Fiona Wise

Inquests & Public Inquiries

Fiona is head of the Inquest Team at Nine and represents a wide range of Interested Persons at inquest, including families, commercial entities such as care homes and private hospitals, local authorities, police forces and insurers. She appears regularly in complex inquests, including jury inquests and those involving the engagement of Article 2, where she is able to draw on the skills and experience gained in jury trials as a former criminal practitioner. She understands the impact that media attention on an inquest can have on her clients, and provides early and robust advice on managing the inquest process to mitigate reputational risk to those she represents. Fiona’s inquest practice neatly dovetails with her work in the field of personal injury and related medical negligence claims, advising parties at the pre-issue stage in personal injury cases and representing them throughout the inquest process.  She is also experienced in cases where the potential defence of ex turpi causa may feature.

In addition to her inquest practice, Fiona also has a strong interest in regulatory work, appearing before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, the British Horseracing Authority’s independent Judicial Panel and in Police Misconduct cases.

Inquests and Public Inquiries

Notable cases include:

• Inquest touching on the death of MO (2025) – Article 2 jury inquest representing a police force in relation to a death in state detention. HMSC had obtained an expert’s report reviewing the actions of the various agencies involved with assessing and managing the deceased’s mental health. The report suggested failings on the part of the police force, but the expert resiled from this position under questioning and no possible or probable failings on the part of the police were left to the jury.
• Inquest touching on the death of JBC (2025) – representing an independent school in a case involving the tragic death of a student at the boarding house. A conclusion of suicide was returned and HMC recorded there could be no criticism of the school.
• Inquest touching on the death of PM (2025) – representing the local authority in a domestic homicide case which had been subject to a Domestic Homicide Review.  Submissions required regarding the potential engagement of Article 2 ECHR both at PIRH and at the conclusion of the evidence.  There was no criticism made of the local authority.
• Inquest touching on the death of PW (2024) – representing the family who had endured a five year wait for the inquest to be heard. Included lengthy questioning of PW’s carer and submissions of gross negligence manslaughter.  The coroner returned a narrative conclusion including that the death had been contributed to by neglect.
• Inquest touching on the death of JM (2024) – representing a local authority trading company who owned and staffed the accommodation premises where JM was a resident and where he was found deceased. Heard before a jury, a short narrative conclusion was the outcome with no criticism made of the company.  Further, at the conclusion of the inquest the family of JM (who had initially levelled criticism at the staff) thanked them for their care and efforts.
• Inquest touching on the death of BC (2024) – representing a care home where the family alleged neglect, and safeguarding referrals had been made. The conclusion was one of natural causes and the coroner made no criticism of the care home.
• Inquest touching upon the death of MW (2003) – representing a Housing Association after a resident committed suicide at their home address with a background of an ongoing neighbour dispute regarding noise. No criticism was made of the Housing Association, with the coroner recognising they had utilised all the powers at their disposal to address the alleged issue.
• Inquest touching on the death of VW (2023) – representing the Chief Constable of a police force after the deceased had been located as a high risk missing person but then subsequently charged with various offences. Once released on police bail he committed suicide.  A prevention of future death report was made to the NHS Trust responsible for the Liaison and Diversion Service but not against the Chief Constable.
• Inquest touching on the death of TN (2023) – representing a care home where expert evidence was heard that fractures suffered by the deceased were the result of trauma. The Coroner indicated she required submissions from parties on the issue of neglect.  The narrative conclusion made no criticism of the care home.
• Inquest touching on the death of LG (2023) – Article 2 jury inquest representing the insurer of a vehicle stolen and subsequently involved in a death following a police pursuit.
• Inquest touching on the death of SH (2002) – representing the Local Authority in a case where the deceased was involved with the community mental health team. The engagement of Article 2 remained under review throughout the inquest but ultimately was held not to be engaged.  The conclusion was one of suicide with no criticism made of the Local Authority.
• Inquest touching on the death of JG (2022) – representing the family in a death following hospital treatment. The case involved conflicting expert evidence on the issue of causation. The conclusion was one of death by natural causes contributed to by neglect.  Subsequently instructed in the clinical negligence case which was ultimately settled for a six figure sum.
• Inquest touching on the death of JS (2020) – Article 2 jury inquest representing the insurer and car hire firm involving a death following a police pursuit.
• Inquest touching on the death of SY (2020) – representing the family at inquest into death following hospital treatment resulting in the Coroner issuing a PFD report to the treating hospital.
• Inquest touching on the death of PD (2019) – representing a Resident Medical Officer and the medical staffing agency at inquest into death following hospital treatment. The family sought a finding of neglect, however the complex issue of causation was fully explored and the Coroner rejected the submission.

Personal Injury

Fiona has a busy multi-track personal injury practice, acting for both claimants and defendants.  

Notable recent cases include:

• G v NHS Foundation Trust– acted for C who brought a claim as a dependent pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act after an inquest conclusion of natural causes included the rider of ‘neglect’.  The case subsequently involved complex life expectancy evidence in addition to the trust maintaining a denial of liability.  Fiona settled the pleadings and advised pre-issue, facilitating settling the case at an early stage.  
• J v E – settled the pleadings and represented C throughout in a case involving Functional Neurological Disorder.  The case involved numerous expert reports with the principle dispute relating to the loss of earnings and care claims.   Settled at JSM.
• T v D – acted for C in a case which involved a serious spinal injury.  Settled the pleadings and advised pre-issue  Facilitated the case settling at an early stage.
• H v M – Fiona advised in conference and settled the pleadings for C in a case involving a serious spinal injury and chronic pain.  

Her practice in relation to those who have served in the Armed Forces and have subsequently experienced noise induced hearing loss continues to expand.  

She regularly defends road traffic claims on the grounds of fundamental dishonesty and is repeatedly instructed by Defendants in cases involving credit hire.  She prepares written advices on quantum and liability, covering areas including employers liability, public liability and road traffic accidents.  Fiona is available to advise in conference including testing witnesses in cases concerning witness credibility and suspected fraud cases

She is experienced in advising, and representing throughout any associated inquest process, parties at the pre-issue stage in personal injury cases. She is increasingly instructed to advise pre-issue in personal injury cases where criminal proceedings are ongoing.

Alongside Matthew Snarr she presented in September 2022 a webinar “Criminal convictions in personal injury cases: Rules and ramifications.”

Regulatory and Professional Discipline

Fiona is instructed by the British Horseracing Authority (‘BHA’) to represent them in cases involving breaches of the rules of racing by regulated persons, including in relation to equine welfare.  She also advises and represents the BHA in race day appeals conducted before the independent Judicial Panel. 

Fiona is on the panel of counsel instructed to represent the General Medical Council in regulatory proceedings against doctors before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, undertaking fitness to practise hearings, reviews, non-compliance hearings and revalidation appeals.

Fiona is developing her practice in relation to police misconduct cases and successfully represented the Chief Constable in a case comprising some 19 allegations of misconduct: West Mercia detective admits accessing family’s police records – BBC News

Fiona has acquired significant experience advising upon and conducting applications, variations, appeals and breach proceedings in respect of gang injunctions, firearms licences, housing injunctions, anti-social behaviour orders and injunctions, football banning orders, and domestic violence prevention orders.  She represented the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police in a successful application, after a four day trial, for a gang injunction in relation to two members affiliated to the notorious Gooch Gang.

Publications

“Article 2 ECHR and Inquests: Practical tips and guidance”(February 2026).

“Inquests – preparation and tactics” (Spring 2024).

“Criminal convictions in personal injury cases: rules and ramifications.”  (September 2022).

“Learning to live with imperfection of pragmatism: accommodation claims post Swift v Carpenter in 2022.”  (November 2022).

Associations

Personal Injuries Bar Association

Education

MA, Trinity College Dublin

GDL, BPP Law School London

BVC, BPP Law School London

Awards

Lord Denning Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

Wolfson Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn

Entrance Exhibitioner, Trinity College Dublin

Prescribed Information

Miss Fiona Wise is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Miss Wise can be found here.

Miss Wise’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that she provides. Their contact details can be found here. It is most common for Miss Wise to undertake court work for a brief fee plus refresher days.  For advisory work, drafting and conferences it is most common for this to be charged at an hourly rate although fixed fees are available. Miss Wise will consider Conditional Fee Agreements and Damages Based Agreements in cases with favourable prospects of success. Miss Wise will typically return paperwork within 14 days, however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.