Jersey Unreported Judgments

Application by A for admission to the Jersey Bar.

[2012]JRC043

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 February 2012

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF A FOR ADMISSION TO THE JERSEY BAR

Advocate J. C. Gollop for the Applicant.

H. Sharp, Q.C., Solicitor General.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        The Court has been convened to consider the application of A for admission to the Jersey Bar. 

2.        Article 3(1) of the Advocates and Solicitors (Jersey) Law 1997 ("the Law") provides as follows:-

"3. Requirements for admission to the Bar

(1)       A person shall be entitled to be admitted to the Bar if:-

(a)       the person is a qualifying citizen or a qualifying national;

(b)       the person fulfils the requirements in paragraph (2) or (3); and

(c)       the Royal Court is satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to be admitted."

3.        There is no dispute that A satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).  However, in 2009, he pleaded guilty at a Crown Court in England to a charge of common assault and was sentenced to 200 hours community service and ordered to pay costs and compensation.  The issue arises therefore as to whether this Court regards him as a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Bar as required by Article 3(1)(c). 

Factual background

4.        The Court has been provided with considerable material relating to this matter.  In particular, we have seen all the material placed before the Inns' Conduct Committee of the Council of the Inns of Court ("ICC") as well as the decision of the ICC and the documents provided to the Qualifications Committee of the Bar Standards Board on appeal from the decision of the ICC. 

5.        However, the relevant factual background can be shortly stated. 

6.        A read law at a University in England.  Shortly after taking his final examinations, he was involved in an incident in June 2008 in a bar at the University at about 1:30am.  A left the bar via a staff only fire exit but was apprehended by a bar manager.  A struggle ensued during which A bit the bar manager on the right side of his face below his jaw.  Whilst there was a red mark to the bar manager's neck in that area, there were no teeth marks.  A was arrested and during interview denied causing the bar manager actual bodily harm.  After some delay, he was charged in December 2008 with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 

7.        A was initially suspended from the University but this suspension was lifted to enable his graduation to take place, as otherwise he would not have been able to take up a place which he had obtained on the Bar Vocational Course ("BVC").  He subsequently commenced the BVC in September 2008. 

8.        The matter proceeded through the courts somewhat slowly.  A indicated at a fairly early stage that he would be willing to plead guilty to common assault rather than assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but this was not accepted by the Crown Prosecution Service. 

9.        A completed the BVC in July 2009 and shortly afterwards was offered a pupillage at Chambers in London to commence in September 2010, which he accepted. 

10.      In the autumn of 2009 the CPS eventually agreed to accept a guilty plea to common assault on an agreed basis of facts and a guilty plea was entered at the Crown Court.  Shortly afterwards, A wrote to his Inn of Court informing them that he had entered a guilty plea to common assault.  In due course he was sentenced to a community order of unpaid work and ordered to pay costs and compensation, as described earlier.  He completed the community order satisfactorily. 

11.      On 8th January, 2010, the Inn referred A's application for call to the English Bar to the ICC, which heard the matter on 3rd February and gave its decision on 12th February, 2010. 

12.      The ICC expressed some concern about the fact that A had not informed his Inn about the criminal proceedings until 11th September, 2009, but concluded as follows:-

"Upon the basis of the material supplied to us before the hearing we were concerned as to why A failed to inform his Inn of the criminal proceedings at an earlier stage and we considered it necessary to investigate whether this failure may have been a deliberate manipulation of events to ensure he completed the BVC before the matter was dealt with.  However, having had the opportunity to assess A by listening to his explanation and answers to rigorous cross-examination, and in the light of the attendance note produced to us at the hearing, we are satisfied that he did not deliberately mislead his Inn.  We are satisfied that he is an honest man whose integrity has not been compromised to the extent that would prevent him from future practice at the Bar."

13.      The ICC concluded that the appropriate period which should elapse before A could be called to the English Bar was one of 3 years from the date of the assault.  In passing they said this at paragraph 15:-

"In our view there must be a significant period of time between the commission of an offence of violence and Call to the Bar to ensure that the person's Inn can be confident that the offence was out of character, that the person has had the opportunity to retrieve his good name in the intervening period, and that in that period he has conducted himself as a person of good character.  Unless there are exceptional circumstances, that period should in principle be at least three years and should be known to be at least three years in order to uphold the reputation and image of the profession.  We give no indication as to the decision in more serious cases than this, save to say that the period should be longer (or indeed it may be appropriate to direct that the Student should be expelled from the Inn)."

14.      The effect of the decision of the ICC was that A was unable to take up the pupillage referred to earlier.  On advice, he therefore appealed to the Qualification Committee but that Committee dismissed his appeal and said the following:-

"The Committee was of the view that it is particularly important for a new entrant to the profession to be able to demonstrate good character.  Where an individual has committed an act which calls into question whether he or she is a fit and proper person to become a practising barrister, it may well be appropriate to require a longer period of time in which to demonstrate good character than would be appropriate for a barrister who already has a practising history...  The Qualifications Committee concluded that the Inns' Conduct Committee had reached a conclusion which was well within the range of reasonable sanctions on the facts before it, and indeed it was a sanction with which the Qualifications Committee agreed."

15.      While the disciplinary proceedings were continuing, A returned to Jersey and has since been employed in the legal profession in Jersey. 

16.      He was duly called to the English Bar after the 3 year delay and has now passed all the necessary examinations for the Jersey Bar.  

Submissions

17.      Advocate Gollop submitted that the offence was wholly out of character.  He referred to the many references which spoke extremely highly of this young man.  It was likely that the consumption of alcohol after completing his last examination coupled with the stress he had been under at the time had contributed to his loss of control.  The offence was very much at the lower end of the scale in that it was a common assault, the victim had not required any medical attention or suffered any injury other than a reddening of the area of the bite and the victim had also been able to return to work immediately that evening.  

18.      A's conduct since then demonstrated that the incident was an isolated one and wholly out of character.  There were excellent references from the lawyers at the firms for whom he had worked as well as from many others.  Furthermore A had paid a considerable price in that he had lost the opportunity of pupillage because of the decision of the ICC. 

19.      In short Advocate Gollop submitted that the decision of the ICC was adequate punishment.  Now that the three years from the offence had elapsed, he had been called to the English Bar and it was submitted that he was also a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Jersey Bar. 

20.      The Solicitor General emphasised the importance of persons seeking admission to the Jersey Bar showing high standards of honesty and integrity.  He expressed some concern about the delay notifying the Inn of the existence of the charge but, given the fact that he had now been admitted to the English Bar and that 3 years and 8 months had elapsed since the offence, during which A had been of good character, he submitted that the Court could properly consider A to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Law notwithstanding the events which we have described. 

Decision

21.      Article 3 requires the Court to consider whether an applicant is a fit and proper person for admission to the Bar.  The Court can only fulfil this function if it is aware of the facts.  It follows that there is a high obligation on an applicant to inform the Attorney General of any previous convictions and any other matter which might reasonably be thought capable of bearing on the question of whether the applicant is fit and proper for admission.  Any failure to make full and frank disclosure would be regarded as a serious case of professional misconduct. 

22.      It is of the greatest importance to the administration of justice that members of the legal profession show the highest standards of honesty and integrity and do not behave in a manner liable to bring the profession into disrepute.  An applicant must demonstrate that he has not been in breach of these requirements. 

23.      It follows that any applicant who has shown a lack of honesty or integrity may well not be admitted.  If the ICC had concluded that A had deliberately misled his Inn so as to enable him to complete the BVC before the matter came to light, the Court might well have taken a stronger line.  However, given that a full hearing with oral evidence and cross-examination was carried out by the ICC, we are content on this occasion to accept the finding of the ICC that A did not deliberately mislead his Inn and that he is an honest man whose integrity has not been compromised to the extent that would prevent him from future practice at the Bar. 

24.      In our judgment the observations of the ICC are equally applicable in Jersey and we would summarise them as follows:-

(i)        A new entrant to the profession must be able to demonstrate good character. 

(ii)       There should be a significant period of time between the commission of an offence of violence and admission to the Jersey Bar so as to ensure that the Royal Court can be confident that the offence was out of character. 

(iii)      Unless there are exceptional circumstances, that period should in principle be at least three years and should be known to be at least three years in order to uphold the reputation and image of the profession. 

(iv)      A more serious case than the present may justify either a longer period than three years or refusal of admission, depending on the circumstances. 

25.      However, we are satisfied that this offence was wholly out of character and that A has otherwise been of good character both before and since the offence.  It is clear from the many references that he has considerable potential and has impressed those for whom he has worked.  It is also clear that he is extremely remorseful about what has occurred.  

26.      The fact that a person has been accepted as suitable for call to the English Bar does not mean that this Court will necessarily reach the same decision in respect of the Jersey Bar.  We must reach our own conclusion.  But in the circumstances, we think it would be unduly harsh to prevent A from being admitted to the Jersey Bar.  The period of 3 years 8 months which has elapsed since the offence coupled with his conduct before and after the offence is sufficient for us to conclude that he is a fit and proper person for admission to the Bar. 

Authorities

Advocates and Solicitors (Jersey) Law 1997.