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

The Appellant was called to the Bar in 1996. He practised in criminal law from a series of Chambers in Manchester. Due to his personal background and his struggles to secure a tenancy in Chambers, he was always very supportive of those looking to become barristers.

The Appellant has faced four sets of disciplinary proceedings for misconduct of a sexual nature: cases 2017/0431, 2019/0057, 2020/0928 and 2021/4962. This appeal relates to the sanctions imposed in cases 2020/0928 and 2021/4962. Both cases involved allegations that the Appellant had acted contrary to the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (9th Edition), contained in Part 2 of the Bar Standards Board Handbook (Version 3.3) (“the Code”).

In case 2021/4962, the sanction was imposed for one charge that the Appellant had behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in a barrister or in the profession, contrary to Core Duty 5 of the Code (Charge 2); and one that he had behaved in a way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity, contrary to Rule rC8 (Charge 3).

The Appellant had sexually harassed Person A, a mini-pupil he was supervising, during the course of a week’s mini-pupillage from 23-26 July 2018. The alleged harassment took place during the working day, including at court. It was alleged that the Appellant had made inappropriate remarks to and about Person A and made physical contact with her by touching the label inside the neck of her dress.

In case 2020/0928, the sanction related to two charges alleging that the Appellant had failed to act with integrity contrary to Core Duty 3 (Charges 1 and 2); two charges of having behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession contrary to Core Duty 5 (Charges 3 and 4); and two charges of having behaved in a way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity contrary to Rule rC8 (Charges 5 and 6).

The Appellant had sexually harassed Pupil A and Pupil B, who belonged to a different Chambers from the Appellant. The alleged harassment took place in the evening at a Chambers “Silks’” party and at a subsequent event at the Mojo bar in Manchester, on 13 February 2020. It was alleged that the Appellant had made physical contact with Pupil A and Pupil B by way of inappropriately placing his hands on them during the Silks party and had made inappropriate remarks to them at the Chambers event and at the Mojo bar. Throughout the disciplinary investigation and before the Tribunal there was an issue between the parties about the probative value of CCTV footage which the Appellant had obtained from the Mojo bar.

The Appellant had admitted these charges at a hearing on 11 October 2022. On 9 November 2022, he provided two documents entitled “basis of plea” in relation to each set of charges. Once he had viewed the CCTV footage, he provided a supplementary basis of plea. As these were the descriptions of the documents used before the Tribunal I will continue to refer to them as such, notwithstanding the more recent obiter observations of McGowan J in Taylor v Bar Standards Board [2025] EWHC 1029 at [11] to the effect that the use of such language and terms of art from the criminal courts is “unhelpful and inappropriate” in disciplinary proceedings.

The sanctions hearing on 16 December 2024 took place before a differently constituted Tribunal. The Tribunal comprised a five-person panel.

The Tribunal considered an agreed main bundle, the CCTV footage from the Mojo bar, an additional bundle provided by the Appellant containing his basis of plea documents, numerous character references, commentary on the CCTV footage, a reflective statement from the Appellant dated August 2024 and transcripts of the judgments from the disciplinary proceedings in 2018 and 2021. The Tribunal had also been provided with an Opening Note on behalf of the BSB and with two detailed chronologies, one produced on behalf of the BSB and the other on behalf of the Appellant. The chronologies were not disputed. The Appellant had not provided a statement as to the circumstances of the misconduct in either of the cases they were considering.

The hearing proceeded by way of oral submissions only. The Tribunal confirmed that it was applying Version 6 of the BTAS “Sanctions Guidance” which came into effect on 1 January 2022, and which applies to all misconduct regardless of the date on which it occurred. The Appellant had conceded that this was the correct approach in Mr Scamardella KC’s September 2024 Mitigation Note.

The Tribunal’s unanimous decision was announced at the end of the hearing, with brief reasons given. Further written reasons were set out in the Tribunal’s comprehensive Report of Finding and Sanction dated 7 January 2025. References in square brackets in this judgment are to that report.