Deech hits back over bar tribunal ‘collapse’ claim
The chair of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has defended the process for disciplining barristers following a claim that it is in a ‘state of collapse’ amid allegations of secrecy, maladministration and incompetence.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Lady Deech said: ‘It is totally untrue that the system is in collapse or is deeply flawed. When a complaint is made against a barrister we will investigate it fairly and transparently and make sure that the public is protected.’
Deech was responding to concerns that have come to light suggesting that 679 disciplinary cases involving barristers, dating back nearly a decade, could be unsafe and open to challenge.
Information provided to the BSB by the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC), the body that administers disciplinary tribunals, suggests that 515 of the cases concern those where tribunal members’ appointments had not been properly renewed; 47 involved potential conflicts of interest where panel members were also on BSB or Bar Council committees, and 117 where other provisions relating to appointments may not have been followed.
Deech said that a High Court judge last week ruled that technical irregularities regarding the appointment of tribunal members had nevertheless resulted in valid decisions.
The ruling was made by Mr Justice Singh, who sat as part of a panel of the Visitors of the Inns of Court, which hears appeals against disciplinary tribunal rulings.
Singh ruled that the tribunal was properly constituted, despite the fact that one of the lay members was no longer on the list of barrister volunteers. He said that the rules did not require the member to be the list, but that even if they were wrong, the member had de facto authority to sit on the tribunal.
A BSB spokeswoman said that this decision would cover disciplinary decisions in 515 cases, which could therefore be treated as legitimate.
Brigadier Anthony Faith, the under treasurer at Gray’s Inn, which is currently administering COIC, told the Gazette that the ‘technical irregularities’ were discovered after a review of the system was set last autumn.
The review, led by former Bar Council Desmond Browne QC, is expected to be published next week.
Faith said: ‘We’ve spent the last few months identifying the issues and sorting them out, and we are about to contact all the affected barristers in those cases that are closed. Looking to the future we are setting up a fit for purpose new tribunal service, with a registrar; the full details of which will be set out in the report.'
Other complaints made by barristers allege conflicts of interests among tribunal members, secrecy, maladministration and incompetence.
Barrister Marc Beaumont who represents barristers appearing before the tribunal told the Today programme earlier this week that the system’s two main defects were a lack of transparency and a lack of fairness.
He said: ‘If I were to say that the system is in a state of collapse I do not think that that is an exaggeration.’
Beaumont said: ‘It is a matter of gross embarrassment for most barristers that their system, which should be a gold standard… in terms of procedural propriety and regularity is in such a shambolic state.’
Barrister Jonathan Rich told the programme how his practice had been affected by the BSB's investigations, though no cases have reached the tribunal. He has ceased to represent clients in cases involving the RSPCA as a result.
Rich told the programme: ‘I think there is essentially a level of lazy incompetence at the back of it all. I have to say that what is underneath the veneer at the BSB is a very unattractive type of wood that is very rotten and powdery.’
Deech told the programme today that she could not address particular cases, but said: ‘It doesn’t surprise me that sometimes barristers, who are themselves under investigation don’t like it, but I think that shows we’re doing a good job.’
BSB figures show that in 2011, there were 15,581 practising barristers and 529 (3%) were subject to complaints. Of those, 141 (less than 1%) were subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Comments
the unfair system
The Chair of the BSB is totally wrong. The institution os plague with corruption, Maladministration my complaint was not investigated fairly and i as a member of the public was not protected. I would welcome the opportunity to challenge my casee and if the chair wishes to take me up on this matter i will be delighted.
In my case it was only after making a SAR that it was brought to mt attention that it was the Barristers in my case that prepared the Court Order which the Judge had refused to Signed or sealed in court when my barrister should be asking question she replied that she did not wishes to discredit her colleague my case was discussed in private with only the county court Judge and the two barristers while i was left on my own all day sitting in a confined space. Then when i made my complaint the Barristers replied with hand written notes that i could not even read nor understand even a single line, So if the Chair is so confident then i an going to request to have my case reviewed adn i do hope that this request will be granted .
Legal Profession is in such a shambolic state
Mr Beaumont is absolutely right not only is the BSB but also the SRA & SDT are also in a shambolic state.
These organisations do not have their own house in order and are trying to discipline others. Disgusting.
Supposed to be a civilised nation.But look at their legal profession in a turmoil.
Jonathan Rich is a prime
Jonathan Rich is a prime example of the political efforts of the SDT / BSB / SRA / MOJ, etc.
For those who don't know, he represented a number of people prosecuted by the RSPCA. The RSPCA often seize animals, particularly on farms and at pet shops, and request that the police accompany them, arrest the owners, and bring them in for interview.
However, what few people know is that the RSPCA has no more power to do this than does your window cleaner. They have no power of arrest, no real right to be involved in the police arresting suspects and interviewing people, and certainly no right to seize animals.
Regrettably these aspects are often not picked up on by the usual defence solicitor community, and neither do the courts really understand. They assume that the RSPCA has official powers, and just play the game. When you play the game on the RSPCA's terms (i.e. try to argue that their experts are being too harsh), you end up advising people "look they've got evidence against you, if you plead you'll get a lighter sentence").
Jonathan Rich and the solicitors who instructed him refused to play the game on the RSPCA's terms. He would, for example, point out that the RSPCA's experts aren't actually experts at all. That the "confessions" and "interviews" were inadmissible evidence. That the RSPCA's prosecutions department was directed by a political element which mounted lobbying against pet shops. That they make money from their "Freedom Farms" scheme and actively use prosecution of non-"Freedom Farms" as a way to pressurise farms to sign up.
Of course, as we have seen with Yvonne Hossack, they don't like people who don't play things the way they want. I don't suppose a single client of Mr Rich, or Ms Hossack have ever complained, yet they waste tens of thousands pursuing them.
And in the "brave new world" where these useless regulators get brownie points depending upon how many people are disciplined (the "we're doing a good job" comment above, which echos a similar comment from Adam Sampson recently) this will only continue. Indeed, if --sorry I mean WHEN-- they allow third party complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, anyone representing a cause which the Guardian Newspaper doesn't like had better be scared.
The Legal Ombudsman would have no difficulty, and get lots of positive publicity from the nu-labour media if he can be seen to be knocking a solicitor or barrister dealing with a case they don't like. All I've said above about the RSPCA could easily be spin-doctored to say "cruel and callous barrister supports people accused of animal cruelty - and runs up thousands of pounds of costs against the poor little charity working tirelessly to save fluffy kittens"
When the new policy comes into operation, expect this sort of regulatory bullying to increase exponentially. "Solicitor called an attack victim a 'liar' in cross examination in the court - when his client was the criminal! Fortunately, the Legal Ombudsman has fined him £10,000". "Barrister represents rapist in court - the Sun says complain to 'The Legal Ombudsman' against this!". "How my life was made an agony - the true story of a person hounded in court for building an extension on his home without planning permission.", etc., etc.