Mehey & Ors, R (on the application of) v Visitors to the Inns of Court & Ors
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
- LADY JUSTICE SHARP
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Three barristers, Mehey, Hayes, and Russell, challenged the validity of disciplinary actions against them, citing unqualified individuals' involvement. They were unsuccessful in the judicial review and sought to appeal, along with the Bar Standards Board, which was concerned with costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the barristers' claims, upholding the Divisional Court's ruling that appointments need not be exclusively from the COIC pool and confirming the validity of proceedings under the de facto judge doctrine while denying the BSB's cost appeal.
Judgment
Lord Justice Jackson:
This judgment is in eight parts, namely:
Part 1. Introduction Paragraphs 2 to 10 Part 2. The discipline and regulation of barristers Paragraphs 11 to 24 Part 3. The facts Paragraphs 25 to 36 Part 4. The judicial review proceedings Paragraphs 37 to 44 Part 5. The proceedings in the Court of Appeal Paragraphs 45 to 49 Part 6. The main issue of principle Paragraphs 50 to 84 Part 7. The remaining issues Paragraphs 85 to 106 Part 8. Executive summary and conclusion Paragraphs 107 to 114
Part 1. Introduction
This is a group of applications for permission to appeal raising related issues. The one overarching question is whether, arguably, disciplinary proceedings against a number of barristers are invalid on the ground that some of the individuals who heard those proceedings or appeals therefrom were disqualified from sitting. Three cases are now before us. Other cases are pending which raise similar issues.
The three barristers who are seeking permission to appeal are Yash Mehey (“Mr Mehey”), Josephine Hayes (“Miss Hayes”) and Carron-Ann Russell (“Miss Russell”). I shall refer to those three applicants collectively as “the three barristers” or “the barristers”.
Each of the three barristers has brought judicial review proceedings challenging the validity of disciplinary proceedings brought against him or her. Having been unsuccessful at first instance, each of the barristers now seeks permission to appeal.
The fourth applicant for permission to appeal is the Bar Standards Board, to which I shall refer as “BSB”. The BSB is an interested party in the judicial review proceedings. The BSB is seeking permission to appeal in respect of costs.
I shall refer to the Legal Services Act 2007 as “the 2007 Act”. Under section 20 of the 2007 Act and Schedule 4 the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales (“the Bar Council”) is an approved regulator. The reserved activities in respect of which it is regulator include the exercise of a right of audience and the conduct of litigation. The Bar Council discharges its regulatory functions through the BSB, which is independent of the Bar Council.
Section 21 (1) of the 2007 Act defines “regulatory arrangements” as follows:
“(1) In this Act references to the “regulatory arrangements” of a body are to —
….
(e) its disciplinary arrangements in relation to regulated persons (including its discipline rules),
(f) its qualification Regulations.”
Section 176 of the 2007 Act provides:
“Duti