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

Case 2020/0928 involved sexual misconduct towards Pupil A and Pupil B. The Tribunal set out the relevant facts as follows:

“30.

On 13 February 2020 RK attended a Silks’ congratulatory event at Chambers followed by a visit to Mojo Bar. Pupils A and B from another set of Chambers also attended. RK was already inebriated when he arrived.

31.

The misconduct to Pupil A consisted of commenting on her eyes and her figure and then asking her how many older men she had slept with, how many senior members of the bar she had slept with, telling her she needed to have sex with an older man with experience, staring at her and telling her that she was “beautiful” and “gorgeous”, placing his arm around herwaist, squeezing it,and stroking her back.

32.

Pupil A felt uncomfortable and tried to move away from RK. She said she did not want to say anything at the time because she did not want to make a scene and spoil what was a celebratory event for other people. She was very aware that she was at a professional network event, and she wanted to make a good impression. In her impact statement dated November 2021 she describes herself as a resilient person who was disappointed rather than distraught by what happened. However, she was worried and stressed about reporting RK and the prospect of having to give evidence. She was concerned that other members of the Bar would disapprove of her decision to report RK and that her career might be harmed.

33.

Whilst at Chambers, the [Appellant] had inappropriate physical contact with Pupil B. Later at Mojo, RK commented on her eyes and her figure, asked her how many men she had slept with and the age of the oldest man she had had sex with, asked her if she was in a relationship, told her repeatedly that she needed to “fucking have sex” with a man standing near her and with an older man. He told her that he, RK, was a sexually experienced older man and that she was frigid.

34.

Pupil B said she felt very vulnerable. She described herself as very timid, nervous, and shy. She had been told by her pupil supervisor that she was coming across as shy and quiet and that she needed to be more social. Accordingly, she felt she should go to the Silks’ event. She was sent home and given time off because she was so obviously upset when telling her supervisor about what had happened. The misconduct knocked her confidence and put her off attending future events on Circuit in case RK was there. For over two years after the incident, she continued to find professional events stressful, albeit less so. She felt that she would always feel anxious because of RK’s behaviour. She did not want to take part in these proceedings, but felt she had to do so because she felt that the [Appellant] should not be able to conduct himself in this way without consequences”.

This passage makes clear that the Tribunal had read and considered the two witness statements from Pupil A dated 16 February 2020 and 26 November 2021, where she described the Appellant “placing his arm around her waist, squeezing it, and stroking her back” and how the misconduct had affected her at the time and subsequently. The Tribunal had also clearly taken into account the three witness statements from Pupil B dated 16 February 2020, 20 June 2022 and 18 July 2023.

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

“35.

Both Pupil A and B reported the incident and made statements within days. Their Chambers reported the matter to RK’s Chambers and to the BSB. RK’s own Chambers also reported the matter to the BSB and began an internal disciplinary investigation. On 19 February 2020, RK’s head of Chambers emailed the statements by Pupils A and B to RK and encouraged RK to set out in writing his version of events. On 23 February RK wrote to the Chambers of Pupil A and B confirming that he had read and digested the statements and apologising for upsetting the pupils. RK wrote: “Whilst my recollection of the evening is different from what I have read, the most important issue is the fact that there are two people who have been upset by my conduct and that is of great shame to me.” He acknowledged that alcohol had played a part and said he had approached organisations to help him overcome his problem drinking. He did not address the factual allegations.

36.

On 25 February RK’s Chambers sent him full details of the allegations and required a written response by a set date of 28 February 2020. In particular, RK was required to say whether or not he accepted the factual allegations and, if not, to detail precisely which parts were disputed. He was also told that, in the event of any significant factual dispute Chambers would appoint an independent disciplinary panel to conduct a hearing. The Head of Chambers observed, correctly in our view, as follows: “The allegations against you are serious but they are factually straightforward. They will not require a lengthy investigation. It is in the interests of all parties that the facts are established through a process which is fair, but which is conducted without unreasonable delay.” At RK’s request, an extension of time to provide an outline response was granted to 6 March. In fact no response was received. What happened was that on 5 March the silk consulted by RK rang Chambers to inform them that RK had decided to resign with immediate effect and without responding to the charges. RK wrote a letter of resignation inwhich he said he had been advised that participation in the internal disciplinary proceedings in Chambers would prejudice any future hearing before the BSB”.

The Tribunal had clearly considered the evidence the Appellant’s Chambers had provided to the BSB concerning its investigation, comprising statements from the Head of Chambers and another member of the Chambers Management Committee with various appendices.

The Tribunal addressed the issues relating to the Appellant’s basis of plea concerning the February 2020 misconduct as follows:

“39.

The Silks’ event was well attended; there was a lot of alcohol; spirits were high. RK was told by MH, a former pupil of his and close friend, that Pupil A and or Pupil B had referred to RK that evening as “a DILF” (meaning Dad I'd like to fuck). (MH confirmed in a statement that he had told RK this.) Without a better understanding of his responsibility as a more senior member of the Bar, RK “entered into jokey conversation about being called a DILF.” RK realised now that as a more senior member of the Bar, he ought to have ignored the comments rather than mention them to the two females. He did not notice that any offence had been caused by his comments. Indeed, Pupils A and B went on to Mojo with RK’s “group.” His contact with Pupils A and B thereafter was limited as can be seen in the CCTV footage of Mojo.

40.

The basis of plea was not accepted by the BSB. The BSB were not in a position to challenge that MH had told RK about an alleged DILF comment, but did not accept that either Pupil had made the alleged comment and did not accept that the [Appellant] had spoken to either pupil about it. Both Pupils A and B denied ever having made the alleged comment and said that they did not hear the other say this either. In Pupil A’s statement dated 26 November 2021 she says: “I am aware that MH claims that I called Mr Kearney a “DILF”. I understand this to mean an older man who I find attractive. I confirm that I did not make this comment. This is not a phrase that I use, let alone at a chambers event. It follows that Robert Kearney did not speak to me about me calling him a “DILF.” I cannot speculate as to why MH claims that I said this. In the context of the evening, it does not make sense. Pupil B and I spent most of the time at (the Chambers) aware of Mr Kearney’s behaviour. I did not make this comment.” In her statement dated 20 June 2022, Pupil B says of the alleged “DILF” comment: “It is quite frankly absurd that I am even having to address this. It feels like an attempt to justify inappropriate behaviour and there is no justification for Mr Kearney’s conduct.”

41.

In a supplementary basis of plea, RK challenged the account given by Pupils A and or B about what happened at Mojo. Here there was a difficulty for the Tribunal because the February 2020 statements by the Pupils had been redacted by agreement to exclude the references to which the [Appellant] objected. We were told by Mr Scamardella that the redactions (which we never saw) contained an assertion that the [Appellant] had plied one or both Pupils with drinks at Mojo and that the offensive comments had been relentless. The supplementary basis of plea reads: “Contrary to the suggestions made by the complainants, Mr Kearney buys just one drink in the entire time he is in Mojo’s. If there is any suggestion that he was plying the pupils with alcohol this is wrong and not borne out by the footage.” It was agreed that there was no evidence in the footage that the [Appellant] had bought more than one drink. It was also agreed that the footage shows that RK only spent a few minutes in the company of the Pupils at Mojo and that there were always other people around. The [Appellant]’s case, when denying the charges, had been that the footage proved that the Pupils were unreliable witnesses who had provided exaggerated accounts”.

The Tribunal confirmed that they had not watched the entirety of the Mojo footage but had seen the sections of it that were played to them in the Tribunal room; and had read the Appellant’s log of the footage (which the BSB accepted) and the commentary on the footage provided by Pupil B in her second statement: [42]. The Tribunal noted that there was no audio on the footage. They described the section played to them as follows:

“…we saw Pupil B sitting on her own on a bench on one side of a table. She was very close to a wall. Standing near the table was a man who appeared agitated. RK went over and positioned himself right next to Pupil B. RK is a heavily built man and he was very close to Pupil B who looked uncomfortable and who would have found it difficult to remove herself from that position. It was during this time that RK asked Pupil B a series of offensive questions and made several lewd comments”.

At [43], the Tribunal recorded that the Appellant’s case on the footage was that it showed him to be a “tactile man” because “he placed his arm around a man or men in a friendly way”, that he was being “appropriately tactile” with many people and that there was no sexual touching. The Tribunal continued:

“Given that the touching of the Pupils (which RK admits took place earlier that evening) was accompanied or preceded by lewd sexual comments, it is difficult to understand what exactly is meant by “being appropriately tactile.” However, we are conscious that the touching pleaded by the BSB is “inappropriate contact and hand placement” and that is what RK has admitted so we sanction him on that basis”.