![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Taylor v Bar Standards Board [2025] EWHC 1029 (Admin) (29 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1029.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 1029 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
STEPHEN TAYLOR | Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD | Respondent |
____________________
Mr Nicholas Bard (instructed by) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 31 October 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice McGowan DBE:
Preamble
After the hearing of this appeal on 31 October 2024, the parties were notified on 17 December 2024 that the appeal would be allowed and that the period of suspension would be lifted. On behalf of the Appellant, Mr Beaumont requested an opportunity to make short further submissions on the level of any fine to be imposed. On behalf of the Bar Standards Board Mr Bard sent short written submissions on 19 March 2025 and Mr Beaumont, with the assistance of Mr Malins KC (who did not appear at appeal), sent a further skeleton argument on 1 April 2025.
Introduction
"This Guidance has been developed by the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service ('BTAS') in collaboration with the Bar Standards Board ('BSB'), for use by members of BTAS's Disciplinary Tribunals and the Independent Decision-Making Body (IDB) of the BSB (collectively referred to as 'panels'), when considering what sanctions should be imposed where a finding of professional misconduct has been made for a breach of the BSB Handbook."
i) protecting and promoting the public interest;
ii) supporting the constitutional principles of the rule of law;
iii) improving access to justice;
iv) protecting and promoting the interests of consumers;
v) promoting competition in the provision of the services;
vi) encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession;
vii) increasing public understanding of the citizen's legal rights and duties; and
viii) promoting and maintaining adherence to the following professional principles:
a) that authorised persons act with independence and integrity;
b) that authorised persons maintain proper standards of work;
c) that authorised persons act in the best interests of their clients;
d) that authorised persons comply with their duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice; and
e) that the affairs of clients are kept confidential
Language-Taxonomy
Facts
The Hearing
a) Mr Taylor asserted that he was honest by nature and habit, that he had great remorse for what he had done, and that he had been truthful in the past, even in situations where dishonesty would have benefited him.
b) Mr Taylor asserted that he was not embarrassed about his conduct. Under questioning from the panel, he revised his formulation of that point, explaining that he was not so embarrassed by his conduct that he felt that he needed to avoid talking about it, including with colleagues.
c) When asked about the delay of approximately three months between making the untrue statement and correcting it, Mr Taylor said that he had been "burying his head in the sand".
d) He stated that he had changed his own practice, as had his chambers, to the management of confidential waste, in that it was now placed for disposal in a location that was not proximate to the storage of papers.
e) Mr Taylor had not turned his mind to what the appropriate sanction should be. However, when asked about this by the panel, he suggested that, were this a criminal matter where he was representing a client in his position, he would be asking the judge for a discharge."
Appeal
"Absent any error of law, the High Court, must pay considerable respect to the sentencing decisions of the tribunal. Nevertheless, if the High Court, despite paying such respect, is satisfied that the sentencing decision was clearly inappropriate, then the court will interfere."
Low Up to £5,000 Sufficiently serious to justify a fine
Medium £5,001-£15,000 Moderately serious
High £15,001-£50,000 Serious misconduct that does not
warrant a suspension to protect the public interest.