Sykes v Bar Standards Board

On a statutory appeal concerning professional re-admission, the applicant bears the burden of satisfying the regulator that he is fit and proper to practise. Evidence of personal progress and change ordinarily requires insight into, and remediation of, the conduct that led to disbarment. Later advocacy success or client satisfaction may have limited probative value if it does not address the risk of recurrence or compliance with professional duties. A paper review may satisfy procedural fairness where the issues can be fairly resolved without oral submissions. The High Court retains power to correct legal or factual error and serious procedural irregularity, while giving appropriate deference to specialist decision-makers.

Mr Sykes appealed under section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 against the Bar Standards Board Authorisations Review Panel’s refusal to overturn the Inns’ Conduct Committee’s decision refusing his re-admission to Gray’s Inn. He had been disbarred following findings of professional misconduct and inadequate professional service.

The appeal challenged the burden placed on him, the assessment of personal progress and change, alleged bias and predetermination, the absence of guidance about the evidence required, the refusal to admit further evidence, and the Panel’s paper-only review. The central issue was whether he had shown sufficient insight and remediation to establish that he was fit and proper to practise.

1. Appeal dismissed. None of the six grounds of appeal was made out. The applicant bore the burden of satisfying the Inns’ Conduct Committee and the Panel that he met the criteria for admission or re-admission.
2. The re-admission criterion of personal progress and change was clear and fact-sensitive. It required consideration of whether the applicant had acquired sufficient insight into, and remediated, the conduct that led to disbarment, so that there was no reason to expect recurrence and non-compliance with professional duties.
3. The decision-makers were entitled to examine the applicant’s understanding of the earlier findings, his reflection on them, the steps taken to change his conduct, and his preparedness to comply with the rules governing practice. Evidence of courtroom advocacy, reported cases and satisfied clients was not necessarily probative of the likelihood of recurrence of the earlier misconduct.
4. The previous disbarment was relevant but not determinative. The ICC was entitled to consider the applicant’s attitude towards the earlier findings and whether past conduct remained indicative of future behaviour.
5. The allegations of bias and predetermination were unsupported. It was not for the ICC to call evidence on the applicant’s behalf. The further evidence was inadmissible because it could have been obtained earlier and was unlikely to affect the outcome.
6. Article 6(1) ECHR did not require an oral hearing before the Panel. The issues were capable of adequate resolution on paper, and the applicant had had opportunities to make written and oral submissions and call evidence before the ICC and the High Court. Fischer v Austria [1995] 20 EHRR 349 was distinguishable.
7. The statutory appeal involved a review rather than a full re-hearing. The court could examine factual and legal error, but had to give appropriate deference to the specialist decision-maker, particularly on primary facts, inferences and evaluative judgments involving balance and degree.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 dismissed.
• Bar Standards Board Authorisations Review Panel: review refused and the refusal of re-admission upheld.
• Inns’ Conduct Committee: determined that Mr Sykes was not a fit and proper person to become a practising barrister and refused re-admission to Gray’s Inn.