Barrister should have apologised to judge over behaviour


Russell: Much to be proud of

A hugely experienced criminal defence barrister who shouted and pulled faces at a judge should have sent her a letter of apology, a Bar disciplinary tribunal has said.

In May, Marguerite Russell was reprimanded and fined £1,000 for acting in a “rude and unprofessional manner” towards Her Honour Judge Kaur at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

“We find it remarkable that you did not send an apology letter to the judge,” the tribunal panel said.

Ms Russell, who was called in 1972 and was one of the founders of Garden Court Chambers, was sanctioned for six specific instances of misconduct between during the trial in 2016.

These included stating “This is ridiculous” following a ruling in response to submissions she had made, and “pulling faces at the judge and/or acting in a manner that led to her being told to sit down”.

The full tribunal ruling has now been published, and showed that Ms Russell’s counsel at the hearing, Jonathan Laidlaw QC, argued that admitting the misconduct and having a permanent blemish on her record should be punishment enough.

He also called for leniency given Ms Russell’s work to promote inclusion at the Bar and to transform Garden Court into one of the leading diversity and inclusion sets in the country.

The tribunal panel, chaired by His Honour Judge Paul Lawton, acknowledged her contribution to the profession.

“The panel accept that you came to the Bar at a time when women, ethnic minorities and the LGBT community faced significant hurdles through prejudice and exclusion,” it said.

“It is clear you and other like-minded individuals helped to forge pathways of equality, inclusion and opportunity in the profession for others.

“If the chambers of which you were a founding member was once regarded as radical and non-establishment, it is now revered for its work in human rights, equality and justice. It has in recent years seen numerous appointments to QC and the circuit bench.

“All of that is something to be proud of. Your conduct during the Barkauskas trial is not.”

The panel said Ms Russell’s conduct undermined the integrity of the courtroom and the authority of the court, but accepted that it was a “lapse in your own professional standards in a half-century of practice dealing with demanding high-level criminal defence work”.

Though she had reflected “properly” on her conduct and shown appropriate insight and contrition, the panel said she should have been “far more robust” in how she acted, by apologising to the judge.

It concluded that taking no further action would not be an appropriate sanction.




    Readers Comments

  • Sue says:

    Marguerite was adorable and great fun when I co defended with her

  • Howard bentham says:

    Her natural courtesy, quite apart from her professional standards, should have made her apologise in writing to the Judge.

  • David deMaid says:

    I don’t know this Barrister, but she sounds like someone I wouldn’t hesitate to brief.
    As Sam Goldwyn famously said ” all publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name correctly”, and I didn’t detect any spelling mistakes.

  • Conor Maguire says:

    If this was a solicitor advocate the SRA would sought to have them struck off. You’d get a thousand pound fine from the SRA for for looking sideways. Maybe an exaggeration but anyone who has read reports of recent decisons by the SDT or the position taken by the SRA on myriad cases will get my point. Perhaps the Bar Standards board could run a workshop in proportionality for their friends at the SRA.

  • Trevor Guy says:

    The real test at law….was the judge or the prosecution barrister ….been bias..at law .and did the defence barrister have a point at law …. she oviousely felt a
    strong view at law. on her application.


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.

Blog


The SQE and ethics: STAR lite?

How much will graduates of the SQE be able to use and apply the Standards & Regulations, not in a classroom, or in a hypothetical situation, but on a rainy Tuesday with a client or their boss shouting at them?


Hanging out the washing

There are three crucial requirements of technology any firm needs in order to adapt to a work from home model that, for some, is somewhat worrying: security, collaboration and all-in-one solutions.


Loading animation