Garnham v Bar Standards Board [2017] EWHC 1139 (Admin) (21 March 2017)

Garnham v Bar Standards Board [2017] EWHC 1139 (Admin) (21 March 2017)

A conviction under section 112 does not necessarily involve dishonesty for the purposes of professional disciplinary proceedings against barristers. The Bar Standards Board lacked jurisdiction over conduct occurring before call to the Bar. The panel's reasoning was inadequate and not evidence-based. The appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1139 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Garnham; Respondent: Bar Standards Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Professional Disciplinary Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Bar Disciplinary Proceedings, Dishonesty in Professional Conduct, Jurisdiction of Professional Regulator, Reporting Obligations to Regulator
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Bar Disciplinary Proceedings Dishonesty in Professional Conduct Jurisdiction of Professional Regulator Reporting Obligations to Regulator

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garnham

Appellant

Bar Standards Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Professional Disciplinary Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conviction under section 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 necessarily involves dishonesty for professional disciplinary purposes
  2. 2 Whether conduct predating call to the Bar can constitute professional misconduct
  3. 3 Whether failure to report a conviction to the Bar Standards Board constitutes professional misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

A conviction under section 112 does not necessarily involve dishonesty for the purposes of professional disciplinary proceedings against barristers. The Bar Standards Board lacked jurisdiction over conduct occurring before call to the Bar. The panel's reasoning was inadequate and not evidence-based. The appeal against the finding of professional misconduct (charge 1) is allowed and the disbarment set aside. However, the duty to report a conviction is strict and not excused by advice; the appeal against charge 2 is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal against charge 1 (professional misconduct based on conviction) allowed; disbarment set aside.
  • Appeal against charge 2 (failure to report conviction) dismissed.