A disciplinary tribunal has sharply criticised the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for its handling of a prosecution against a barrister who presented clear medical evidence explaining her difficulty in staying awake during an online inquest.
Ramya Nagesh, a barrister called in 2008 and practising from Gray’s Inn Square, faced allegations from the BSB after she struggled to participate actively in an inquest at Pontypridd Coroner’s Court. During the lunch break, Ms. Nagesh had fallen asleep due to an undiagnosed medical condition characterised by excessive sleepiness, as confirmed by medical reports from Dr. Neil Munro, a consultant neurologist.
The tribunal, led by Her Honour Janet Waddicor, dismissed all charges of misconduct against Ms. Nagesh, emphasising that the BSB should have reconsidered their case once medical evidence was provided. The tribunal found Ms. Nagesh to be “a completely reliable, honest and credible witness,” and criticised the BSB for not reflecting carefully whether they should have pursued the case further.
Ms. Nagesh’s situation was compounded by the fact that, during the time of the inquest, she was under considerable personal stress, being close to her wedding and having recently given birth. Despite these challenges, the tribunal concluded that she conducted herself beyond reproach.
Dr. Munro’s evidence indicated that Ms. Nagesh was unlikely to have been fully asleep but was in a state of partial sleep, affecting her cognition and participation. Nevertheless, the tribunal noted the incident of her being late after the unusual lunch break was not misconduct and that in a physical courtroom, her struggles may have been noticed and addressed effectively.
The tribunal expressed concern about the BSB’s approach, noting that the regulator did not seek its own medical expert or thoroughly verify the transcript of events. It regretted that Ms. Nagesh, who has an impeccable record and is respected for her integrity, faced serious professional misconduct charges unnecessarily.
The tribunal’s ruling highlights significant concerns about the Bar Standards Board’s prosecutorial discretion, advocating for a more measured and evidence-based approach in future cases.
