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

The second set of disciplinary proceedings involved a female mini-pupil, referred to for the purposes of this appeal as Person X. It was alleged that the Appellant had behaved inappropriately towards Person X in January 2015. The allegations were not reported to the BSB until late in 2018 when Person X became aware of the report of the disciplinary hearing in case 2017/0431 in November of that year when the misconduct was said to have been “an isolated act”: [18].

On 23 April 2019 the Appellant responded to Person X’s complaint to the BSB. Again, the Appellant’s response document was summarised in, and appended to, the BSB’s chronology. In his response the Appellant indicated that he did not remember Person X. He highlighted the adverse professional and financial impacts on him that the publicity around the previous disciplinary proceedings had caused: for example, he had been banned from prosecuting for the Crown Prosecution Service for 6 months and removed permanently from the panel of counsel permitted to prosecute rape and serious sexual offences. He predicted he had lost £30,000 due to the professional damage suffered. He had also been temporarily banned from his volunteer role with the Scouting movement, which he had otherwise enjoyed doing with his two sons.

In December 2020 and March 2021 the Appellant appeared before a five-person Tribunal chaired by HHJ Andrew Goymer to decide three charges of professional misconduct relating to Person X. The Appellant denied all of the allegations. The Tribunal heard evidence from a number of witnesses including Person X and the Appellant and found all three charges proved to the criminal standard of proof: [18] and [19].

As the Tribunal in this case explained:

“20.

The findings of fact were that [the Appellant]:

i.

…[T]old Person X that he kept his nails short because you can’t finger a woman with long nails;

ii.

Asked Person X if she had ever had sex at her parents’ house and the details of it;

iii.

Told Person X that eating pineapple makes semen taste better;

iv.

Said to Person X she should wear skirts and heels instead of trousers and asked what her bra size was;

v.

Leant into Person X when the two were alone in a lift, smelt her neck and asked what perfume she was wearing;

vi.

Spoke about sex with his wife and was physically too close to Person X”.

The Tribunal imposed a 6 month suspension with a fine of £3,000. In April 2021, the Appellant appealed the sanction. In January 2022, the appeal was dismissed: [21]-[22].