AC-2025-MAN-000091 - [2025] EWHC 2048 (Admin)

Under Ground 3, Mr Scamardella KC submitted that the “crossover” between the dates of the commission of offences and the dates they were reported and then sanctioned required the Tribunal to approach the issue of sanction in these proceedings more subtly than a “mere arithmetical tacking on of one sentence to another”. He argued that if all offences were sentenced together, there would have been an immediate recognition of the totality principle. This ought not to change because the sanction dates are years apart.

The totality principle is reflected in Step 5 of Group B of the Sanctions Guidance, to the effect that:

“Where there are multiple charges arising from one incident, separate incidents, or multiple examples of the same behaviour on different occasions over a period of time panels should ensure that the totality of the sanctions is warranted based on the cumulative seriousness of the charges. Panels will need to decide, where applicable, whether the sanction on each charge should run concurrently or consecutively”.

Counsel submitted that proper application of the totality principle would have led to a more lenient approach to sanction being taken, yet the Tribunal made no mention of the principle, suggesting that it was not given proper consideration.

This was undoubtedly a procedurally complex case, but as explained above the Tribunal was at pains to set out when each incident of misconduct occurred, when it was reported, and when it was addressed before the different Tribunals.

The Appellant had engaged in “multiple examples” of similar behaviour on different occasions over a period of time, but had continued to commit acts of misconduct despite knowing of the concerns raised about his conduct by his Chambers and his regulator. This factor justified the view that this was not simply a case of “multiple examples” of similar behaviour.

The Tribunal had been directed to paragraph 6.39 of the Sanctions Guidance, to the effect that the cumulative impact of repeated misconduct at a lower level can be such that the risk to the public of a barrister who does not meet the professional standards expected, despite previous sanctions, is so great that only disbarment can meet that risk. It applied that logic in relation to the series of incidents in the 2018 misconduct: see [60] above.

The Tribunal also reached separate conclusions about the appropriate sanction for each of the two cases before it: the Tribunal specifically avoided “tacking one sentence to another”, but rather concluded that disbarment was appropriate for each case.

I do not therefore detect anything wrong in the manner in which the Tribunal approached the totality issue.