“No excuse” for barrister’s positive discrimination jibe at judge


Becker: Admitted charge on day of tribunal

There can be “no excuse” for a barrister suggesting that a female Asian judge only secured her position as a result of positive discrimination, a Bar disciplinary tribunal has ruled.

The remarks were “wholly contrary to the Bar’s commitment to equality and diversity”, it said.

We reported last month that Timothy Becker was reprimanded and fined £750 for making the comment in an email to the claimant in a civil case in which he was acting for the defendant on a public access basis.

Mr Becker insisted that he was only referring to what he thought was the deputy district judge’s qualification as a solicitor.

The tribunal’s ruling has now been published and showed that, up until the morning of the hearing, the barrister did not think his words could be construed as racist or sexist.

It said: “Up until then he had, to use of words of [his counsel Marc Beaumont] in mitigation, ‘been making excuses’.”

The tribunal continued: “There can be no excuse for a member of the Bar to make such a statement, still less to make it in the course of litigation.

“The remarks were rude and wholly contrary to the Bar’s commitment to equality and diversity.”

The fact that Mr Becker had conceded that “a reasonable reader would have understood his remarks… as a reference to her sex and/or race”, and admitted he had diminished trust in the profession, meant the tribunal did not have to decide “what meaning Mr Becker actually intended to convey”.

In mitigation, the tribunal took into account that it was an isolated incident and the barrister had a clean disciplinary record. “We also take into account his testimonials and that finally today he has admitted the charge.”

Mr Becker – who chairs the Public Access Bar Association – is head of Burlington Chambers in Piccadilly, central London, which he set up at the start of this year, and was called in 1992.

In his statement after the initial announcement of the sanction, he said he was “rightly reprimanded”.

He pointed to his “long-standing commitment to equality and diversity at the Bar” and pointed out that he was not accused of unlawful race or sex discrimination.




Blog


Why is Andrew Malkinson still paying for a crime he didn’t commit?

Like many in my profession and beyond, I have been moved by the case of Andrew Malkinson, the man who spent 17 years in prison for an awful crime he did not commit.


What is tech bloat and why is it a problem for law firms?

Too many law firms are adopting shiny new tech without first retiring their legacy systems, causing duplication and unnecessary costs.


The civil courts and the digital divide

Despite the government’s decision to increase Ministry of Justice funding, its budget for 2025-26 is still 14% lower in real terms than in 2007-08.


Loading animation