Rehman v Bar Standards Board; R (on the application of Rehman) v Bar Standards Board and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Hickinbottom |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1199 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos CO/1860/2015, CO/2454/2015, CO/983/2016 & CO/1398/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 25 May 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1199 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Hickinbottom
Case Nos CO/1860/2015, CO/2454/2015, CO/983/2016 & CO/1398/2016
The Queen on the application of
The Appellant/Claimant did not appear and was not represented.
James Counsell (instructed by The Bar Standards Board in respect of Claim No CO/1860/2015)
Alison Padfield and Lucinda Harris (instructed by The Bar Standards Board in respect of Claim No CO/2454/2015)
The other parties did not appear and were not represented.
Introduction
Tariq Rehman ("Mr Rehman") was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn on 9 March 2000.
Since 2010, his professional conduct has been the subject of a number of complaints. Some of these have been investigated by the Legal Ombudsman ("the LeO"), to which I shall return in due course. Others have been investigated by the Bar Standards Board ("the BSB") and then prosecuted by them before panels of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court ("the Disciplinary Tribunal"). In each prosecution, he has been found guilty of at least some of the charges brought.
By section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, there is a statutory appeal, as of right, from the Disciplinary Tribunal to this court; and Mr Rehman has instigated four such appeals against convictions by the Disciplinary Tribunal, which I have recently been case managing. The four appeals are as follows.
Claim No CO/4920/2014
This is an appeal against the decision of a Disciplinary Tribunal panel (His Honour Michael Baker QC chairing) on 3 October 2014. The tribunal found Mr Rehman guilty of one count of professional misconduct, namely that, contrary to paragraphs 301(a)(3) and 901.7 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales ("the Bar Code of Conduct"), he alleged that a solicitor had forged a date on a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act without reasonably credible material that prima facie established fraud. In terms of sentence, the tribunal imposed a two-month suspension from practice; but that suspension has itself been suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.
The appeal was set down for hearing on 18 April 2016 – when Mr Rehman attended – but I adjourned the hearing that day because a transcript of the proceedings before the tribunal was not available. Cranston J had previously directed that the transcript be requisitioned at public expense as he considered that, without it, the appeal could not be determined fairly and justly. The adjourned hearing has been set down before me on 27 July 2016.
Claim No CO/1860/2015
This is an appeal against the decision of a Disciplinary Tribunal panel (David Hunt QC chairing) on 14 April 2014. The panel found the Appellant guilty of three charges, each in the same form, namely that, contrary to paragraph 406.1 and 901.5 of the Bar Code of Conduct, he received monies for work done by another barrister and failed to pay that money to the barrister forthwith. The tribunal imposed a sanction of two months' suspension in respect of each breach to run concurrently with each other, but consecutive to the suspension imposed earlier. However, that sanction was again suspended pending the outcome of the appeal against conviction.
The appeal was set down for hearing on 22 April 2016. Mr Rehman made an application to adjourn it at the hearing on 18 April, to which I have already referred, which I refused. I also refused to accede to a request, made late on the afternoon of 21 April, that the court adjourn the hearing of its own motion on the grounds of Mr Rehman's ill-health, giving a separate judgment on 22 April as to my reasons for doing so ( [2016] EWHC 1229 (Admin)). I need not repeat those reasons here.
The appeal hearing on 22 April thus went ahead. However, on 18 April, I indicated I would not give judgment in respect of the appeal at that hearing because Mr Rehman submitted that, although not expressly raised as grounds of appeal, the grounds of challenge in the judicial review brought under Claim No CO/1398/2016, if successful, would undermine the integrity of all the disciplinary convictions found against him. Therefore, on 22 April, having heard submissions on behalf of the BSB, I reserved judgment until I had dealt with at least the application for permission to proceed with the judicial review, which was set down for hearing on 10 May 2016.
Claim No CO/2454/2015
This is an appeal against the determination of a Disciplinary Tribunal panel (Her Honour Suzanne Coates chairing) in May 2015. The tribunal found Mr Rehman guilty of eleven charges of misconduct, the particulars of which varied but which all concerned the administration of Kings Court Chambers, Birmingham, of which he was then joint head. The tribunal has not yet dealt with sanction in relation to those breaches. It has adjourned consideration of sanction pending the determination of Mr Rehman's appeals in respect of the earlier tribunal decisions.
The appeal against conviction was set down for hearing before me on 10 May 2016, together with Mr Rehman's applications to proceed in the two judicial reviews, referred to below. On the afternoon before the hearing, Mr Rehman sent an email requesting that the court adjourn the hearing of its own motion on the same grounds of his ill-health, and upon the same evidence as that upon which he relied to adjourn the 22 April hearing. I again refused to adjourn the hearing, and again gave a separate judgment on 10 May with my reasons for doing so ( [2016] EWHC 1228 (Admin)).
Claim No CO/1262/2016
This is an appeal against the decision of Disciplinary Tribunal panel (His Honour Philip Curl presiding) on 25 February 2016. The Panel found two charges against the Appellant proved.
On 27 April, I gave directions intended to ensure that the appeal will be ready for hearing before the end of this term. It too has now been set down for hearing before me on 27 July 2016.
Claim Nos CO/983/2016 and CO/1398/2016
In these two claims, Mr Rehman seeks judicial review against a substantial number of defendants and interested parties, in respect of a large number of decisions, on wide and overlapping grounds.
Claim No CO/983/2016 is focused upon the LeO in respect of a number of decisions made in relation to complaints made to him about Mr Rehman, but also involving 15 other Defendants and five Interested Parties (listed in Appendix A to this judgment).
In Claim No CO/1398/2016, Mr Rehman makes claims against the BSB and Disciplinary Tribunal, but also 33 other Defendants and seven Interested Parties (listed in Appendix B). Mr Rehman identifies 73 discrete decisions which he challenges, almost all on the basis that the various defendants have acted under the dictation of, or in collusion with, other defendants abusively to investigate and prosecute disciplinary proceedings against him. The decisions identified are, in effect, mere examples; because he asserts that there are systemic failures, which mean that any and all decisions of the tribunal – and, certainly, any and all decisions that relate to his professional conduct – are inevitably tainted and unlawful.
As there is substantial overlap between the assertions made in this judicial review claim and the grounds of appeal in Claim No CO/2454/2015, on 18 April I directed that the application for permission to proceed be set down for oral hearing at the same time as the hearing in that appeal, on 10 May 2016. As I have described, Mr Rehman sought to adjourn that hearing, but I proceeded with it. In the event, although some of the Defendants had lodged summary grounds of opposition, none of the Defendants or Interested Parties attended the hearing of Mr Rehman's application for permission to proceed. That, of course, is not unusual: parties other than the judicial review applicant have no right to be heard at such a hearing, which is primarily a matter as between the applicant and the court.
Therefore, on 22 April, I heard Mr Rehman's appeal against his conviction in Claim No CO/1860/2015; and, on 10 May, I heard his appeal in Claim No CO/2454/2015, and his applications for permission to proceed in Claim Nos CO/983/2016 and CO/1398/2016, all in his absence. This is the reserved judgment from those hearings.
The Regulatory Scheme
The history of the regulation of barristers, as relevant to the matters now before me, was helpfully set out by Jackson LJ in R (Mehey) v Visitors to the Inns of Court [2014] EWCA Civ 1360 at [11]–[18].
"11. From the thirteenth century onwards the judges of the King's courts determined who was entitled to appear before them as advocates. At an early date it became the normal practice of the judges to grant rights of audience to persons who had been called to the Bar by one of the Inns of Court. By the mid-seventeenth century that practice had become invariable. Every person called to the Bar by one of the Inns of Court was entitled to practise in the courts. Accordingly it was the function of the Masters of the Bench ('benchers') of each Inn to determine (a) who was fit to be called to the Bar and (b) who should be disbarred, alternatively temporarily suspended from practising, by reason of misconduct. The benchers of each Inn exercised these powers on behalf of and with the consent of the judges….
12. These arrangements remained in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Connor v Bar Standards Board
...See section 24(1) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which came into force on 7 January 2014; Tariq Rehman v The Bar Standards Board [2016] EWHC 1199 (Admin), at para 22, Hickinbottom J.) On 17 August 2012 her appeal was allowed. The Visitors found that none of the conduct alleged against the......
-
Tariq Rehman v The Bar Standards Board
...CO/983/2016 and CO/1398/2016), declaring both claims to be totally without merit. The judgment of 25 May 2016 is now reported as [2016] EWHC 1199 (Admin). 9 In that judgment at paragraphs 54–62, by way of background, I set out the history of three so-called "frauds", in which a Ms Anal She......
-
The Bar Standards Board v Lincoln Crawford
...v Visitors to the Inns of Court [2014] EWCA Civ 1360 at [11]–[18], as brought up to date by me in Rehman v Bar Standards Board [2016] EWHC 1199 (Admin) at [18] and following. It is unnecessary to rehearse that again. 30 Suffice it to say that the BSB has no separate legal entity, being the ......
-
Joseph Sykes v Bar Standards Board
...vary or take into account such decision, as in its absolute discretion it feels appropriate.” 7 In Rehman v Bar Standards Board [2016] EWHC 1199 (Admin), an appeal against the decision of a Disciplinary Tribunal panel, Hickinbottom J (as he then was) set out at paragraphs 18–25 the regulato......