Diggins v Bar Standards Board

Diggins v Bar Standards Board

The appellant's tweet, published publicly and linked to his professional identity, was seriously offensive, racially charged, and derogatory to women, and was likely to diminish public trust and confidence in the profession. The disciplinary proceedings and sanction did not breach the appellant's Convention rights, and the Panel's process and penalty were fair and proportionate.

Parties
Appellant: Martin John Carr Diggins; Respondent: Bar Standards Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Freedom of Expression, Racial Discrimination, Procedural Fairness, Sanctions
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Human Rights Professional Misconduct Freedom of Expression Racial Discrimination Procedural Fairness Sanctions

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

Parties

Martin John Carr Diggins

Appellant

Bar Standards Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's tweet constituted professional misconduct under Core Duty 5 of the BSB Handbook
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary proceedings and sanction breached the appellant's rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Panel's process was procedurally fair and unbiased

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's tweet, published publicly and linked to his professional identity, was seriously offensive, racially charged, and derogatory to women, and was likely to diminish public trust and confidence in the profession. The disciplinary proceedings and sanction did not breach the appellant's Convention rights, and the Panel's process and penalty were fair and proportionate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The finding of professional misconduct is upheld.
  • The sanction of reprimand and £1,000 fine is upheld.