The Bar disciplinary tribunal is currently under intense scrutiny due to its secretive nature, particularly highlighted by two significant cases that challenge the usual practices of privacy within these hearings.
In one high-profile case, Jo Sidhu KC, a former chair of the Criminal Bar Association, faces serious allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards at least four women, which he firmly denies. Initially seeking anonymity, his request for a private tribunal hearing has now been overshadowed as media involvement was thwarted by refusals for arguments against his anonymity to be heard.
Concurrently, Dr Charlotte Proudman, a barrister known for her feminist advocacies, is embroiled in a separate legal proceeding where she faces disciplinary actions following her outspoken criticism of Sir Jonathan Cohen’s judgment in a family case through tweets. Dr Proudman is challenging the prosecution on grounds of discrimination, claiming a disparity in how the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has addressed online abuse against her as opposed to her own statements. Her attempt to make these directions hearings public was rebuffed, citing the privacy rights of male barristers referenced in her communications.
Louise Tickle, a journalist advocating for transparency in the family courts, has criticised the existing protocol where media entities are effectively silenced from arguing for greater openness in such cases. HHJ Jonathan Carroll supported this stance in Proudman’s hearing, emphasising the necessity to protect privacy rights over public disclosure interests. This decision further compounds the ongoing debate regarding the balance between transparency and confidentiality in tribunal processes.
The Bar Standards Board maintains that tribunal hearings should generally be publicly accessible to ensure confidence from both the profession and the general public. Nevertheless, it acknowledges the independent authority of the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service in steering tribunal conduct, particularly in directions hearings which, unlike substantive hearings, are typically private and thus reliant on the directions judge’s discretion.
While these cases spotlight the challenges surrounding tribunal secrecy, they also invoke the broader legal community’s discussions about reforms and the evolution of disciplinary measures that align with both professional ethics and public accountability.
These ongoing cases illustrate the challenging dynamics and differing perspectives on privacy versus openness within the Bar disciplinary tribunal system, emphasising the need for a careful reassessment of existing practices.
