The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has taken decisive action against an employed barrister, Robin Edward Jacobs, who has been jailed for raping a woman he met on Tinder. Following the failure of his legal appeal, Mr Jacobs is now prohibited from working for any law firm regulated by the SRA without explicit permission.
Jacobs, a qualified lawyer from Woodford, east London, was called to the Bar in July 2006 and had previously specialised in education law at the firm Sinclairslaw. However, his professional career took a dramatic turn when he was convicted of rape two years ago. During the trial at the Old Bailey, it was revealed that Jacobs had been engaging in consensual sex with the woman in September 2017 at his flat, before forcefully assaulting her despite her cries for him to stop.
Following the conviction, Jacobs was sentenced to four years in prison. In court, he vociferously maintained his innocence, claiming, “I didn’t do it. I was telling the truth.” Despite his assertions, the court found him guilty, and he was subsequently imprisoned.
The appeal process culminated at the end of 2023, where Jacobs argued the conviction was unsafe due to fresh psychiatric evidence regarding his autism. It was contended that this condition might have influenced his perception of consent. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal, led by Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, dismissed these arguments. Baroness Carr emphasised that the psychiatric evidence was tenuous at best and did not substantively relate to the incident’s specifics.
The Court of Appeal’s decision underscored the principle of finality in litigation, illustrating the importance of presenting compelling evidence during the original trial. Jacobs, who had previously waived privilege, had chosen not to present his expert’s testimony during the initial proceedings, opting instead to accept agreed facts about his autism. This decision was described as tactical, influenced perhaps by his understanding of legal complexities.
Baroness Carr pointed out the inconsistencies and theoretical nature of the expert opinions presented post-trial, which failed to provide a reasonable explanation for impeding the jury’s decision-making. The case serves as a stark reminder of the critical nature of evidence and the strategic decisions made in legal defence.
With the barrister now barred from practising with SRA-regulated firms, this case highlights the gravity of maintaining ethical standards within the legal profession and the judiciary’s rigorous approach to ensuring justice.
