David Owusu Yianoma v Bar Standards Board
[2023] EWHC 2785 (Admin)
Timothy Raggatt v Bar Standards Board
24 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1198 (Admin)
High Court
A lawyer was found guilty of withholding evidence that could have helped the defendant in a criminal case and also for misleading the judge. A higher court agreed with the decision and said the punishment was fair.
Key Facts
- •Timothy Raggatt QC, leading counsel for the prosecution in the Conrad Jones case (2006-2007), was accused of professional misconduct.
- •The misconduct allegations centered on the non-disclosure of surveillance material and a statement made to the judge.
- •The surveillance material contradicted key witness testimony and could have assisted the defense.
- •Raggatt was found to have known about the material's existence and relevance.
- •The Bar Tribunal found Raggatt guilty on two charges of professional misconduct and imposed concurrent 12-month and 3-month suspensions.
- •Raggatt appealed the findings and sanctions.
Legal Principles
Prosecutor's duty to disclose material that might undermine the prosecution case or assist the defense.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, sections 3 and 7A
Barrister's Code of Conduct: must not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales, paragraph 301(a)(ii)
Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings: criminal standard.
Case law and Tribunal procedures
Appellate court review of Tribunal decisions: review, not rehearing.
CPR 52.21(1)
Sanctions Guidance: Suspension should only be imposed where there is ongoing risk to the public.
Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service Sanctions Guidance, version 6, paragraph 6.35
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal's findings were supported by sufficient evidence, and the sanctions were proportionate.
Charges 2 and 5 (relating to non-disclosure and misleading the court) were upheld.
Raggatt had the knowledge and the duty to disclose the material but failed to do so, prejudicing the administration of justice.
12-month and 3-month concurrent suspensions were upheld.
The Tribunal considered the seriousness of the misconduct, its impact on public confidence, and lack of remorse, outweighing mitigating factors.