Dr Charlotte Proudman, a prominent barrister, has been granted the opportunity to present claims of discrimination by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) in a tribunal, following a case regarding her controversial tweets.
High-profile barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman has been allowed to assert before a disciplinary tribunal that the Bar Standards Board (BSB) discriminated against her. This follows a prosecution related to several tweets she posted, in which she criticised a judicial decision. His Honour Judge Jonathan Carroll, presiding over the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service, dismissed the BSB’s argument to concentrate solely on the tweets, allowing for broader context to be considered. However, Dr Proudman’s attempt to have the case dismissed was not successful.
Judge Carroll conducted the hearing privately despite media interest, but his ruling has been made public along with a skeleton argument by Dr Proudman’s legal representatives, Alison Padfield KC and Sophie Belgrove. The tribunal case involves nine tweets within a fourteen-part series concerning a notable case wherein Dr Proudman claimed her client was coerced into a post-nuptial agreement. The BSB contends these tweets misled and insulted Mr Justice Jonathan Cohen, with one tweet suggesting the judgment echoed a ‘boys club’ mentality among powerful men.
Dr Proudman defends her tweets as factually grounded and devoid of intentionally derogatory language. She argues having faced less favourable treatment due to her gender and feminist beliefs, noting the BSB’s failure to pursue similar critiques of judiciary figures by male barristers. Dr Proudman claims her advocacy for women’s rights was unfairly perceived as overshadowing judicial findings, affecting the judge and her client’s husband.
Judge Carroll’s decision acknowledged that the conjunction of Article 6 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits Dr Proudman to advance her discrimination argument. This ruling is significant as it underscores public interest in ensuring non-discriminatory practices in regulatory procedures and judicial decisions. He remarked that if not addressed by the tribunal, Dr Proudman would face a complex legal journey across varied tribunals, which the law should not necessitate.
Additionally, Dr Proudman alleged that the case proceedings represented an abuse of process, a claim that requires balancing public interest factors. Judge Carroll decided the case was not sufficiently developed to merit dismissal at this stage, allowing the full tribunal to deliberate on her human rights and process abuse claims. He emphasised that denying these proceedings would infringe upon her rights under Articles 6 and 14, asserting that the BSB and Bar Tribunal must uphold lawful practice by permitting comprehensive evaluation of the issues raised.
Moreover, Judge Carroll disagreed with the BSB’s claim of tribunal incompetence or undue burden concerning these issues, noting the preponderance of written evidence could facilitate proceedings. Nevertheless, he withheld from striking out the charges, indicating the necessity for a detailed factual assessment by a full tribunal panel.
The tribunal will fully explore Dr Proudman’s claims, ensuring her rights to a fair legal process are maintained while the allegations of discrimination are thoroughly examined. This case highlights significant legal and ethical questions concerning discrimination within legal oversight bodies and their procedures.
