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

Case 2021/4962 involved sexual misconduct towards a mini-pupil known as Person A. The Tribunal set out the relevant facts as follows:

“23.

In July 2018, the complainant undertook a mini-pupillage with RK. The complainant was an undergraduate student who was interested in a career at the Bar and in obtaining a pupillage in the future. In the few days, that RK supervised her mini-pupillage, RK spoke to her and behaved towards her in a way that amounted to sexual harassment. The behaviour included inappropriate comments on her appearance, unwanted touching by pulling down the back of her dress to read the label, telling the complainant that it was a shame she would not be attending a social event with other barristers because he had “put on clean boxers just for you.”

24.

The impact on the complainant of RK’s misconduct at the time was significant. She felt extremely uncomfortable when he commented on her appearance. She found his comment that he had put on clean boxers just for her repulsive. She spoke to her parents about the misconduct, and they wanted her to report it, but she did not do so at the time because she was worried that it might jeopardise her chances of obtaining a pupillage in the future. She also spoke to a family friend who practised at the Bar but when he said that he knew RK, Person A felt unable to confide in him”.

The Tribunal explained how the alleged misconduct had been reported and investigated, including the Appellant’s response to it, as follows:

“25.

The complainant’s decision to report RK was prompted by reading a report of a previous disciplinary finding against him. She felt that that if another pupil had been brave enough to report misconduct, then she too should report what had happened to her.

26.

Apart from RK’s misconduct, the complainant said that her experience at his Chambers was positive. She asked if she could return to see a sentencing hearing in a case she had observed and she asked RK to provide a reference.

27.

RK’s initial response to the allegations was to say he had no recollection of the alleged incidents and that, given the delay of over three years until they were reported and that he had already been suspended for a different matter, it was not in the public interest to pursue the matter”.

The Tribunal recorded that in October 2022 the Appellant had admitted this misconduct, summarising his basis of plea as follows:

“29.

His comments were a poor attempt at humour and were not sexually driven or motivated. However, when taken together and with a much-enhanced level of understanding regarding acceptable conduct towards women, and particularly pupils or junior tenants, he accepted that the words used did amount to conduct of a sexually harassing nature. The touching of the complainant’s dress to read the label was inappropriate and on reflection should never have happened. At the time RK failed to recognise the upset he had caused. Had he known, he would have apologised unreservedly. He continued to assist the complainant for some months after her mini-pupillage with matters pertaining to her professional development”.