A judge has refused to hear media objections to an application by a well-known member of the bar for anonymity during upcoming disciplinary proceedings.
The barrister is being taken to tribunal by the Bar Standards Board over allegations of sexual misconduct. It is routine that the accused is named as part of such proceedings. But the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service (BTAS) - which holds disciplinary tribunals for barristers facing charges of professional misconduct under the BSB Handbook - is due to decide at a directions hearing whether to grant the high-profile practitioner anonymity.
The effect of the pending application for anonymity is that the media are unable to name the barrister.
A judge presiding over the hearing has also refused to accept submissions from the Gazette, which opposes the granting of anonymity on the grounds of open justice. The BTAS said in a statement: ‘The directions judge will not be considering any third party applications during the upcoming directions hearing.’ It suggested the Gazette must wait to hear what decision is made on the application, which if allowed could mean the barrister is never named in relation to the allegations.
The Gazette approached the BSB but was told: ‘Such matters are normally dealt with confidentially. Should BTAS wish the BSB to give views on matters regarding the directions in a case, they will contact us. We have no other comment to make.’
These developments come at a time when confidence in bar regulation has been challenged. The Bar Council has warned the BSB that the way sexual misconduct allegations against barristers are handled is ‘likely to reduce confidence’ in the profession, pointing to cases where barristers were treated more leniently for sexual misconduct offences than for matters such as failing to renew a practising certificate.
Earlier this summer, the Bar Council announced an independent review of bullying and harassment at the bar, to be chaired by former MP Harriet Harman KC.
Oversight regulator the Legal Services Board told the Gazette: ‘The LSB cannot intervene in individual cases. As oversight regulator of the BSB (which contracts BTAS to provide tribunal services) we do not have remit to make representations or require a regulator to take steps in relation to disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Services Act 2007.’ It advised the Gazette to seek independent advice.
Open justice in courts and tribunals has become a matter of concern at the highest levels of the judiciary in recent years. A new judge-led Transparency and Open Justice Board was established this year. Lady chief justice Baroness Carr, who created the board, told the Society of Editors in March that a threat to open justice was ‘careless – sometimes inadvertent – failures to protect its ideals’.
When approached and asked to take action on the decision of the BTAS judge, a spokesperson for the Transparency and Open Justice Board said: ‘The board cannot intervene in individual cases.’
A decision on the anonymity question is expected by mid-September.
