Jasper Gold

Jasper is frequently instructed in clinical negligence cases for claimants and defendants, and regularly appears in interlocutory hearings in the high court and county court, as well as advising on liability and quantum and representing parties at settlement negotiations.

Jasper has experience across a wide range of medical issues, including:

• Mental health (inpatient and in the community), including cases resulting in suicide
• Informed consent
• Gynaecological and obstetric issues
• Delayed diagnoses
• Dentistry
• Ophthalmology
• Issues with medical equipment, including product liability
• Loss of reproductive capability
• Treatment provided in care homes
• Treatment provided in prison
• Claims for psychiatric harm including the exacerbation of pre-existing mental health conditions

Jasper has undertaken secondments to two band 1 ranked healthcare law firms (one claimant firm working on clinical negligence and one defendant firm working primarily on inquests). At the claimant firm, Jasper worked on all parts of the litigation process including assisting with complex and high value obstetric and delayed diagnosis claims. At the defendant firm, he specialised in inquests, which provided regular experience of investigating complex medical issues in conference with clinicians and of questioning clinicians giving live evidence. He is comfortable acting as both inquest and claim counsel for families and other parties.

Jasper is the co-author (with Philip Havers KC) of the chapter on breach of duty in the 5th edition of Principles of Medical Law (OUP, Laing & McHale eds.) and the author of the chapters on causation and inquests in the 2nd edition of Clinical Negligence, A Practitioner’s Handbook (OUP).

Jasper has experience advising on alternative causes of action arising out of medical treatment (for example claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and in product liability). As a result of his training in commercial law, Jasper is also comfortable with cases involving private healthcare providers containing contractual elements.

Jasper is a regular contributor to the Quarterly Medical Law Review.

Jasper accepts instructions from families and other Interested Persons and has particular experience in medical inquests (including in relation to mental health care and where the application of Article 2 is contentious). He spent six months seconded to the inquests and advisory team of a leading healthcare law firm, where he attended court multiple times per week for inquest and pre-inquest review hearings as well as advising on legal issues and the preparation of witness and documentary evidence, and drafting applications and submissions.

Jasper has acted or advised on over 50 inquests including Article 2 inquests and inquests before juries, spanning a range of psychiatric and physical illnesses and injuries, as well as suicide, unlawful killing. He also advises and acts in ancillary matters arising out of the inquest process, such as in public law challenges or disclosure disputes, and in civil claims following on from inquests.

Jasper is the co-author of two chapters in the second edition of The Inquest Book: The Law of Coroners and Inquests (Bloomsbury): Juries (with Richard Mumford) and Inquests Involving Intelligence Services and Agencies (With Sir Neil Garnham and Neil Sheldon KC). He is the author of the chapter covering all aspects of inquests relevant to clinical negligence in the second edition of  Clinical Negligence, A Practitioner’s Handbook (OUP).

He is happy to consider acting pro bono in appropriate cases.

Selected Cases

• Inquest touching the death of MC: represented the partner of MC, who died by suicide while serving a prison sentence. The inquest lasted two weeks before a jury, who returned a conclusion critical of the mental health care MC received before his death. The prevention of future deaths report was covered by the BBC.
• Inquest touching the death of NM: represented the family of a young man who died after a cardiac arrest sustained while on ITU, where he had spent several week recovering from multi-organ failure. The six-day inquest involved hearing from 18 witnesses across numerous disciplines, and returned a conclusion finding that there had been missed opportunities in NM’s care.
• Inquest touching the death of EA: represented the family at a three day inquest examining the death of an 89-year-old woman who died after fracturing her skull in a fall at a care home. The care home did not accept there had been failures in her supervision, but the Coroner found that lack of mandated supervision caused EA’s death, and added a neglect rider to her conclusion. She issued a Prevention of Future Deaths report identifying five separate areas of concern.
• Inquest touching the death of RS: represented the family of RS, who died by choking while in hospital. The inquest found that there were delays in rendering emergency care, and that aspects of her risk of choking were not properly assessed.
• Inquest touching the death of CL: represented the family of a man who died by suicide. There were a range of errors in his care, including on triage and discharge. The Coroner issued two prevention of future deaths reports, including taking the rare step of issuing one report before the conclusion of the inquest.
• Inquest touching the death of SW: represented the family at the inquest of a woman who died, following placement of a pacemaker, in circumstances where the cause of death was not clear.

• Inquest touching the death of DK: represented an NHS trust in a high-profile inquest concerning the death of a four year old boy who died from sepsis. The inquest was covered by the BBC, Sky News and the Evening Standard.
• Inquest touching the death of CS: represented an NHS Trust who had provided care to CS, a non-verbal autistic 17 year old who had an ingested foreign object lodged in his oesophagus. The foreign object was missed in radiological imaging, and CS died after being overwhelmed by infection. The Coroner gave a non-critical narrative conclusion and did not enter a Prevention of Future Deaths report.
• Inquest touching the death of CT: represented, and advised on prevention of future deaths evidence, for an NHS Trust at an Article 2 inquest resumed following a criminal trial in which it was found that the deceased, an inpatient in a Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit, had been beaten to death then set on fire by another patient. The Coroner did not issue a Prevention of Future Deaths report.
• Inquest touching the death of KA: represented an NHS Health Board at a six day, Article 2, jury inquest examining the death by ligature of a prisoner with a history of mental health struggles and suicidal ideation.
• Inquest touching the death of SH: represented an NHS Trust in an inquest examining the death of a healthy man in his 40s who attended hospital with symptoms indicating a pulmonary embolism. The Family’s position that the treating clinicians had failed to give anticoagulant medication in line with Trust policy, then failed to be honest about it. The Coroner entered a conclusion of natural causes and found that all Trust witnesses had given honest, helpful evidence.
• Inquest touching the death of JL: advised an NHS Trust on strategy, witness preparation and evidence gathering in an inquest where there was a potential malfunction of sophisticated medical equipment.
• Inquest touching the death of AD: represented an NHS Trust in an inquest into the death of a patient who had suffered a cardiac arrest following a needle dislodgment during routine dialysis. Successfully resisted arguments seeking a finding of neglect.
• Inquest touching the death of BL: represented an NHS Trust responsible for hospital and community care for the deceased, who died from a rare allergic reaction to medication. The focus was on whether ongoing gaps in commissioned service provision presented a risk of future deaths (no PFD was issued).

Jasper accepts instructions across a range of public law areas, often with a medical, data/information or coronial element but also more generally and including regulatory public law. His experience in public law includes:

• Advising a government department in connection with a judicial review raising issues at the intersection of data protection and healthcare (led by Amy Mannion).
• Acting for members of a GPs’ practice in a challenge to the decision of an NHS Integrated Care Board on grounds of procedural irregularity. The decision was withdrawn following the letter before action.
• Advising a government department in connection with a proposed challenge to the lawfulness of a policy concerning modern slavery (led by Andrew Deakin).
• Advising a statutory corporation on the domestic implications of a proposed regulatory amendment by a foreign regulator, encompassing treaty law, data protection, human rights, employment law and health and safety regulations (with Alasdair Henderson).
• Advising  a multi-national manufacturer of internet-of-things products on compliance with new domestic regulatory requirements pertaining to cyber-security under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.
• Operation Kenova: Jasper was instructed as junior to Oliver Sanders KC advising on the Maxwellisation of the Operation Kenova interim report.

As a judicial assistant in the administrative court in 2024-5, Jasper assisted with legal research and drafting in a number of public law matters, working with several judges including Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge in charge of the Administrative Court List. The cases he worked on included:

• R (BMA)  v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 960 (Admin), the BMA’s challenge to the GMC’s manner of regulating, and nomenclature for, physician and anaesthetic associates.
• R (GB News Ltd) v OFCOM [2025] EWHC 360 (Admin)), GB News’s challenge to OFCOM’s interpretation of  the impartiality rules int he Broadcasting Code.
• Jones v Shropshire Council [2025] EWHC 365 (Admin), concerning a question of interpretation of the Limitation Act 1980 on whether the council’s decision to issue a stop notice under the CIL Regulations was subject to to a statutory limitation period.
• R (Watson) v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2025] EWHC 332 (Admin), concerning the Defendant’s decision to take no further action in relation to a complaint about allegedly criminally abusive tweets.

Jasper also has a range of academic experience in public law, including time spent researching constitutional remedies as the Oxford Human Rights Hub-Rhodes University Travelling Fellow in human rights law at Rhodes University, South Africa. He has given lectures on topics including the separation of powers and legitimate expectations. He also assisted on a number of public law matters as a pupil, including Richards v Environment Agency and another [2022] EWCA Civ 26, a case raising novel issues about the limits of declaratory relief.

In appropriate cases, Jasper is happy to consider acting pro-bono.

Jasper was instructed as junior counsel to the Department of Business and Trade in the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. In this role he has assisted with the preparation of witness evidence from a number of high profile witnesses including former ministers, secretaries of state and senior civil servants.

Jasper was previously instructed as part of the Metropolitan Police counsel team in the Undercover Policing Inquiry.

Jasper is instructed by claimants/applicants and defendants/respondents in data protection, privacy and information cases (including in the FTT (Information Rights)). He also accepts instructions for advisory work related to data protection and in public law and judicial review matters which raise data protection issues and privacy. He has a particular interest in the overlap between data protection, privacy and healthcare, an issue he writes about for the QMLR, and regularly advises on data protection issues (including subject access requests) relating to sensitive medical data.

Jasper has developed particular experience in ‘data injury’ cases, where breach of the GDPR (or other information-related wrongs) have caused psychiatric injury. He is frequently instructed to appear in court, draft pleadings, and to advise on liability, quantum and strategy in such cases. In a recent episode of Law Pod UK, Small Data: damage, distress and the development of a new type of claim, Jasper discussed the intersection between data protection and personal injury, including practical issues for Claimants and Defendants and valuing such claims.

Jasper was a panel speaker at the Data Protection Forum’s December 2022 conference on children and data protection, where he spoke on age verification law and the Online Safety Bill (now the Online Safety Act 2023).

As a judicial assistant in the High Court in 2024-5, Jasper assisted with legal research and drafting in a number of matters related to data protection and information law, including:

• RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd [2025] EWHC 111 (KB), a challenge under data protection law by a former problem gambler to the use of his personal data in targeted marketing, now a leading authority on the concept of consent in data protection law and cited in the White Book for this issue.
• Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 912 (KB), a wide ranging claim including allegations of harassment, malicious falsehood, defamation and data protection breaches, cited in the White Book for the proper approach to assessing damages after default judgment.

Selected Cases

• Acted for claimant adoptive parents whose names and address were disclosed to birth parents.
• Acted for a claimant who was photographed without her consent during surgery. The photographs were used in promotional material by the defendant, and the claimant suffered psychiatric harm.
• Defended a company that conducts investigations for use in litigation in a claim by the subject of an investigation alleging breach of the GDPR. The claim was struck out and certified as totally without merit.
• Advised on settlement for a child claimant whose sensitive medical information was accidentally made public by a local authority.
• Represented a claimant whose personal data had been disclosed in a mass data breach at a trial on quantum.

• Jasper regularly advises clinicians and medical businesses on data protection matters including access to medical records and subject access requests in sensitive cases (such as where the context involves  abuse allegations or minors, and has experience of applications under the Access to Health Records Act 1990).
• Settled detailed grounds of resistance for an NHS Trust in a judicial review concerning challenges to decisions about access and changes to health data.
• Advised  government department in relation to a in a judicial review concerning a challenge to a policy raising data protection and healthcare issues led by Amy Mannion.
• Advised in several cases where access to sensitive medical data was sought by subject access request, including on behalf of children and in cases where there are allegations of abuse.

• Advised a multi-national manufacturer of internet-of-things products on compliance with new domestic regulatory requirements pertaining to cyber-security under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.
• Advised the a police force on the prospects of obtaining an injunction for the removal from the internet of a pornographic video depicting a non-consenting party.

Jasper gained experience of tax law as a pupil under the supervision of Amy Mannion and spent a short time on secondment with HMRC as a junior tenant. He accepts instructions as a junior or in his own right.

Jasper was instructed by HMRC to assist Sarabjit Singh KC in Gray & Farrar International LLP v HMRC in the Court of Appeal.

Jasper accepts instructions for claimants and defendants in personal injury matters, including abuse claims. He has particular experience in psychiatric injuries caused by informational harm (e.g. data protection claims and misuse of private information).