Bar tribunal chair 'completely misunderstood' his role, court told

The chair of a tribunal which suspended a criminal barrister has been criticised in a High Court hearing. 

Timothy Raggatt QC last year was suspended for 12 months, with a further suspension of three months to run concurrently, by the Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service over his failure to disclose key evidence which led to the overturning of a conviction for perverting the course of justice. 

Raggatt was lead prosecution counsel in a murder trial in 2005. A man linked to the case who was convicted for allegedly threatening a witness was jailed in 2007 for 12 years, but his conviction was overturned in 2014. At the time, the Court of Appeal said there had been a ‘lamentable failure’. 

Raggatt, called to the bar in 1972, was suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay the BSB’s costs of £18,600 after two charges against him were found proven. He was 72 when he was sanctioned in 2022.

The High Court heard this week that the five-person tribunal originally convened to hear the disciplinary case against him eventually became a three-person tribunal when one lay person had to be excused because of other commitments. The second lay person, who heard most of the BSB’s submissions, also had to step down due to ill health. Though Raggatt sought to replace the latter panel member, the application was dismissed, the court was told.

Graeme McPherson KC, for Raggatt, read from parts of the tribunal’s transcripts. He said the chair 'completely misunderstood the role he was supposed to play in [the tribunal]’. He told the court that the chair raised questions which never formed part of the BSB’s case.

When referring to instances in the tribunal transcript where the chair posed questions to Raggatt, McPherson added: ‘A lengthy exchange takes place. We can see straight away the judge [chair] is using language of cross-examination.’

He said: ‘I simply make this observation, there are a number of authorities…and in these decisions it is made clear that leading questions should not be asked by a judge, rather if there is any question asked for clarification, it should be an open question for the purposes.’

The court heard that on the first day of closing submissions from Raggatt’s defence, the chair spoke 275 times. On the second day he spoke 320 times and on the third, 361 times while the words ‘blindingly obvious’ were used ‘repeatedly’.

McPherson, who acted for Raggatt at tribunal, said: ‘He [the chair] does not listen to the submissions that I made. The judge had made his mind up. He was not interested in anything other than his own views.’

The questions asked by others on the panel could be counted with the ‘fingers on one hand'. He added: 'The contrast with the chair is significant.’

McPherson said a year's suspension 'may not have been unfairly excessive had it been imposed in 2008' when Raggatt could rebuild his career and reputation.

Parts of the two-day hearing were held in private after the CPS said some of the original case documentation, described as ‘historical’ by Lady Justice Nicola Davies DBE, was confidential. 

When asked if he accepted there had been 'excessive intervention' by the tribunal's chair, Oliver Campbell KC, for the BSB, said: 'That is a subjective judgment for this court. Was there more than I would have expected? Yes. Did it render the hearing unfair? Ultimately I would say no. 

'It did not prevent Mr McPherson from making submissions he wanted to make, it did not prevent Mr Raggatt from giving evidence he wanted to and be explored. Even if the interventions are more than they should have been, it does not lead to the conclusion that the tribunal was closed to matters or was ignoring what Mr McPherson had to say.'

He told the court that 'elements' of Raggatt's answers to questions were 'evasive and not helpful.' He said: 'At that point the chairman intervenes and asks the question.'

The court heard the tribunal did consider Raggatt's age but 'did not accept his submissions that suspension amounts to disbarment' and that he 'may return to it [his work] after suspension.'

Judgment has been reserved.