Zaheer Ahmad v Bar Standards Board

An appeal against a professional disciplinary sanction is ordinarily by way of review rather than rehearing. The intensity of review is flexible and depends on the nature of the lower decision and decision-making body.

An appellate court should respect the evaluative judgment of a specialist disciplinary tribunal. It may interfere where there is an error of principle, the decision is wrong, or the sanction falls outside the range of decisions reasonably open to the tribunal. The harsh financial and personal consequences of suspension do not make it inappropriate where suspension is necessary to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and uphold professional standards.

A barrister appealed against concurrent six-month suspensions imposed by a Disciplinary Tribunal after it found that he had committed professional misconduct by failing for several years to comply with a county court judgment.

He did not challenge the findings of misconduct. He argued that the sanction was excessive, that the Tribunal had misunderstood his financial circumstances and mitigation, and that suspension was contrary to the public interest because it would reduce his ability to repay the judgment debt and support his family.

The central issues were the correct approach to the appeal, the degree of deference owed to the specialist Tribunal, and whether the sanction was wrong or clearly inappropriate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was governed by CPR 52.11 and was by way of review, not rehearing. The scope and intensity of review were flexible, having regard to the nature of the Tribunal and the decision under challenge.
2. The Court applied the approach in E I Dupont de Nemours & Co v S T Dupont [2003] EWCA Civ 1368, under which a review engages with the merits while according appropriate respect to the lower decision-maker. It also applied Law Society v Salsbury [2008] EWCA Civ 1285 and Hewson v BSB [2021] EWHC 28 (Admin): a specialist disciplinary tribunal’s sanction is an evaluative decision and the High Court should interfere only where the decision is wrong, clearly inappropriate, or outside the bounds of what the tribunal could properly and reasonably decide.
3. The Tribunal had correctly applied the BSB’s Sanctions Guidance. It was entitled to regard the prolonged non-compliance, the absence of a good reason, the limited and late payments, the lack of insight and the absence of genuine remorse as aggravating matters. It had also taken the payments made towards the judgment debt and the Appellant’s personal circumstances into account.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that suspension was required to maintain public confidence and trust in the profession and to maintain high standards. The Court applied the reasoning in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, as affirmed in the discussion of Bawa-Garba v General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1879: the severe consequences of suspension do not make the sanction wrong where it is otherwise justified.
5. The six-month concurrent suspensions were neither wrong nor clearly inappropriate. The Respondent’s costs application of £1,200 was reasonable and proportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the Disciplinary Tribunal’s sanction dismissed. The concurrent six-month suspensions were upheld.
• Disciplinary Tribunal: on 4 April 2024, imposed six-month concurrent suspensions for two charges of professional misconduct and ordered payment of £2,496 in costs.