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

The Tribunal analysed the facts of his misconduct as follows:

“59.

The misconduct was towards a mini-pupil whose position might well have rendered her more vulnerable. It is not clear what, if any, recourse she had to complain within Chambers about the behaviour. We have borne in mind that the complainant subsequently contacted the [Appellant] to ask if she could go back to the sentencing hearing following the case in which she had observed Mr Kearney and that she also asked him for a reference. In our judgement, that serves to show what a difficult position she was in. She wanted to become a barrister and she would have been expected to obtain references and to make use of contacts at the Bar.”

The Tribunal identified the following factors in determining seriousness:

“60.

Culpability Under Group B

a.

The misconduct took place in a professional context.

b.

It was directed at a person in a vulnerable position.

Culpability From the Annex

c.

The comments and behaviour were intentional.

d.

The misconduct was repeated over a few days.

e.

The [Appellant] acted in breach of a position of authority.

f.

There was significant disparity in seniority between the [Appellant] and the complainant.

g.

The harm could have reasonably been foreseen.

h.

The [Appellant] had control over and was responsible for the circumstances.

Harm from Group B

a.

It caused the complainant to feel humiliated and she was anxious about reporting the matter.

Harm from the Annex

b.

The impact on public confidence in the legal profession is significant”.

Again, the Tribunal concluded that there were are no applicable aggravating factors in Group B, but that the following aggravating factors from the Annex applied:

“a.

Previous disciplinary findings for similar offence (i.e. the mini-pupil in 2015). The instant offence took place just a few months after the [Appellant]’s misconduct towards the male mini-pupil for which he had apologised and had promised that it would not recur.

i.

Lack of insight until admission in 2022.

j.

Likelihood of repetition (as demonstrated by the misconduct in February 2020).

k.

The [Appellant] was a senior member of the Bar”.

In terms of mitigating factors, the Tribunal found none from Group B, but that the following from the Annex applied:

“a.

Admission of misconduct.

l.

Expression of remorse.

m.

Good references”.

The Tribunal continued:

“61.

In our judgement, taken individually, the incidents do not fall within the upper range of seriousness. However, we conclude that cumulatively they do cross that threshold. We have reached this conclusion taking into account the number of incidents over the days that the complainant spent as the [Appellant]’s mini-pupil and especially the fact that this episode of misconduct followed so closely in time the misconduct in 2017 and occurred at a time when the [Appellant] was subject to a disciplinary process in his Chambers and when he knew that he had been reported to the BSB. It may be that in July 2018 the [Appellant] felt there was nothing wrong with his conduct towards the mini-pupil or that he felt he would not be reported.

62.

We have again borne in mind the purposes of sanctions. The purposes identified above as particularly relevant to the 2020 matters apply equally here. We have considered whether a period of suspension would be a just and proportionate sanction. We have concluded unanimously that a period of suspension would not suffice to mark the gravity of the offending. We judge that the only just sanction is disbarment and that it is a proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case”.