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

Ms Iyengar opened the case for the BSB in accordance with the BSB’s Opening Note: [45].

The Tribunal summarised the Appellant’s case as follows:

“46.

We heard mitigation from Mr Scamardella. He stressed that the breaches were now old. It was now almost five years since the last incident. In the intervening years, the [Appellant] had reflected on his behaviour and had sought and followed appropriate advice. He had undertaken a number of courses some of which he had found particularly challenging. He had been forced to confront his behaviour and to recognise that, although he never intended to cause upset or offence, regrettably he had done so. He had been a sole practitioner for a number of years and no longer had responsibility for pupils. It was not just the [Appellant] who was saying that he had changed. There were powerful references from colleagues who had known him for a long time and who [had] spoken to him and worked alongside him more recently and who had witnessed the extent to which he had reflected on his behaviour and had changed. He would not return to his former ways.

47.

A common theme of all the references was the [Appellant]’s deep commitment not just to his own work but to the profession generally. He was a kind man who was generous with his time, helping junior barristers with advice and helping many colleagues with IT. He was a hardworking and skilled advocate. He was a popular figure at the Bar. He was a larger than life character whose sense of humour sometimes crossed the line and was not to everyone’s taste, but he was never malicious and never intended harm or to cause offence”.

The Tribunal acknowledged the “strong references” provided by the Appellant and indicated that it “accept[ed] them at face value”. However, it bore in mind “the need for caution when deciding the weight to be attached to good references given the nature of all the charges”: [48].