![AC-2025-MAN-000091 - [2025] EWHC 2048 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
The grounds of appeal in overview
The grounds of appeal in overview
The Appellant advanced five grounds of appeal against the sanction imposed by the Tribunal, to the following effect:
Ground 1: The Appellant’s rehabilitation was wrongly characterised as “personal mitigation”;
Ground 2: The Appellant was afforded insufficient credit for the mitigating features listed in Annex 2 of the BTAS Sanctions Guidance;
Ground 3: The Tribunal failed to give any or sufficient consideration to the “totality” principle;
Ground 4: The Tribunal failed to give any or sufficient regard to the fact that the conduct complained of and the reporting of it occurred in 2018 and 2020, before the coming into force of the applicable sentencing regime; and
Ground 5: The Tribunal failed to explain why it had concluded that a long suspension was not a suitable sanction and the justice of the case was not met by disbarment, which is the sanction of last resort.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The factual background in overview
- Previous disciplinary proceedings involving the Appellant
- The November 2018 disciplinary hearing concerning misconduct in October 2017 (Case 2017/0431)
- The March 2021 disciplinary hearing concerning misconduct in January 2015 (Case 2019/0057)
- The facts of the two cases before the Tribunal
- (ii): Case 2021/4962
- The chronology of the investigation of the two cases before the Tribunal
- Submissions at the sanctions hearing on 16 December 2024
- The Findings of the Tribunal
- (i): Case 2020/0928
- (ii): Case 2021/4962
- The legal framework
- The grounds of appeal in overview
- Ground 1: Evidence of the Appellant’s rehabilitation
- Ground 2: The Appellant was afforded insufficient credit for the mitigating features listed in Annex 2 of the BTAS Sanctions Guidance
- Ground 3: The Tribunal failed to give any or sufficient consideration to the “totality” principle
- Ground 4: The Tribunal failed to give any or sufficient regard to the fact that the conduct complained of and the reporting of it occurred in 2018 and 2020, before the coming into force of the applica
- Ground 5: The Tribunal failed to explain why it had concluded that a long suspension was not a suitable sanction and the justice of the case was not met by disbarment, which is the sanction of last re
- Conclusions