High Court: Claim will be struck out without more details
A barrister has denied raping the vulnerable daughter of one of his clients, who demanded £100,000 from him as an out-of-court settlement.
The barrister has asked the High Court to strike out the case and to grant him anonymity in light of what his counsel called the “potentially career-destroying allegations”.
The daughter has accused the barrister of rape, harassment and coercive control, and claims that the rape caused an unwanted pregnancy in October 2022, which was terminated one month later.
The abortion led to a relapse of her psychosis, which in turn led to her losing her income and her home, she claims.
Some of the sexual interactions were said to have happened at his chambers.
According to the daughter, the barrister pursued a sexual relationship with her after the pair met in 2022, when he acted for her mother during family proceedings.
The daughter was her mother’s McKenzie Friend during the case, and the roles were reversed in the latest matter.
In a judgment handed down last Friday, Mrs Justice Heather Williams said the barrister admitted to having a “short-lived relationship” with the daughter between October and December 2022, in which “consensual sexual intercourse had taken place on a number of occasions”.
The barrister said it ended after she demanded £100,000 from him as an “out of court” settlement.
In making the case for a strike-out, the barrister pointed to WhatsApp messages between the pair which he said proved their relationship was consensual, and an audio recording of a conversation from November 2022 in which he said the daughter admitted that she had made the allegations in the middle of a psychotic episode, and they were not true.
The judge said the daughter had made complaints to both the police and Bar Standards Board but neither was taking any further action.
She described the allegations as “unsatisfactorily vague”, for example by failing to properly particularise the allegations of non-consensual sexual intercourse or of harassment.
But rather than striking the claim out at this stage, she gave the claimant four weeks to serve an amended particulars of claim and schedule of loss, and eight weeks to serve a medical report in support of her claim for psychiatric injuries.
If these deadlines are not met, the claim will be struck out.
Williams J agreed that the barrister should not be named at this stage, in part because “no properly pleaded claim has been articulated against him”.
Further, his “reputation and standing as a barrister would be significantly and irreparably damaged by any publicity around this claim in which he is identified; and in turn this would have a significant impact upon his livelihood”.
Williams J added: “There is evidence (and I stress I put it no higher than that at this stage) which may undermine the claimant’s allegations and suggest an alternative motivation for them having been made.”
These included the demand for a financial settlement and a threat to report him to the police again.
Having clarified the nature of the claim during the hearing, which is for sexual assault and harassment, Williams J struck out other claims for breach of the Human Rights Act – as the barrister is not a public authority – for coercive control because it is not a tort and for negligence and/or breach of professional duties as she was not his client.
Leave a Comment