1 Crown Office Row welcomes Matthew Howarth - Jul 2026
Professional Discipline & Regulation
Matthew acts for regulators, regulated professionals, public bodies, and private clients across a range of regulatory and disciplinary proceedings.
Matthew’s practice includes representing clients in Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) appeals under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Group Act 2006. He offers comprehensive support from initial paper advice to representation at Upper Tier Tribunal hearings.
Furthermore, Matthew appears in the Social Care Tribunals on behalf of OFSTED in statutory appeals relating to registration of Care Homes and Managers.
- MG v Disclosure and Barring Service: represented an appellant in the Upper Tier Tribunal on an appeal of a decision to add the individual to the adults and children’s barred lists. He was instructed at first instance, advising at conference, on paper and providing detailed legal submissions. He represented the individual at the final hearing and on matters relating to appeal.
- OFSTED v C4C: Statutory appeal of decision to cancel registration of care home and manager. Five day trial dealing with allegations of dishonesty and criminal offences.
- OFSETD v AI: Interlocutory hearing considering legal argument on the powers and jurisdiction of the FTT dealing with one or more appeals.
- CO2 v DBS: Matthew advised and represented the DBS in an appeal to include his name in the adults barred list. This matter relating to professional competence due to the nature of the Appellants work. This case was regarding a professional health provider and the provision of their services.
- DH v DBS: Matthew represented the DBS in an appeal. The importance of this case at final hearing was regarding error of law, irrational or disproportionate decision making and the legality of errors of law and fact. This individual was a professional working with vulnerable adults.
- SC v DBS: An appeal relating to inclusion the barring lists for a professional. Matthew took the case on an initial advice regarding grounds of Defence. He advised on evidence for final hearing, advising the DBS on elements needed further investigation in order to mount a Defence. Subsequently, had the case continued after half time, the Defence was one of acting in good faith and not having an intention to deceive which in this case the Prosecution could not prove on the evidence. The Court returned not guilty verdicts.
