BSB suspends “bomb hoax” barrister


inns of court

BSB: misconduct proceedings already started

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has issued an immediate suspension order preventing barrister Michael Shrimpton from practising.

Mr Shrimpton was convicted of communicating false information at Southwark Crown Court last week. He is reported to have called the former defence secretary in 2012 claiming to have intelligence about a terrorist bomb attack at the London Olympics.

Mr Shrimpton is said to have left a message for Philip Hammond, and spoken to his private secretary, telling them that a stolen Russian nuclear warhead would be used to attack either the Olympic Stadium or the Queen, as she attended the opening ceremony.

He will be sentenced next year after being sent for psychiatrict assessment.

The BSB said it was aware of court proceedings involving Mr Shrimpton “in relation to a bomb hoax” and had started professional misconduct proceedings against him as a result.

The regulator said that following his conviction last week and “considering also his previous conviction for the possession of indecent images of children”, an immediate suspension order had been issued.

“The continuation of this suspension and any final disciplinary action will be considered in due course, in accordance with the BSB’s usual disciplinary procedures,” a spokesman said.

“Action had already been taken by the BSB in relation to Mr Shrimpton’s previous conviction for the possession of indecent images of children and his ability to practise as a barrister.

“In April 2013, when we became aware of the charges which led to his first conviction, we immediately acted to restrict Mr Shrimpton’s professional capacity.

“We required Mr Shrimpton to declare all of the charges against him to his clients, before representing them. Following his conviction under the Protection of Children Act in February 2014 we also prevented him from being involved in any cases concerning the welfare of a child, allegations of sexual abuse or impropriety concerning a child or where a child was liable to be a witness.”

Tags:




    Readers Comments

  • The BSB statement is factually correct but with respect omits to state that the reason they were aware of each set of proceedings is because I informed them.

    I intend appealing the Southwark decision and have already applied to Her Honour Judge Holt QC to state a case in relation to the indecent images prosecution. The police and CPS accept that no indecent images were found on my computer, only on a memory stick, and that my fingerprints are not not on either the computer, or the memory stick.

    They accept they have do DNA evidence to offer, although they claim that no DNA tests were ever done – an odd omission in the circumstances, given that possession had been put in issue from the time I was challenged with the offence.

    There is no evidence linking the hard drive of the laptop now in police possession with the laptop seized from myself, i.e. it looks as though either the hard drive or the laptop itself was swapped. No police officer admits to seeing any of the images until about 6 months after the original equipment was seized.

  • Michael Shrimpton says:

    Since this report is being cited by Wikipedia, it seems sensible to update it. Both convictions are now with the CCRC, following the emergence of fresh evidence. In particular it has now emerged that the computer hard drive used by the CPS to convict me was of the wrong model for my laptop and was an aftermarket item obtained my laptop was unlawfully seized in April 2012. Based on its warranty data the prosecution exhibit was probably not purchased until June 2012.


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

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

16 November 2018

Transparency is about a lot more than just price

The transparency agenda is much more than the figures you put on your website; it all comes back to communication, the root of so many lawyers’ problems if you look at the types of complaint that go to the Legal Ombudsman.

Read More