Bar Standards Board v Howd [2017] EWHC 210 (Admin) (14 February 2017)

Bar Standards Board v Howd [2017] EWHC 210 (Admin) (14 February 2017)

The Tribunal erred in law by misapplying medical evidence, misconstruing the meaning of 'integrity' under Core Duty 3, and failing to recognise that Mr Howd's conduct, while inappropriate and offensive, was a consequence of his medical condition and did not meet the threshold of serious professional misconduct. The findings of guilt are set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 210 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Bar Standards Board; Respondent: Stephen Howd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Disciplinary Tribunal (professional Misconduct) / High Court Administrative Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed; findings of guilt set aside; BSB's appeal against sanction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Interpretation of Regulatory Codes, Appeals Procedure, Medical Evidence in Misconduct, Threshold for Serious Misconduct
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Professional Misconduct Interpretation of Regulatory Codes Appeals Procedure Medical Evidence in Misconduct Threshold for Serious Misconduct

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bar Standards Board

Appellant

Stephen Howd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Disciplinary Tribunal (professional Misconduct) / High Court Administrative Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal misapplied medical evidence regarding Mr Howd's condition
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the credibility of complainant B
  3. 3 Whether Core Duty 3 (integrity) applies to conduct at a Chambers party

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by misapplying medical evidence, misconstruing the meaning of 'integrity' under Core Duty 3, and failing to recognise that Mr Howd's conduct, while inappropriate and offensive, was a consequence of his medical condition and did not meet the threshold of serious professional misconduct. The findings of guilt are set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; findings of guilt set aside; BSB's appeal against sanction dismissed.

Orders

  • Findings of guilt against Mr Howd quashed
  • BSB's appeal against sanction dismissed