Zeeshan Mian v Bar Standards Board (BSB)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Thornton DBE,Mrs Justice Thornton |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1249 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2478/2022 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2023] EWHC 1249 (Admin)
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Thornton DBE
Case No: CO/2478/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Appellant appeared in person
Mr Mathieson (instructed by the Bar Standards Board) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 25 th April
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:00am on 24 th May 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Thornton DBE
The Hon.
Introduction
This is a statutory appeal, pursuant to section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The Appellant (Mr Mian) is a former solicitor who transferred to become a barrister. He appeals against a unanimous decision of a Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court (“the Tribunal”) on 16 June 2022 in relation to twelve charges of professional misconduct.
The professional misconduct relates to the Appellant's failure to notify Lincoln's Inn or the specialist regulator of barristers in England and Wales, the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”), that he was the subject of investigation and then disciplinary charges by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“SDT”) from 2015 – 2020.
The twelve charges of professional misconduct were found proved, including a finding of dishonesty in relation to three of the charges. By way of sanction, the Tribunal disbarred the Appellant. He appeals, as of right, against the finding of guilt and the sanction imposed.
Factual Background
Chronology
In its decision, the Tribunal said the chronology of events was important. I set out a brief chronology as follows.
In 2007, the Appellant was admitted as a solicitor, becoming the Director of Denning Solicitors. On 23 February 2015, he was informed by the SRA that it had received a report about his firm employing a disqualified barrister, asking whether the allegation was accepted and raising queries about the barrister in question. On 15 December 2015, he received a letter from the SRA informing him that it was starting a formal investigation into several matters and seeking his response to the allegations (in his capacity of Director of the firm). The letter stated that the Appellant's reply might be used by the SRA for regulatory purposes, including as evidence in any investigation and or decision by the SRA and in disciplinary proceedings before the SDT. The letter went on to say that “If it is decided that an application should be made to the SDT such a decision may be made without further reference to you. We would of course formally notify you if such a decision were made”.
On 17 February 2016, he applied for admission to the Bar as a Solicitor. His application was accompanied by a Certificate of Good Standing issued by the SRA, dated 23 November 2015, after the initial contact from the SRA in February 2015 but before the letter of December 2015 informing the Appellant of the formal investigation.
On 7 April 2016, a case officer at the SRA emailed the Appellant to say, “I am currently considering imposing conditions on your Practising Certificate and I will seek to forward my report to you soon”. The Appellant responded by email saying, “I am disappointed to note that you are proposing to impose conditions on my practice certificate….”.
On 15 April 2016, the Bar Standards Board approved his application for transfer to the Bar on the basis he had the necessary education and qualifications to be admitted to an Inn of Court and to be called to Bar, but informing him that the Inns of Court had further admission procedures.
On 4 May 2016, the Appellant signed two declarations. The first was in relation to his application for admission to Lincoln's Inn as to which he signed to say that the following statements were correct:
‘I have never been convicted of a disciplinary offence by a professional or regulatory body nor are there any disciplinary proceedings pending against me anywhere in respect of any such offence.’ (paragraph 2(b))
Except as disclosed below, I am not aware of any matter which might reasonably be thought to call into question my fitness to become a practising barrister. 10’ (paragraph 3)
The footnote at the end of the sentence in paragraph 3 states as follows:
‘10 This includes any incident or behaviour which if known to the Inn might cause your application to be considered more carefully. If in doubt, disclose the incident/behaviour. Two examples are given by way of illustrating but not as limitations on disclosure:
a. Receipt of a police caution
b. A Court injunction or Anti-Social Behaviour Order restricting your conduct.’
Other paragraphs (signed) in the declaration provide as follows:
‘6. I undertake that I will inform the Inn immediately if any statement made in this Declaration ceases to be true before I have been admitted to the Inn and while I am an applicant for admission to the Inn.
7. I undertake that while I am a Student member of the Inn:-
……
(c) I will promptly inform the Under Treasurer (or Sub-Treasurer) of the Inn in writing if:
…….
(ii) there are disciplinary proceedings pending against me……’.
At page 3 of the declaration the following is said:
‘If …… there is any other matter which might reasonably be thought to call into question your fitness to become a practicing barrister, please give details in the box below – use a continuation sheet if necessary and attached supporting documents …..’.
On the same day, the Appellant signed a second declaration, in relation to his call to the Bar, which provide as follows:
‘1. I confirm that the declaration which I made for the purpose of obtaining admission to this Inn was true in every respect when I made it.
2. Since I made that admission declaration:
(a) I have not been convicted of a disciplinary offence by a professional or regulatory body (nor been the subject of any pending proceedings for such an offence);
……
4. Except as disclosed below, I am not aware of any circumstance which has occurred while I have been a Student member of the Inn which might reasonably be thought to call into question my fitness to become a practising barrister. 9’
The footnote at the end of paragraph 4 was in the same terms as the footnote in the Admission declaration, as to which see paragraph 10 above.
The front pages of the application for call to the Bar contains a statement at the bottom of the form saying, “Please notify the Inn if any change of address or circumstance takes place after you have completed this form”. Other paragraphs in the declaration provides as follows:
‘If you delete any of the statements in paragraphs 1 to 3 above or there is any other circumstance has occurred while you have been a Student which might reasonably be thought to call into question your fitness to become a practising barrister, please give details in the box below …
……
I understand that if this declaration is found to have been false in any material respect, or if I breach any undertaking given in it in any material respect, then that will constitute professional misconduct.’
On 20 May 2016, the case officer from the SRA emailed a report to the Appellant recommending the imposition of conditions on his practising certificate and seeking his views by close of business on 6 June 2016.
On 23 May 2016, the Appellant was admitted as a student member of Lincoln's Inn.
On 5 September 2016, the SRA informed the Appellant by email of its decision to impose conditions on his practising certificate as a solicitor. The Appellant appealed but the decision was upheld on 2 November 2016.
On 24 November 2016, the Appellant was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn.
From 10 March – 4 May 2017, the Appellant practised as an employed barrister, before registering as a third six pupil.
On 27 March 2018, the Appellant was referred by the SRA to the SDT who heard his case in late 2019 before imposing conditions on his practice and a fine.
Subsequently, the BSB laid the charges of professional misconduct against him which feature in this appeal and which led to the hearing before the Tribunal on 16 June 2022 where the Appellant was disbarred.
The Bar Code of Conduct
The conduct in issue in this appeal is said to be contrary to the Code of Conduct for the Bar of England and Wales, in particular Core Duties 3, 5 and 9 and the accompanying rules which supplement the core duties. The relevant core duties provide that:
• You must act with honesty and with integrity (Core Duty 3).
• You must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession (Core Duty 5).
• You must be open and co-operative with your regulators (Core Duty 9).
The relevant rules provide that:
• “Where it is alleged that the call declaration made by a barrister on call is false in any material respect or that the barrister has engaged before call in conduct which is dishonest or otherwise discreditable to a barrister and which was not, before call, fairly disclosed in writing to the Benchers of the Inn calling him …that shall be treated as an allegation of a breach of this Handbook and will be subject to the provisions in Part 5.” [rQ117]
• “You must not do anything which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine your honesty, integrity (CD3) and independence (CD4).” [rC8]
• “You must report promptly to the Bar Standards Board if …you (or an entity of which you are a manger) to your knowledge are the subject of any disciplinary or other regulatory or enforcement by another Approved Regulator...
To continue reading
Request your trial