His regulatory practice includes serious health and safety and healthcare cases, usually involving fatalities. He has particular experience in trials of corporate and gross negligence manslaughter. Craig’s regulatory crime practice also encompasses criminal proceedings brought by a wide range of other regulators in the areas of environmental crime, trading standards, fire safety and food safety. He has a particular interest in cases involving allergen control.

Craig has extensive experience of representing corporate defendants. He can be relied upon to approach a case commercially and with a view to avoiding reputational damage. He is experienced in explaining the commercial reality of corporate accounts to lay and professional tribunals and regularly advises boards of directors in relation to criminal and coronial proceedings.

Craig has represented both regulators and professionals in the disciplinary processes of several different professional bodies and sits as a Legally Qualified Chair in Police Misconduct Hearings.

Craig’s knowledge of cases involving a wide range of prosecuting authorities enables him to bring a unique perspective to cases that transcend more than one area. He has been involved in many large cases with multiple defendants, regularly dealing with sensitive issues of disclosure.

Recent and Notable Cases

Health & Safety: Industrial

  • HSE v IM Ltd – defence of a metal recycling company following partial amputation of employee’s hand.
  • HSE v TT Ltd – defence of a manufacturing company following asphyxiation of two employees by argon gas.
  • R v Jones & Recycle Cymru Ltd – 2022 successful prosecution of gross negligence manslaughter and associated regulatory offences.
  • HSE -v- Nestlé UK Ltd – Prosecution arising from significant injuries to an employee on the After Eights line at Nestlé’s Halifax plant [2022] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 1.
  • HSE –v- W E Rawson Ltd – Prosecution under section 2 HSWA74 arising from a fatal incident in which an employee was dragged into a packaging machine and crushed.
  • Re Richardson – Representation at inquest and subsequent criminal defence of a waste management company following a fatal accident at their plant. The deceased walked into the path of a reversing JCB and suffered catastrophic head injuries. Accident reconstruction and traffic management evidence.
  • HSE –v- SIG Trading Ltd – Prosecution of a manufacturing company following partial amputation of an employee’s hand. Employees had deliberately circumvented safety measures introduced to guard the machine.
  • HSE –v- H – Retained pre-charge, and direct access, to advise an employee of a waste management company investigated on suspicion of a section 7 HSWA74 offence following a serious de-gloving injury.
  • HSE –v- Walter Hesslewood Ltd – Prosecution of a family-run waste management company whose employee was killed when a compressed air cylinder was expelled at speed from a waste press. One of the first cases to be sentenced following the implementation of the definitive guideline.
  • HSE –v- Cumbria Design Scaffolding Ltd & Larkin Engineering Services Ltd –Prosecution of two companies after an employee of one company was fatally injured when the other company was contracted to lift a large piece of metalwork. Issues of concurrent liability, liability of directors and delay.
  • HSE –v- Ainscough Crane Hire – Prosecution of a national crane hire company following the collapse of a ladder. The case involved expert metallurgical evidence about the foreseeability of failure due to galvanic corrosion.


Health & Safety: Construction


  • HSE v Mitie Roofing Ltd – successful prosecution of a national roofing company. Following the conviction of the defendant following a trial in Newcastle those proceedings were joined to pre-existing prosecution before the Crown Court at Swansea
  • HSE -v- MH Ltd – Defence of a significant house-building company.
  • HSE -v- P, W, D & T – Prosecution of two corporate and two individual defendants following the death of an 18-year-old labourer on a building site in Lincolnshire.
  • HSE –v- Riley James David – Defence of a self-employed builder whose failure to provide adequate edge protection led to a fall from significant height. Non-custodial sentence.
  • HSE –v- Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Ltd – Prosecution of a very large company following a fall from height when the floor of a partially constructed floor collapsed. Withdrawal of unrealistic concessions made by the prosecution at the Magistrates’ Court.
  • HSE –v- East Riding of Yorkshire – defence of a local authority, which itself had health and safety prosecutorial powers, following a fall from height during the repair of local authority housing. The District Judge was persuaded to retain jurisdiction. Consideration of the special treatment of public bodies under the sentencing guideline.

Health & Safety: Agricultural

  • HSE -v- JM Nixon & Sons Ltd – ongoing prosecution of a farming partnership for safety failings which led to a grandmother being fatally injured by a cow on an enclosed public bridleway.
  • D.H.Willis & Sons Ltd and Others – 2022 corporate and gross negligence manslaughter prosecution together with associated regulatory offences.
  • HSE –v- P – Representation at inquest and in criminal proceedings of a self-employed farm worker following the death of a landowner killed by a shard of barbed wire expelled from the defendant’s tractor-mounted flail mower. District Judge persuaded to retain jurisdiction despite the fatality.
  • HSE -v- UE. Defence of a landowner following a fatal accident on his sporting estate. An off-road all-terrain vehicle overturned, killing an employee who was collecting birds during a shoot. Magistrates persuaded to retain jurisdiction despite the fatality and the very considerable assets of the estate.

Health & Safety: Other

  • HSE -v- Lightwater Valley Attractions Ltd – Prosecution of the well-known Yorkshire theme park after a child was ejected from a rollercoaster and suffered life-threatening head injuries.



  • CQC -v- Dimensions UK Ltd – successful defence of regional domiciliary and residential care company. The proceedings encompassed two judicial review claims (one each by prosecution and defence) and concluded with a successful application to stay the charges as an abuse of the process of the court. The prosecution failed to obtain permission to bring a claim in judicial review against the District Judge’s stay of the proceedings. The Care Quality Commission was subsequently ordered to pay Craig’s client the entire costs of defending the criminal proceedings.
  • HSE –v- TG – Section 7 HSWA74 prosecution of a senior care worker at a day centre for disabled adults. The profoundly disabled deceased choked to death on a sweet, given to her by the defendant in breach of the care plan.
  • Re NS – representation of domiciliary care company at inquest into a service user’s death. The Coroner made no findings against the company, despite criticisms from other interested persons and excluded the client from the prevention of future deaths report.
  • Re LH – representation of domiciliary care company at inquest into a service user’s death. Complex neurology and endocrinology evidence. The Coroner was persuaded to reject the findings of the pathologist and made exculpatory remarks in relation to the client, despite strident criticisms made by the deceased’s family.
  • HSE –v- Hillcare Ltd – Prosecution of a care home provider following the death by positional asphyxia of a 76-year-old resident who had been left restrained in her wheelchair for several hours.
  • R v Pramanik – Prosecution of a care of the elderly consultant for offences under the Cremation Act 1902
  • R v Cheadle – Prosecution of a Care of the Elderly Consultant, under the Cremation Act 1902 and the Fraud Act 2006 for fraudulent completion of death certification forms.
  • Speke Care Home -v- The Care Quality Commission – Instructed to represent the CQC at a three-day appeal before the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal.
  • CQC –v- B Ltd Instructed by the CQC to advice on the merits of prosecuting a registered provider/manager for a failure to comply with Regulation 12(1) of the Health & Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 resulting in avoidable harm.

Product Liability/Trading Standards

  • WYTS v LA Ltd – defence of a home improvement company prosecuted under consumer protection regulations, in relation to illegal distance selling techniques.
  • NYTS -v- B&M Retail Ltd – prosecution of a multi-billion-pound turnover company for offences under electrical safety regulations. The case arose from the offering for sale of hoverboards which did not comply with EU safety standards.
  • Re M Ltd – advice to a long-established company engaged in import and supply of gas appliances, in relation to a suspected product safety issue, involving complex factual matters around the interplay between design and installation issues.


  • R -v- Mohammed Khalique Zaman – Prosecution junior counsel in the first successful prosecution for gross negligence manslaughter arising from a food allergy, and its subsequent successful defence in the Court of Appeal [2018] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26.
  • East Riding Council –v- Dixfield LLP – Prosecution of food safety offences following a child suffering a significant anaphylactic reaction at a wedding reception.
  • York City Council -v- The Indian Garden Ltd – Prosecution of food safety offences arising out of inadequate allergen controls.
  • York City Council -v- North Yorkshire County Council – prosecution of one local authority by another, arising from inadequate allergen controls at a primary school. The 4-year-old victim was hospitalised by a school meal.


  • AG of Jersey v JLB & Another – together with Simon Clegg, Craig advised the AG of Jersey in relation to the prosecution of a member of the States Assembly for water pollution.
  • EA v ST – successful defence of a director in a consent/connivance/neglect prosecution by the EA. The defendant’s business had been taken over by known waste criminals not prosecuted by the EA.
  • EA v BH – prosecution of illegal burning of waste which led to the destruction of the defendant’s own business and neighbouring properties.
  • EA v WP – successful defence of a director in a prosecution based on the consent, connivance and neglect provisions of the EPA1990. The case was discontinued in the face of an abuse of process application.
  • EA v AWSM & Metcalfe – prosecution of a former young farmer of the year for waste management and water pollution offences, leading to significant fish kills.
  • EA v PTSD Ltd & G – defence of a demolition company and its sole director for waste offences. The agency was persuaded to drop the case against the director and the company was ordered to pay an insignificant fine.

Fire Safety

  • South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority -v- Sandhu – prosecution of a hotelier under several articles of the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order. The defendant was sentenced to immediate imprisonment, leading to unique Court of Appeal authority in relation to sentencing in this type of case: [2017] EWCA Crim 908 (QC opponent).
  • SYFRA -v- Monckton Coke & Chemical Co Ltd – prosecution of a waste processing facility following a significant explosion. The case is referred to by commentators as involving one of the twenty most significant fines ever imposed for fire safety breaches.
  • West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Authority -v- P, B & H. Prosecution under the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order of landlord, caretaker and alarm technician following significant fire at a house in multiple occupation.
  • Granary Pub Company Ltd –v- West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Authority – Successful response to appeal against sentence following an incident in which a “smokeless fire” exploded sending a fireball across the ceiling of a public house, setting fire to customers’ clothing.

Public Access

Craig Hassall KC is qualified to accept Public Access work, where he can be instructed directly by a member of the public rather than a solicitor.

Contact Craig’s clerks

Madeleine Gray on 0113 202 8603

Patrick Urbina on 0113 213 5250

Imogen Brown on 0113 2135225


Craig Hassall KC is an employee of Craig Hassall Ltd

legal 500 leading individual The Legal 500 2017 leading individual logo Legal 500 Leading individual 2019