Barrister reprimanded for buying and supplying cannabis


Cannabis: Sharing constituted supply

A barrister found to have bought and supplied cannabis has been reprimanded and fined by the Bar Standards Board (BSB).

Edward Ross, who was called in 2010 and practises from national chambers Clerksroom, was found to have breached the core duty in the Bar Code of Conduct not to “behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession”.

His case was subject to a ‘determination by consent’, a procedure which means he will not be referred to a disciplinary tribunal – akin to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s regulatory settlement agreements.

The BSB said Mr Ross “purchased and possessed cannabis, a class B drug, on four occasions between March 2015 and February 2017” and that he also “shared cannabis… with others, on more than one occasion, between March 2015 and February 2017, and such conduct fulfils the criterion for ‘supply’ under section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as amended”.

He was fined £1,500 and given a reprimand.

In other disciplinary news, a Bar Disciplinary Triubnal suspended Ehi Andrew Ukiwa for six months after finding that he had appeared in court on behalf of a client on three separate occasions in 2016 before he had started pupillage.

Mr Ukiwa, who was called in 2010, appeared in court again on behalf of his client in January 2017 when he was a pupil barrister in the first period of his pupillage and thus still unauthorised.

The tribunal’s decision is open to appeal.




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Email address will not be published.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

11 November 2019

Taking a strategic approach to cyber-risk

If you forced 10 cyber-criminals to sit through an average law firm’s IT committee meeting, they’d be turning themselves in to the National Crime Agency before it reached AOB.

Read More

Loading animation