Sophia Cannon v Bar Standards Board
[2023] EWCA Civ 278
Peter John Wareing v Bar Standards Board
20 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2946 (Admin)
High Court
A lawyer was suspended, but kept working. He said the Bar Standards Board (BSB) allowed it, but they said no. A tribunal found him guilty and disbarred him. He appealed, but the court agreed with the tribunal; the lawyer had broken the rules many times, and the punishment was fair.
Key Facts
- •Peter John Wareing, a barrister, was disbarred in May 2024 after a disciplinary tribunal found him partly liable on six charges of professional misconduct.
- •The charges stemmed from Wareing's actions during a six-month suspension, where he continued providing legal services, often without disclosing his suspended status and sometimes without solicitors on record.
- •Wareing appealed the disbarment, arguing he reasonably relied on guidance from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) suggesting his actions were permissible.
- •The High Court considered four grounds of appeal: (1) reliance on BSB guidance; (2) suspension pending appeal; (3) disproportionate sanction of disbarment; (4) proceeding in absence at the disciplinary hearing.
Legal Principles
On appeal, the High Court reviews the tribunal's decision, considering whether it was wrong or unjust due to irregularities. The court will accord deference to the tribunal's specialist knowledge and evaluation, unless an error of principle or an unreasonable decision is evident.
Owusu-Yianoma v BSB [2023] EWHC 2785 (Admin), at [16]-[28]
CPR Part 52 applies to appeals to the High Court. The court typically reviews the decision without receiving further evidence, although the appeal’s flexibility depends on the body appealed against.
CPR Part 52
The court will not lightly interfere with a sanction imposed by a disciplinary tribunal, only intervening if there was an error of principle in the evaluation or if the sanction was clearly inappropriate.
Owusu-Yianoma v BSB [2023] EWHC 2785 (Admin), at [16]-[28]
When considering whether to proceed in a party's absence, tribunals must exercise discretion carefully, particularly when the absent party is unrepresented, considering the party's behavior and whether it constitutes a waiver of their right to appear.
R. v. Hayward [2001] QB 862; R. v. Jones [2003] 1 AC 1; General Medical Council v. Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The High Court found no error in the tribunal's decision. Wareing's reliance on BSB guidance was deemed unreasonable. The sanction of disbarment was considered proportionate, given the repeated misconduct and lack of insight. The tribunal's decision to proceed in Wareing's absence was justified.
Ground 1 (reliance on BSB guidance) failed.
The BSB guidance did not grant permission to act as a solicitor's agent; it highlighted what Wareing must not do. The tribunal's rejection of this argument was reasonable.
Ground 2 (suspension pending appeal) failed.
The tribunal followed the correct procedure in imposing interim suspension pending the appeal. The presumption is in favor of such suspension, and Wareing's arguments did not sufficiently rebut it.
Ground 3 (disproportionate sanction) failed.
Disbarment was deemed proportionate considering the repeated misconduct, lack of insight, and risk of repetition. The tribunal's assessment of the sanction was within its reasonable judgment.
Ground 4 (proceeding in absence) failed.
The tribunal's refusal to adjourn and decision to proceed in Wareing's absence were justified due to his late application, lack of engagement with scheduling, and the seriousness of the charges.