BSB guilty of “misleading conduct” in disciplinary case, says High Court

Print This Post

28 October 2013

High Court: failure of elementary fairness

A Court of Appeal judge has accused the Bar Standards Board (BSB) of “misleading conduct” in the way it handled a disciplinary matter that led to a barrister being disbarred.

However, Lord Justice Moses concluded “with reluctance” that despite this, it was not necessary to quash the decision, but the barrister concerned is now planning to go to the Court of Appeal.

In March 2011, Damian McCarthy, formerly of Cloisters Chambers, was found guilty of producing forged ‘rule 6’ client-care letters in his first direct access matter and disbarred. The decision was upheld by the Visitors to the Inns of Court in January 2012, against which Mr McCarthy appealed.

It emerged before the Visitors that the BSB had failed to disclose to the claimant an earlier draft version of a key witness statement, which the Visitors labelled “unacceptable” but by majority they decided to uphold the disciplinary tribunal.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 14)

In his Administrative Court ruling last week, Moses LJ was critical of the BSB’s “misleading conduct” and robustly rejected its argument that it was not required to disclose the statement. “It seems to me beyond question that in disciplinary proceedings with the potential for such grave consequences, draft statements capable of being used to discredit a witness should be disclosed.” Indeed, in June 2012 the BSB published a policy statement to this effect.

The judge continued: “I find it hard to understand why there was any difficulty in recognising this obligation in March 2011 or why it took over a year to publish a policy which did acknowledge that duty. The demands of elementary fairness impose such an obligation.”

Moses LJ found that the Visitors – as a result of being “misled” by the BSB – had themselves proceeded unfairly in how they dealt with the draft statement.

But he decided that even had the claimant been able to use the draft statement to “destroy the oral witnesses on whom the BSB relies”, there was still “conclusive evidence” that the rule 6 letters were not sent and instead created subsequently.

Mr McCarthy, who now operates as an “employment law consultant”, said: “The court has found that both my disciplinary and appeal hearings were unfair because the BSB made a conscious decision to withhold central evidence in order to secure a conviction. The court has also found that the BSB misled both the disciplinary tribunal and the Visitors in my appeal.

“Having made that finding I am astonished that the court has found that I will never receive a fair hearing – a hearing that I am certain I would win. I will now appeal to the Court of Appeal.”

A BSB spokeswoman said: “We are pleased that the court, by its very clear findings, has vindicated [our] decision to prosecute.

“The errors made on disclosure, as recognised before the Visitors’ hearing, arose at a time when it was not usual BSB protocol to disclose draft statements. Since then, we have reviewed and updated our policy around disclosure of documents in disciplinary proceedings, and this is publicly available on our website.”

4 Responses to “BSB guilty of “misleading conduct” in disciplinary case, says High Court”

  1. How can the BSB be “pleased” with this ruling? Are they in fact saying that they are relieved it wasn’t any worse?

  2. David Tyne on October 28th, 2013 at 5:14 pm
  3. Quis custodiet custodes ipsos!

  4. Jed Hunkin on October 31st, 2013 at 12:57 pm
  5. If you are found guilty of misleading then you must be found guilty of lying. Is this not a criminal offence under oath, it seems you can now say what you want and get away with and just depends what side of bed the judge has got out of. Here’s what to do judicial system ” throw a bit of common sense into the hat but most of all FAIRNESS”

  6. Darren on March 12th, 2014 at 3:32 pm
  7. People are saying on Twitter and Facebook that the Court of Appeal has given permission in this case. If so, this case is going to be brought to a wider audience. It raises very important issues of principle – particularly when the BSB seems to have taken no action to investigate the conduct of their case officer, or to discipline him. One has to ask what else he has done in this and other cases?

  8. Robert Smith on June 28th, 2014 at 12:37 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

The LSB’s proposals for legislative reform: let’s be clear

Caroline Wallace LSB

The publication of the Legal Services Board’s vision for legislative reform of legal services regulation on 12 September has generated a healthy level of interest and debate. This can, on the surface, seem a somewhat dry subject. However, it has an impact not just on existing regulated practitioners, but also on providers of legal services more generally, as well as everyone who uses or benefits from an effective legal sector. And, let’s face it, that’s all of us.

October 25th, 2016