Peter John Wareing v Bar Standards Board
[2024] EWHC 2946 (Admin)
Sophia Cannon v Bar Standards Board
16 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 278
Court of Appeal
A barrister was found guilty of misconduct. She appealed, saying she was too unwell to understand the case and that the rules were applied incorrectly. The Court of Appeal said there wasn't enough evidence of her illness affecting her understanding and that the rules were used correctly. Her appeal was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Sophia Cannon, a barrister, was found guilty of four charges of professional misconduct by a Bar Disciplinary Tribunal.
- •The Tribunal imposed sanctions of disbarment (three charges) and a 12-month prohibition on applying for a practicing certificate (one charge).
- •Cannon appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on three charges.
- •Cannon now appeals to the Court of Appeal, raising four grounds: lack of mental capacity, erroneous determination of professional misconduct, violation of res judicata, and improper consideration of reporting restrictions.
Legal Principles
Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
CPR 52(2)(b), Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534
Mental capacity
Mental Capacity Act 2005, A Local Authority v P [2018] EWCOP 10, A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 51
Professional misconduct for barristers
Bar Standards Board Handbook, Core Duty 5, rule 8
Res judicata
Henderson v Henderson (1845) 3 Hare 100, Barber v Staffordshire County Council [1996] ICR 379
Reporting restrictions and anonymity orders
CPR 39.2, Crime and Courts Act 2013, section 24
Litigation friend for protected parties
CPR 21.1-21.3, Masterman-Lister v Jewell [2003] EWCA Civ 1889
Outcomes
Permission to adduce new evidence refused.
The new evidence does not rebut the presumption that Cannon had capacity to participate in the Tribunal hearing or conduct the High Court appeal.
Permission to appeal on the ground that the conduct was not professional misconduct refused.
The judge correctly found that the Tribunal could consider Cannon's conduct, even in her private life, as professional misconduct if it breached Core Duty 5 or rule 8.
Permission to appeal on the ground of res judicata refused.
The principle of res judicata did not apply as there had been no prior adjudication on charge 4.
Permission to appeal on the ground of improper consideration of reporting restrictions refused.
The father's representations did not materially affect the reporting restrictions decision.