Khan v Bar Standards Board

Khan v Bar Standards Board

The appellant's conduct in broadcasting serious allegations against a named barrister in robing rooms and contacting the barrister's wife via LinkedIn was seriously reprehensible, breached core duties of honesty, integrity, and public confidence, and amounted to professional misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings and sanctions constituted justified interference with the appellant's Convention rights, pursuing legitimate aims and being proportionate. However, the original sanction of 7 months' suspension was manifestly excessive and was reduced to 3 months' suspension on each robing room charge and 5 weeks on the LinkedIn charge, all concurrent.

Parties
Appellant: Forz Khan; Respondent: Bar Standards Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sanction allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Freedom of Expression, Right to Respect for Correspondence, Sanctions, Regulatory Standards
Professional Discipline Human Rights Professional Misconduct Freedom of Expression Right to Respect for Correspondence Sanctions Regulatory Standards

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forz Khan

Appellant

Bar Standards Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to professional misconduct under the Bar Code of Conduct
  2. 2 Whether disciplinary proceedings and sanctions infringed the appellant's rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the sanction imposed was proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's conduct in broadcasting serious allegations against a named barrister in robing rooms and contacting the barrister's wife via LinkedIn was seriously reprehensible, breached core duties of honesty, integrity, and public confidence, and amounted to professional misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings and sanctions constituted justified interference with the appellant's Convention rights, pursuing legitimate aims and being proportionate. However, the original sanction of 7 months' suspension was manifestly excessive and was reduced to 3 months' suspension on each robing room charge and 5 weeks on the LinkedIn charge, all concurrent.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sanction allowed in part.

Orders

  • Sanction of 7 months' suspension set aside.
  • Substituted sanction: 3 months' suspension on each robing room charge, 5 weeks' suspension on LinkedIn charge, all concurrent.