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

Fecha: 31-Jul-2025

The chronology of the investigation of the two cases before the Tribunal

The chronology of the investigation of the two cases before the Tribunal

40.

In light of the Appellant’s submissions about prejudice caused by delay on the part of the BSB, the Tribunal set out a detailed chronology of the proceedings at [44].

41.

Within the chronology, the Tribunal noted the following events leading up to the 11 October 2022 hearing:

(i)

On 23 February 2020, the Appellant confirmed that he had read and digested the statements from Pupils A and B but that his recollection differed and apologised for the offence caused;

(ii)

On 6 March 2020 he had resigned from Chambers without having addressed the factual basis of the allegations such that the internal investigation by Chambers did not proceed;

(iii)

On 11 May 2020 he had emailed the BSB, denying the allegations, contending that at a hearing of the facts the pupils would have been shown to be mistaken in their evidence, referring to a “jokey conversation” with the pupils and suggesting that their statements might have been prompted by drink or mistake;

(iv)

There had been a series of emails in which the Appellant had insisted that the CCTV footage was critical and that the BSB should view it;

(v)

The BSB had gone back to Pupils A and B to check the points raised by the Appellant with them and this led to a lengthy delay: Pupil A’s further statement was dated November 2021 and Pupil B’s June 2022 (in the latter case, for reasons that were explained in the statement);

(vi)

On 25 March 2021 the complaint was made to the BSB in what became case 2021/4962;

(vii)

On 9 May 2021 the Appellant responded to the allegation in case 2021/4962, saying it was old and should be time-barred, that he could not remember the complainant, querying whether the sanction would have been greater if the matter had been heard alongside the other case in March 2021 and whether it was in the public interest to proceed given that he had been suspended and had been given guidance not to have more pupils;

(viii)

On 31 August 2021 the charges were served on the Appellant in case 2021/4962;

(ix)

On 26 June 2022, the papers in case 2020/0928 were served on the Appellant;

(x)

On 11 July 2022 directions were given including that the Appellant was required to comply with existing directions, including indicating whether he admitted or disputed the charges by 5 August 2022;

(xi)

On 30 August 2022 further directions were given regarding the 2021 case because of the Appellant’s failure to engage with the previous directions; and

(xii)

By 27 September 2022 the Appellant had still not complied with the directions to notify BTAS of the witness requirements for the 2021 case.

42.

The Tribunal recorded that at the 11 October 2022 hearing the Appellant admitted all the charges for which he was later sanctioned. The hearing of charges 7-9 in case 2020/0928 was adjourned to 7-8 December 2022. That hearing was ineffective because the Appellant was unwell and applied to adjourn it. It had been established that he did not challenge the witness statements and documentary evidence on which the BSB relied such that they could be relied on at the sanctions hearing as background evidence. In those circumstances the BSB withdrew charges 7-9 as it was not in the public interest to continue.

43.

The consolidated sanctions hearing listed for 9 December 2022 was adjourned on the grounds of the Appellant’s health to 5 January 2023. The sanction imposed at that hearing was appealed successfully by the Appellant to the High Court. The sanctions hearing was re-listed on 3 September 2024 but was ineffective because one member of the panel had had some previous involvement in the case and there were case management directions precluding this person being involved in the sanctions hearing. The sanctions hearing was then re-listed for 16 December 2024 and was effective on that date.