Shrimpton v Bar Standards Board

Shrimpton v Bar Standards Board

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the consent order as permitting the appellant to adduce evidence only for the purpose of establishing exceptional circumstances, not to re-litigate the criminal convictions. The Tribunal was entitled to refuse to hear further evidence where no significant fresh evidence or exceptional circumstances were established. The disciplinary rule was not ultra vires as it was qualified by natural justice and exceptional circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Shrimpton; Respondent: Bar Standards Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Conclusiveness of Criminal Convictions, Exceptional Circumstances, Natural Justice, Ultra Vires, Admissibility of Evidence
Professional Discipline Criminal Law Disciplinary Proceedings Conclusiveness of Criminal Convictions Exceptional Circumstances Natural Justice Ultra Vires Admissibility of Evidence

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Shrimpton

Appellant

Bar Standards Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary tribunal erred in refusing to permit the appellant to adduce evidence to challenge his criminal convictions on grounds of exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the relevant disciplinary rule making convictions conclusive proof is ultra vires
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's interpretation of the consent order was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the consent order as permitting the appellant to adduce evidence only for the purpose of establishing exceptional circumstances, not to re-litigate the criminal convictions. The Tribunal was entitled to refuse to hear further evidence where no significant fresh evidence or exceptional circumstances were established. The disciplinary rule was not ultra vires as it was qualified by natural justice and exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed