The Appellant barrister appealed to the Visitors to the Inns of Court ("the Visitors") against the decision of the BSB's Disciplinary Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to suspend him from practice.The
The Appellant barrister appealed to the Visitors to the Inns of Court ("the Visitors") against the decision of the BSB's Disciplinary Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to suspend him from practice.
The Appellant had failed to comply with the prescribed CPD for 2009, failed to submit details of the same and had not paid the associated financial penalty of £300.
A hearing before the disciplinary tribunal was initially convened on 6 September 2011 but was adjourned until 5 October 2011. On both occasions the Appellant failed to attend or supply any medical evidence to explain his absence. The hearing of 5 October 2011 proceeded in his absence and the charges were found proved. The Appellant was suspended from practice until completion of his CPD requirements and payment of the outstanding fine was to be paid within 28 days of the appeal period expiring.
At the appeal before the Visitors it was argued on the Appellant's behalf that the sentence was severe and disproportionate in light of the Appellant's personal problems (a family bereavement and subsequent depression). The disciplinary tribunal were aware of these issues through a series of telephone attendances between the BSB and the Appellant. It was also the Appellant's case that: the Tribunal was harsh to have proceeded in his absence; that they should not have relied on his previous disciplinary history; and they should not have commented that there was a history of failing to comply with extensions, procrastination and delay.
The Visitors did not think it was wrong for the Tribunal to have proceeded in the Appellant's absence and decided, with reference to the sentencing guidelines, that the Appellant's disciplinary history (a previous failure to meet practising requirements) was relevant. It was also noted that the BSB had given seven extensions of time to the Appellant and that the evidence presented did not excuse the failures as set out in the charges.
Nevertheless, the Appeal was upheld. The Visitors considered it was wrong that the Tribunal had not taken account of the Appellant's personal mitigation (this was indicated by the Tribunal not ticking or ringing the relevant factor in the mitigation check list). Whilst the mitigation did not excuse the Appellant's conduct and did not cover the whole of the period of default, the Appellant coped with some serious personal issues which constrained him from working normally. The Visitors also noted that some of the aggravating factors should not have been taken into account or were double counted against the Appellant.
The Visitors decided that despite the number of aggravating factors, the mitigation affected the 'starting point' for the determination of the appropriate sanction. As such the appeal was allowed, the original sentence decision quashed and a new sentence imposed; the Appellant had until 1 January 2014 to comply with his CPD requirements and to pay the outstanding penalty otherwise he would be immediately suspended from practice for 3 months. There was no order as to costs save that the Appellant still needed to pay the outstanding costs order made in the October 2011 hearing.
The Appellant had failed to comply with the prescribed CPD for 2009, failed to submit details of the same and had not paid the associated financial penalty of £300.
A hearing before the disciplinary tribunal was initially convened on 6 September 2011 but was adjourned until 5 October 2011. On both occasions the Appellant failed to attend or supply any medical evidence to explain his absence. The hearing of 5 October 2011 proceeded in his absence and the charges were found proved. The Appellant was suspended from practice until completion of his CPD requirements and payment of the outstanding fine was to be paid within 28 days of the appeal period expiring.
At the appeal before the Visitors it was argued on the Appellant's behalf that the sentence was severe and disproportionate in light of the Appellant's personal problems (a family bereavement and subsequent depression). The disciplinary tribunal were aware of these issues through a series of telephone attendances between the BSB and the Appellant. It was also the Appellant's case that: the Tribunal was harsh to have proceeded in his absence; that they should not have relied on his previous disciplinary history; and they should not have commented that there was a history of failing to comply with extensions, procrastination and delay.
The Visitors did not think it was wrong for the Tribunal to have proceeded in the Appellant's absence and decided, with reference to the sentencing guidelines, that the Appellant's disciplinary history (a previous failure to meet practising requirements) was relevant. It was also noted that the BSB had given seven extensions of time to the Appellant and that the evidence presented did not excuse the failures as set out in the charges.
Nevertheless, the Appeal was upheld. The Visitors considered it was wrong that the Tribunal had not taken account of the Appellant's personal mitigation (this was indicated by the Tribunal not ticking or ringing the relevant factor in the mitigation check list). Whilst the mitigation did not excuse the Appellant's conduct and did not cover the whole of the period of default, the Appellant coped with some serious personal issues which constrained him from working normally. The Visitors also noted that some of the aggravating factors should not have been taken into account or were double counted against the Appellant.
The Visitors decided that despite the number of aggravating factors, the mitigation affected the 'starting point' for the determination of the appropriate sanction. As such the appeal was allowed, the original sentence decision quashed and a new sentence imposed; the Appellant had until 1 January 2014 to comply with his CPD requirements and to pay the outstanding penalty otherwise he would be immediately suspended from practice for 3 months. There was no order as to costs save that the Appellant still needed to pay the outstanding costs order made in the October 2011 hearing.