AB, (A Barrister) v Bar Standards Board

AB, (A Barrister) v Bar Standards Board

The tribunal was entitled to find that the Appellant's conduct, though in a private capacity, amounted to professional misconduct under CD5 and rC8 due to its seriousness and connection to court proceedings. The tribunal applied the correct legal tests and standard of proof, except in relation to charge 3, where the evidence was insufficient to prove deliberate deception. The application to admit new psychiatric evidence was refused as it did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria. The proceedings were not rendered unfair by lack of funding. The sanction of disbarment was appropriate for the remaining charges.

Parties
Appellant: AB; Respondent: Bar Standards Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Disciplinary Tribunal Decision / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Bar Disciplinary Proceedings, Professional Misconduct, Sanction of Disbarment, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Article 8 ECHR (private Life), Cause of Action Estoppel, Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Bar Disciplinary Proceedings Professional Misconduct Sanction of Disbarment Admission of Fresh Evidence Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) Article 8 ECHR (private Life) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Appellant

Bar Standards Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Disciplinary Tribunal Decision / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in finding breaches of CD5 and rC8 of the BSB Handbook for conduct in private life
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary proceedings were Article 6 ECHR compliant given lack of defence funding
  3. 3 Whether the conduct reached the threshold of professional misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal was entitled to find that the Appellant's conduct, though in a private capacity, amounted to professional misconduct under CD5 and rC8 due to its seriousness and connection to court proceedings. The tribunal applied the correct legal tests and standard of proof, except in relation to charge 3, where the evidence was insufficient to prove deliberate deception. The application to admit new psychiatric evidence was refused as it did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria. The proceedings were not rendered unfair by lack of funding. The sanction of disbarment was appropriate for the remaining charges.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • Finding of misconduct and sanction of disbarment on charge 3 set aside
  • Appeal dismissed in all other respects