Mark Millin



“Mark has a very easy, pleasant and positive style which belies a very competent and shrewd advocate”

CPS District Crown Prosecutor

Mark is an Associate in the Regulatory team where he presents cases to the Conduct and Competency Panels of the Health Care Professions Council  throughout the UK, as well as the Architects Registration Board and The Teaching Regulation Agency

Mark was an associate in the Dispute Resolution Department of Slaughter and May for 28 years where he qualified as a solicitor in 1986 and was one of the first solicitors to attain Higher Rights of Audience in civil proceedings in 1996. Mark went on to further his career in advocacy as a Senior Crown Prosecutor with the CPS from 2004-2010 where he attained his Higher Rights of Audience in criminal proceedings and was admitted as a Solicitor-Advocate in 2007. Mark moved into Regulatory Law when he joined the General Pharmaceutical Council on its formation in 2010 where he presented cases to the GPhC  Fitness to Practise Committees until 2017 when he joined KN.

Whilst at GPhC, in addition to presenting cases to the FTP Committees, Mark appeared for the GPhC in the High Court on Interim Order extensions and in the Court of Appeal as well as in the Magistrates Courts on private prosecutions of illegal practice cases in pharmacy, and in the Crown Court on appeals from Magistrates Court decisions.

Notable Cases

GPhC v Taylor.  Mark appeared for GPhC in the FTP proceedings and subsequently advised and appeared in the Magistrates Court on the first ever private criminal prosecution of a pharmacist for practising whilst suspended under The Pharmacy Order 2010.

Dhorajiwala  v GPhC [2013]EWHC 3821 (Admin). Mark appeared at first instance FTP hearing  and as junior on the appeal by the Registrant. The case raised interesting issues of hearsay after Mark had been successful in persuading the FTP Committee (chaired by Patrick Milmo Q.C.) to accept the statement of a Private Investigator who had interviewed the Registrant, but who had died before the Regulatory hearing took place.

PSA v GPhC and Onwalgala [2014] EWHC 2521 (Admin). Mark appeared for the GPhC before Mrs Justice Cox in the Court of Appeal where the Court substituted a direction of suspension for one of erasure as had been suggested by GPhC in the FTP Proceedings. The case was reported because GPhC were unsuccessful in arguing that its liability for costs should be limited because it had drawn the attention of the PSA to the unduly lenient sanction and then cooperated fully in the appeal as  First Respondent. However, the case is also  noteworthy as authority for the proposition that a regulatory tribunal should not suspend a registrant in order for them to develop their insight. If the registrant has insufficient insight  (as at the date of the FTP hearing) to justify suspension then they should be removed from the register.

Habib Khan v GPhC (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 64. Mark appeared in the first instance FTP proceedings where he was successful in persuading the Committee to erase the Registrant from the register. The Registrant appealed that sanction to the Extra Division of the Inner House, Court of Session which allowed his appeal against removal. However, the Extra Division suggested there was a “middle way” between suspension and erasure, namely suspension for the maximum 12 months with a view to a further period of suspension after that. The Supreme Court held that the Extra Division had been “too ingenious”. There was no “middle way”.  If the FTP Committee thought 12 months suspension was insufficient they must order the Registrant to be struck off. The Supreme Court did however allow the Registrants cross appeal and substituted removal for a period of 4 month suspension.

Burrows v GPhC  Court of Appeal Admin. Court [2016] EWHC 1050 (Admin). Mark represented the GPhC at both the FTP hearings at which eventually resulted in the Registrant  being removed from the register for  a criminal caution for theft.  She then appealed on three grounds (1) the Committee’s approach to her insight; (2) the sanction was too severe and (3)  the advice of the legally qualified chair should have been “floated” with the parties (Mark for GPhC and Christopher Hamlett of Counsel for the Registrant).   Mark then  assisted Kenneth Hamer who appeared for GPhC on the appeal which was dismissed by Mr Justice Kerr on all three grounds.


Mark has sat as a solicitor member of The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal since 2015. He also sits as a Lay Member of the Independent Review Mechanism (which deals with fostering and adoption reviews) since 2017.

Mark is also a member of ARDL

“Quick thinker, makes good decisions, and not afraid to make them”

CPS District Crown Prosecutor

“Deals with technical issues and complex areas of law with ease and confidence”

FTP Chair GPhC 

“Extremely diligent with particular strengths in analysis of information”

SDT Chair

“An able advocate …..always on top of the issues before the Court” 

District Judge (Magistrates Courts)

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility