Peter John Wareing v Bar Standards Board

On an appeal from a disciplinary tribunal, the High Court must allow the appeal only if the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious or other procedural irregularity. The court reviews the merits but gives appropriate respect to a specialist tribunal, particularly on factual and evaluative matters. It will interfere with sanction only where the tribunal erred in principle, reached a decision outside the range reasonably open to it, or imposed a clearly inappropriate sanction. A tribunal may proceed in a party’s absence where, having exercised its discretion with care, it is fair and reasonable to do so. Disbarment may be proportionate where repeated misconduct, previous disciplinary history, lack of insight and risk of repetition make protection of the public and confidence in the profession require the ultimate sanction.

The appellant, a barrister, appealed under section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 against a disciplinary tribunal’s findings that he had committed professional misconduct during a period of suspension and against its decision to disbar him. The tribunal had proceeded in his absence after refusing a further adjournment, found some charges proved and others not proved, imposed disbarment, and temporarily suspended his practice pending the appeal.

The appeal challenged reliance on guidance allegedly given by the Bar Standards Board, the temporary suspension, the proportionality of disbarment, and the decision to proceed in his absence. The central questions were whether the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of procedural or other irregularity, and whether the sanction fell outside the tribunal’s proper evaluative discretion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal’s decision was neither wrong nor unjust because of a serious or other irregularity. The order of disbarment and the temporary suspension pending the appeal were upheld.
2. The applicable appellate approach was summarised from Owusu-Yianoma v BSB [2023] EWHC 2785 (Admin). An appeal under section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and CPR rule 52.21 involves review rather than a full rehearing, although the court engages with the merits. Appropriate respect is due to a specialist disciplinary tribunal and to its evaluative assessments, especially where it heard oral evidence. Sanction will not readily be disturbed unless there was an error of principle, the evaluation was outside the tribunal’s reasonable judgment, or the sanction was clearly inappropriate.
3. The BSB officer’s email did not amount to permission to act as a solicitor’s agent without breaching the suspension. At most, it left open whether particular conduct would breach restrictions on holding oneself out as a barrister, practising as one, or failing to disclose the suspension. Acting as a solicitor’s agent was not, without more, a breach where solicitors were on the record. Appearing in an employment tribunal was not, without more, a breach because no right of audience was required there. Filing a skeleton argument alone did not amount to exercising a right of audience.
4. The tribunal had properly considered lesser sanctions. It applied the Sanctions Guidance, considered proportionality, followed the staged approach, and confined sanction to the proved charges. The tribunal was entitled to attach substantial weight to repeated attempts to circumvent the suspension, the previous disciplinary record, lack of insight or remorse, failure to engage with the proceedings, and risk of repetition. Disbarment was not disproportionate.
5. The temporary suspension was procedurally proper. The applicable regulations created a presumption in favour of temporary suspension after disbarment, subject to representations that suspension would be inappropriate. The tribunal invited representations and postponed the order to permit completion of pre-booked work.
6. The tribunal was entitled to refuse the further adjournment and proceed in the appellant’s absence. It had considered the relevant principles from R v Hayward [2001] QB 862, R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 and General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 182. The appellant knew of the hearing, had provided a substantial written response, had taken the risk of conflicting travel arrangements, and could have sought remote participation. The tribunal’s discretion was exercised with care.

1. Disciplinary tribunal: proceeded in the appellant’s absence, found some professional misconduct charges proved, disbarred him, and ordered temporary suspension pending the appeal.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal’s decision.