Barristers sought permission to challenge, by way of judicial review, findings in relation to professional misconduct, and: ‘The most significant issues relate to the constitutions of the Disciplinary Tribunals convened to hear the charges against them, and of the Visitors of the Inns of Court who heard their appeals. The claimants submit that some of the members of the Disciplinary Tribunals, and of the Visitors, were not qualified to sit because the limited duration of their eligibility to sit had expired. Accordingly they were not tried by a tribunal established by law; within the meaning of Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights the Tribunal had no power to try them and the Visitors no power to uphold the findings.’
Held: The claims failed. i) When the President appointed persons to sit on Disciplinary Tribunals pursuant to regulation 2 of the 2009 Regulations, he or she was not obliged to appoint people who were current members of the COIC pool.
ii) When the Lord Chief Justice appointed persons to sit as Visitors hearing appeals from Disciplinary Tribunals pursuant to rule 12 (1) of the 2010 Rules he or she was not obliged to appoint people who were current members of the COIC pool.
iii) Alternatively, the time-expired Tribunal members or Visitors had authority under the de facto judge doctrine.
iv) The mismatch between the various regulatory documents did not reflect well on those who organised the barristers’ disciplinary scheme.
v) Miss Hayes had an arguable case based on delay. Therefore she should have permission to pursue that ground. Nevertheless, after hearing full argument, the court rejected that claim.
vi) All other grounds of challenge advanced were unarguable. Therefore the court refused permission on those grounds.
Moses LJ, Kenneth Parker J
[2013] EWHC 3097 (Admin)
Bailii
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mehey and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Visitors To The Inns of Court and Others CA 16-Dec-2014
The court was asked whether disciplinary proceedings against a number of barristers were invalid on the ground that some of the individuals who heard those proceedings or appeals therefrom were disqualified from sitting.
Held: The appeals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Human Rights
Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516544