Smith v Bar Standards Board [2016] EWHC 3015 (Admin) (03 November 2016)

Smith v Bar Standards Board [2016] EWHC 3015 (Admin) (03 November 2016)

The appeal was allowed because the appellant did not receive a fair hearing: the tribunal admitted crucial hearsay evidence from the complainant without the Bar Standards Board taking reasonable steps to secure his attendance, contrary to the rules of natural justice. The tribunal's findings on serious professional misconduct could not stand, as the evidence did not prove to the criminal standard that the appellant's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The overall handling of the case by the Bar Standards Board was seriously flawed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3015 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Smith; Respondent: Bar Standards Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Disciplinary Tribunal (bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service) / High Court Administrative Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; findings of serious professional misconduct set aside
Legal Topics
Serious Professional Misconduct, Barristers' Code of Conduct, Hearsay Evidence, Natural Justice, Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings, Procedural Fairness
Professional Discipline Legal Profession Regulation Serious Professional Misconduct Barristers' Code of Conduct Hearsay Evidence Natural Justice Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

Smith

Appellant

Bar Standards Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Disciplinary Tribunal (bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service) / High Court Administrative Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary tribunal's finding of serious professional misconduct against the appellant was justified on the evidence and in law
  2. 2 Whether the appellant received a fair hearing, particularly regarding the admission of hearsay evidence and the absence of direct evidence from the complainant
  3. 3 Whether the conduct alleged amounted to a serious failure of reasonable competence or courtesy under the Bar Code of Conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the appellant did not receive a fair hearing: the tribunal admitted crucial hearsay evidence from the complainant without the Bar Standards Board taking reasonable steps to secure his attendance, contrary to the rules of natural justice. The tribunal's findings on serious professional misconduct could not stand, as the evidence did not prove to the criminal standard that the appellant's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The overall handling of the case by the Bar Standards Board was seriously flawed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; findings of serious professional misconduct set aside

Orders

  • No further action to be taken against the appellant (Smith) recommended
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant, subject to assessment if not agreed