Barbara Mary Hewson v Bar Standards Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Pepperall |
| Judgment Date | 08 January 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 28 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: CO/156/2020 & CO/4293/2020 |
| Date | 08 January 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 28 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Pepperall
Case Nos: CO/156/2020 & CO/4293/2020
Elliot Gold (instructed by 3D Solicitors Ltd) for the Appellant
James Stuart (instructed by the Bar Standards Board) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 7 January 2021
Approved judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Barbara Hewson was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of Middle Temple in 1985 and practised as a barrister for many years. On 18 December 2019, a disciplinary tribunal chaired by His Honour Alan Greenwood suspended Ms Hewson from practice for a period of two years following her admission of two charges of conduct that was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public placed in both her and the profession, contrary to Core Duty 5 of the Bar's Code of Conduct. She now appeals against her suspension.
In August 2020, Ms Hewson was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer that had spread to her liver. She underwent chemotherapy in the autumn but her condition deteriorated significantly between Christmas and the New Year. She is now receiving palliative care in a hospice in Galway and tragically the latest medical update is that she is not expected to live beyond the weekend. In view of Ms Hewson's rapid deterioration and very short life expectancy, an urgent request for expedition was referred to me as the immediates judge on 6 January 2021. I ordered an expedited hearing on 7 January 2021. In view of the real possibility that Ms Hewson might not live to hear the result of a reserved judgment, I announced that this appeal would be allowed and Ms Hewson's period of suspension be reduced to one year at the conclusion of the argument on 7 January. This judgment sets out my reasons for allowing her appeal.
Before turning to the appeal, I should like to pay tribute to counsel and their instructing solicitors. Elliot Gold and his instructing solicitors, 3D Solicitors Limited, appear for Ms Hewson pro bono. As soon as the Bar Standards Board and its counsel, James Stuart, were notified of the significant deterioration in Ms Hewson's medical condition, they dropped everything in order to co-operate in getting this matter listed before her death. Further, I commend both the Bar Standards Board and Mr Stuart for eschewing technical objections in order to ensure that the court could determine Ms Hewson's appeal upon its merits.
THE DISCIPLINARY CASE
The disciplinary charges admitted by Ms Hewson concerned her conduct in publishing a series of grossly offensive tweets. Most were directed at a female barrister practising in family law who I shall identify only as C:
4.1 On 7 February 2017, Ms Hewson tweeted:
a) “As part of [C's] dishonest lies, she pretends I pose a threat to her 11yo child. This woman is a fantastic liar and manipulator.”
b) “[C] is a manipulative, toxic, crazy person. This is how women in the family courts now operate. She needs a BIG health warning!”
4.2 On 11 February 2017, she tweeted:
a) “Think I will put [C's] BSB complaint online. It is embarrassing. Dishonest, malicious gossip (anonymous) drivel about herself.”
b) “Barrister [C] of @[C's chambers] likes threatening via social media – sociopathic bunny boiler! @[H] report me @barstandards.”
c) Responding to a tweet from C, Ms Hewson tweeted: “[C]. NASTY CUNT. HERE IS PROOF.”
d) “It's deeply sad: I have not yet had another blizzard of insane claims from lunatic liar @[C] of @[C's Chambers] making stuff up!”
e) “@[C's Chambers] your lunatic tenant @[C] wants to stop me tweeting you. Why? because she is a nut job?”
f) “Barrister @C of @[C's Chambers] is a person who issues threat on social media – groomed by [R] …”
4.3 On 5 July 2017, Ms Hewson referred to Dr Vanessa Davies, the Director General of the Bar Standards Board in a further offensive tweet: “@[C]. Blame C*nty Vanessa Davies of BSB. She says it's all open. *=u.”
In late 2017, Ms Hewson was given an administrative warning by the Bar Standards Board in respect of her online behaviour. Notwithstanding such warning, her conduct lapsed again in 2018:
5.1 On 22 January 2018, Ms Hewson tweeted:
a) “[C] regularly tweets an anti-Semitic Twitter troll in Germany obsessed with anal rape and anal tears in young boys who have (allegedly) been anally raped, as well as tweeting disgusting claims about a boy prostitute fellating a ruptured anus. What is wrong with [C]?”
b) “*Correction. It was a prolapsed anus. #[C] hangs out with paedo-porn merchant in Germany and the UK #SRA enforcer … Awkward, m'dear, especially as you met #ToxicNick whacko in [city]. Another crackpot sex obsessive. How does [s/he] collect them?”
5.2 On 22 March 2018, Ms Hewson tweeted: “@barstandards – you have been obsequiously appeasing foreign anti-Semitic #trolls for upwards of three years now – what's wrong with your Board, exactly? Closet Icke fans? Closet Corbynites? Or just terminally stupid?”
5.3 On 18 September 2018, Ms Hewson tweeted:
a) “Is [B] sheltering Nick in [address]? I do hope not. She has a 12yo daughter after all – but never mind! He can babysit, while she goes out in the town ….+Purrfect.”
b) “[C] of [C's Chambers] is the cheer-leader for a visious (sic) German anti-Semite – but OF COURSE she (her chambers) don't care about his anto-Semitism (sic) cos … well cos she is as nasty, obsessional and sociopathic as he is. In a nutshell. Her chambers don't care!”
The tribunal found that the tweets were very disparaging of another barrister, her chambers, Dr Davies and the Bar Standards Board itself. Further, the tribunal took a particularly serious view of the references to C's daughter. Such conduct, it held, would be liable to cause fear in both the mother and child. In addition, Ms Hewson posted a blog in which she went into great detail about C's daughter. This was, the tribunal found, an intrusion into C's private life and liable to cause her fear as a mother.
Against this conduct, the tribunal received many references from eminent practitioners. It observed:
“They do great credit to [Ms Hewson]. [She] is of great ability and great dedication. She is very able and she had, and has, talent. She is outstanding in terms of academic ability and had dedication to the task of being a barrister when she was practising. She might well have scaled the heights of the profession had it not been for her misconduct outside her practice.
There is no criticism of her conduct in court.”
The tribunal took into account such matters and other mitigation but observed that it was bound to take a serious view of the case. It determined that disbarment would be too harsh but that Ms Hewson should be suspended from practice for a period of two years. It added that it might well have considered a period of suspension of three years but for her admissions and the mitigation in the case.
THE FIRST APPEAL
On 14 January 2020, Ms Hewson filed an appellant's notice by which she sought to argue that the suspension was manifestly excessive in that it did not take into account her age or the fact that she had already not practised for nearly three years at the time of her suspension. Such appeal was rightly abandoned and, on 27 February 2020, the parties signed a draft consent order recording the dismissal of Ms Hewson's appeal with no order as to costs. The order was subsequently made in those terms on 3 March 2020.
THE SECOND APPEAL
On 19 November 2020, Ms Hewson again filed an appellant's notice together with applications to appeal out of time and to rely on fresh evidence as to her terminal illness. The new appeal took a single point, namely that evidence of her terminal illness would have caused the tribunal to impose a shorter period of disqualification so as to permit Ms Hewson to die as a full member of the Bar.
THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES
THE PROBLEM OF THE FIRST APPEAL
Parties cannot ordinarily bring a second appeal after the first has been abandoned or dismissed. There is limited jurisdiction to consider a second appeal pursuant to rules 52.30 and 3.1(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, but the authorities make plain that such applications are exceptional.
Rule 52.30
Rule 52.30 provides:
“The Court of Appeal or the High Court will not reopen a final determination of any appeal unless—
(a) it is necessary to do so in order to avoid real injustice;
(b) the circumstances are exceptional and make it appropriate to reopen the appeal; and
(c) there is no alternative effective remedy.”
The current rule's predecessor was introduced following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Taylor v. Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90, [2003] 2 Q.B. 528. The circumstances of the case are instructive. The trial judge disclosed that the claimants' solicitors had drafted his will. No objection was taken and the trial proceeded. The defendants, who lost at trial, appealed on the basis of apparent bias because of the judge's relationship with the claimants' solicitors. It was then disclosed that the judge and his wife had used the services of the solicitors the night before he gave judgment in order to amend their wills. The appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, it emerged that the judge had not paid for the services provided by the solicitors. In giving the judgment of the court, Lord Woolf CJ identified, at [26], that the Court of Appeal was established with two principal objectives:
“The first is a private objective of correcting wrong decisions so as to ensure justice between the litigants involved. The second is a public objective, to ensure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zeeshan Mian v Bar Standards Board (BSB)
...regulating the Bar than the Courts ( General Medical Council v Bawa-Garba [2019] 1 WLR 1929 at §67 and Hewson v Bar Standards Board [2021] EWHC 28 (Admin) at §32), although the spectrum of respect may depend on what is in issue ( EI Dupont de Nemours & Co v ST Dupont [2003] EWCA Civ 1368......