Snaresbrook Crown Court: Barrister instructed at short notice
An experienced criminal law barrister has been reprimanded and fined for an “outburst of racist language” when talking to a trainee police officer at Snaresbrook Crown Court.
A Bar disciplinary tribunal found that Johanna Harris said to the female trainee detective constable words to the effect that a Pakistani woman who had made domestic abuse allegations against her ex-partner was a “fucking little goat farmer”.
The tribunal said Ms Harris, who has been in practice for 23 years, was instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service at short notice in January 2024 to resist a bail application.
The police officer was concerned about the safety of the woman if her ex-partner, the defendant to a criminal charge, obtained bail.
She advised Ms Harris that the defendant sought bail on the erroneous basis that, if granted, he would be able to assist the complainant with her visa application to remain in the UK. The police officer assured the barrister that the woman did not want the defendant released.
The tribunal said the reference to the complainant needing to obtain or renew a visa played a “material part” in Ms Harris then making her comments.
She said words to the effect that the complainant “only wants a visa so that she doesn’t have to go back to her little goat farm where she is from” and “yeah, a fucking little goat farmer”.
The tribunal said this seemed to reflect her provisional view that the complainant was somehow “playing the system” by linking allegations of domestic violence with the need to obtain a visa.
The comments, while not said directly to the complainant, were “extremely rude with obvious racist themes. We would go further and say that the language used was gratuitous”.
The barrister accepted that she had initially denied using the words attributed to her, and that “she did not believe she had said those words or anything like them”.
However, when she saw screenshots of text messages sent by the police officer to a colleague, “she had been shocked and horrified and realised that she must have said something along the lines of the words alleged”.
In her statement, she said: “I am not a racist, but I accept that I am sometimes irritable and at times I express myself in an overtly robust way without realising the impact of my words. It is also possible that I said the words as some sort of off-colour and misjudged joke.
“Although I have no recollection of using the words described by TDC Gmerek, I accept her evidence and deeply regret the offence I have caused.”
The police officer said she found the suggestion that the complainant was playing the system to be very offensive, and felt “extremely uncomfortable” about Ms Harris’s use of racist language.
The tribunal said there was “a discriminatory element for this conduct with motivation for the conduct arising from animosity or hostility to a person from a protected characteristic group”.
There was also “an imbalance” between her seniority and the lack of seniority of the police officer, “emphasised by the use of offensive language”.
“In our view the public would consider that the way the Respondent conducted herself at court in the presence of a police officer – who was clearly concerned about the welfare of a complainant bringing allegations of domestic abuse against her former partner – was wholly inappropriate, unprofessional and inexcusable.”
The tribunal took into account that Ms Harris had “stepped into the breech” to make the bail application and had “behaved professionally in securing onerous and appropriate bail conditions”.
Evidence from judges, KCs and other professionals who had worked with her over many years demonstrated “this was, on balance, an isolated incident”.
There was “no indication whatsoever from any of the testimonials” that Ms Harris had “racist tendencies”; the thrust of all the professional and personal testimonials was that her conduct was “a complete aberration on her part”.
Ms Harris has since attended an eight-week Open University diversity course.
The tribunal said it believed that her misconduct was “an isolated offence which does not indicate an ongoing risk to the public and/or a likelihood of repetition”.
The barrister was reprimanded, fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £3,800 in costs.