The bar standards regulator has apologised to a leading KC over the way it handled a complaint made against her.
Dinah Rose KC, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and president of Magdalen College, Oxford, represented the Cayman Islands government at an appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London last year concerning same-sex marriage. According to a student newspaper, campaigners urged Rose to withdraw from the case.
Rose said in a detailed statement that the ‘cab rank rule’ applied to the Privy Council brief and she was obliged to accept the instruction.
A campaign group based in the Cayman Islands complained about Rose to the Bar Standards Board and issued a press release on the BSB’s response, which was reported by The Times on Monday.
The following day, the BSB issued a statement to make clear it had not taken action against Rose and made no ruling against her. ‘We apologise to Ms Rose if this has not been made sufficiently clear,’ the BSB said.
‘Ms Rose was correct to act in accordance with her obligations under rC28 when deciding whether to accept the instructions. Criticism of Ms Rose for taking on this case is, accordingly, misplaced,’ the BSB continued.
‘In considering the specific issue of whether Dinah Rose KC had committed potential professional misconduct in stating that she was obliged by the “cab rank rule” to accept a brief on behalf of the Cayman Islands Government, the BSB concluded that it did not see any evidence that supported a contention that Miss Rose knowingly misled or attempted to mislead anyone in her public statement. Nor was there evidence that she was reckless in doing so and the BSB’s view of the statement was that it was careful in its content and tone.’
The BSB said the letter quoted in The Times did not include any discussion of rule rC28, as the report received referred to another rule in the handbook.
‘The BSB accepts that both are relevant. In any event the BSB did not find Ms Rose to have been “reckless” or to have acted inappropriately. The BSB accepts that, before reviewing its original decision and in the circumstances of this case, it would have been appropriate to have invited Ms Rose to comment on the review. It apologises to Ms Rose for its failure to do so, and has commenced a review of its processes for the future.’
Rose tweeted yesterday: ‘This episode has profoundly shocked me. Barristers are entitled to expect that the BSB understands the code of conduct it operates, and administers that code in accordance with the basic principles of natural justice.’
On The Times article, she said she had instructed solicitors to bring libel proceedings.
