Inner Temple: Two applications refused
Alan Blacker – the struck-off solicitor once dubbed by a judge as dressing “like something out of Harry Potter” – has failed in a challenge to a decision refusing him membership of the Bar.
An employment tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the decision of the Bar Standards Board (BSB), as he could appeal to the High Court.
Dr Blacker gained a measure of notoriety for using the title ‘Lord Harley’ and claiming a huge number of honours and achievements on his LinkedIn profile that did not stand up to scrutiny.
He was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2016 and ordered to pay £86,000 in costs, the failure to pay which led to him being made bankrupt two years later.
In 2021, he was excluded from membership of CILEX and banned from reapplying for 10 years, the maximum CILEX Regulation can impose.
A disciplinary tribunal found that, in applying for membership in 2020, Dr Blacker failed to disclose he had been struck off, made bankrupt, given a suspended sentence for benefit fraud in 2020 and removed from being a trustee or concerned with controlling a charity. He failed again to disclose this conduct in 2021 in applying for practice rights.
According to the recent decision of Employment Judge Andrew Jack in London, Dr Blacker has twice applied to become a member of Inner Temple, first in 2020 and then in 2023. On both occasions, the inn’s conduct committee decided he was not a ‘fit and proper person’.
He appealed each decision to the BSB, whose Independent Decision-making Body (IDB) upheld them.
The BSB is a qualifications body under the Equality Act 2010 and must not discriminate against a person by not conferring a relevant qualification on them.
The employment tribunal has jurisdiction in such matters unless there is an appeal route against the decision complained of.
Dr Blacker alleged direct and indirect disability discrimination, as well as a failure to make reasonable adjustments, saying that the various breaches of the Equality Act 2010 prevented the IDB from reaching fair and sound decisions.
But Judge Jack said there was a right of appeal from IDB decisions to the High Court, both in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and the BSB rules.
The ruling indicated that Dr Blacker has sought to appeal to the High Court but it was struck out on procedural grounds. That did not alter the fact that the exception applied, Judge Jack went on, meaning the employment tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
He struck Dr Blacker’s claim out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Separately, the automatic ban from being a charity trustee or manager, which was triggered by the suspended prison sentence, was due to expire last October.
The Charity Commission extended it by a further 15 years after publishing the report of its inquiry into JAFLAS (the working name of the Joint Armed Forces Legal Advocacy Service), the charity Dr Blacker had set up.
It has now been dissolved and removed from the public register of charities.
The inquiry found the trustees failed to demonstrate a clear distinction between the charity and a private company controlled by Dr Blacker and that donations made through the charity’s website went to Dr Blacker’s account. He continued to hold a “dominant” role in the charity even after the disqualification.
The inquiry was also heavily critical of the other trustees – Paul Bohill, Stephen Ashforth and Julie Ashforth – and disqualified them for 10, seven and seven years respectively from 20 November 2023.
In August 2022, the commission referred its concerns that an individual was acting as a trustee whilst disqualified to Greater Manchester Police. This is a criminal offence.
The JAFLAS website now promotes a wide range of legal services from ‘Dr Alan Blacker & Co. CIC’ – it is a registered community interest company – and ‘Petrichor Chambers’.
It says: “This organisation and its members are Recognised by The Bar Standards Board the body that regulates Barristers as a place suitable for the employment and attendance of barristers and is formally recognised as a Legal Advice Centre.”
The company claims to be “regulated by the Financial Services Authority under PERG 2.8.14 D for the management of claims against regulated bodies”. The FSA, of course, no longer exists, while that provision of the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules actually concerns exclusions from claims management regulation.
Further claims are that it is “authorised for the placing of charges on HM Land Registry” and is “licensed to help under the Government’s Money and Pensions Service including debt and insolvency advice” – neither of which appear to be real accreditations.
The business claims to act for more than 150 businesses as in-house counsel, “from airlines to aerial fitters to train companies to medical research new starts”, and have had over 11,000 clients in total.
Leave a Comment