The Bar Standards Board v Crawford

On an appeal against a professional disciplinary sanction, the appellate court must apply the statutory and regulatory grounds governing its jurisdiction. The Bar Standards Board had to show that no reasonable tribunal could properly have imposed the sanction. A specialist tribunal’s assessment of culpability, mitigation and sanction attracts substantial respect. A sanction is not legally perverse merely because the appellate body would have imposed a different one. Disciplinary sanctions are principally protective and must promote public confidence while remaining proportionate to all the circumstances.

The Bar Standards Board appealed under section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and regulations rE183 and rE185 of the Disciplinary Tribunals Regulations 2014 against a reprimand imposed on Lincoln Crawford by a five-person Disciplinary Tribunal. Mr Crawford had admitted professional misconduct arising from convictions for repeated breaches of a restraining order. The Board argued that the sanction was too lenient and that no reasonable tribunal could have imposed it. The central issues were the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction, the threshold for intervention and whether the reprimand fell within the range properly open to the tribunal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court was satisfied, albeit only just, that the BSB Handbook and the 2014 Regulations had conferred jurisdiction on the High Court. The appeal could succeed only on one or more of the grounds in rE185.
2. The Board had to establish that no reasonable tribunal could properly have imposed a reprimand. The court approached the tribunal’s decision with considerable caution and gave due deference to its specialist expertise, statutory role and advantage in hearing evidence.
3. The primary function of professional discipline is protection and promotion of public confidence, rather than punishment. The tribunal must assess the extent to which misconduct undermines that confidence and impose a proportionate sanction having regard to all relevant circumstances. Misconduct in private life may be less damaging to professional confidence than misconduct in professional life, depending on its nature.
4. The tribunal had taken the previous convictions, repeated breaches and seriousness of defying a court order into account. It was entitled to weigh those matters against the early admission, cooperation, exceptional character, emotional context, four-year period without further breaches, ages of the children and nearly two-year self-suspension.
5. The Sentencing Guidance was guidance, not a prescriptive code. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that further suspension was unnecessary and that a reprimand fell within the proper range.
6. Future appeals must identify the specific factual or legal error relied upon, link it to rE185, and explain the evidential basis for the challenge. Where legal perversity is alleged, the BSB must identify the lawful range of sanctions said to be available.

• Disciplinary Tribunal: imposed a reprimand on 13 June 2017 after the Respondent admitted professional misconduct.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the BSB’s appeal against sanction.