A barrister who accused a judge of the ‘minimisation of domestic abuse’ has succeeded in striking out a professional misconduct case against her.
Throwing out the Bar Standards Board’s case against family barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman, the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service panel ruled that, although her comments may have been ‘hurtful’, the judiciary is ‘far more robust’ than to have been gravely damaged by her criticisms.
Proudman had appeared as junior counsel before judge Sir Jonathan Cohen in a case where her client alleged she had been coerced into signing a post-nuptial agreement by her husband. The barrister, of Goldsmith Chambers, lost the case and commented on the judgment in a series of 14 tweets: ‘I do not accept the judge’s reasoning. I will never accept the minimization of domestic abuse’, she wrote.
‘Demeaning the significance of domestic abuse has the effect of silencing victims and rendering perpetrators invisible. This judgment has echoes of he “boys club” which still exists among men in powerful positions.’
Proudman proceeded to provide a factual summary of the judgment, handed down on 31 March 2022, with comments on the judge’s reasoning being ‘a misogynistic tale as old as time’ and putting ‘women’s rights & the protection of believing survivors back years’.
The Bar Standards Board pursued five charges of professional misconduct against Proudman at a disciplinary tribunal, three of which alleged she had ‘inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge’ and two on the basis that the barrister’s posts ‘were without a sound factual basis and contained seriously offensive, derogatory language which was designed to demean and/or insult the judge’.
But a three-person panel chaired by His Honour Judge Nicholas Ainley stuck out all five charges at a hearing today.
Regarding the three charges about inaccuracy, Ainley said the judge’s decision - which Proudman had commented on - described how the husband in the family case had engaged in ‘reckless violence’ in which he had thrown books and a shoe which had hit his wife.
Ainley said of Proudman’s summary of the judge’s decision: ’In our judgement what was in the tweet comes very close to what the judge was actually finding. The tweets, in so far as they are factually incorrect at all, are so only to a minor degree, not to the text necessary to find a charge of lack of integrity’.
In her defence against the final two charges, Proudman was able to rely on her Article 10 right to freedom of expression because she was discussing domestic abuse, ‘a matter of public interest’, Ainley said.
Although freedom of expression could be curtailed if necessary to protect the judiciary from ‘gravely damaging attacks which are essentially unfounded’ - particularly as judges are conventionally unable to respond to criticism - the panel concluded Proudman’s tweets were not capable of being construed as such.
‘We do not condone [the tweets],’ Ainley said. ‘That is not our function. Our function is to decide whether it has been established by the Bar Standards Board that she has lost her Article 10 protection. We do not consider she has.
‘These tweets will not have been pleasant for any judge to read. No-one would enjoy getting comments like that when they have done their professional best in a difficult situation. They may even be thought to be hurtful. But they are not gravely damaging to the judiciary. We take the view the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that’, Ainley concluded.
The charges were all dismissed and an application for costs will be heard at a later stage.
