Bail-jumping barrister suspended after assault conviction


Thames Magistrates’ Court: Convictions

A barrister convicted of assault after beating a woman and of failing to surrender to custody has been reprimanded and suspended from practice for four months.

Stephen Joseph Sweeney, called in November 2001, was convicted in March 2018 at Thames Magistrates’ Court under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of assaulting a woman by beating her a year earlier.

He was sentenced to a community order comprising a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 25 days, and to pay £250 in compensation and £500 in costs.

The barrister was also made subject to an order restraining him from contacting the victim directly or indirectly except for the purpose of arranging contact with the children via email and not to attend the matrimonial home save to collect or drop off the children with agreed prior notice.

In addition, Mr Sweeney was convicted under the Bail Act 1976 of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause on the day of his trial, having been released on bail nine days earlier.

He was fined £50 and ordered to be detained in the courthouse for a day, with his detention deemed served by reason of time already spent in custody.

A Bar disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Sweeney had behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession, and acted without integrity or behaved in a manner which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity.

He was handed two four-month suspensions, to be served concurrently.

Sara Jagger, the Bar Standards Board’s director of legal and enforcement, said: “The tribunal’s decision demonstrates the serious consequences for barristers that can arise from being convicted of criminal offences, even where the conduct relates to issues in their personal life.”

The tribunal’s decision is open to appeal.

Photo: Danny Robinson / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

3 April 2020

In challenging times, should you move to the cloud?

Having a cloud-based system can provide workers with incredible flexibility. However, there are many things that a firm should be aware of before making the transition to the cloud.

Read More

Loading animation