Dr Proudman gives her reaction after the tribunal’s ruling
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proven itself “unfit for purpose”, Dr Charlotte Proudman said yesterday after a disciplinary tribunal ruled she had no case to answer over tweets she sent.
The decision, on the second day of a planned four-day hearing, throws a harsh spotlight on the regulator amid the barrister’s claims that it has ignored far worse abuse about her from male barristers.
The case concerned nine tweets within a 14-part thread about a high-profile case where Dr Proudman, of Goldsmith Chambers, argued unsuccessfully that her client was coerced into signing a post-nuptial agreement by her husband.
The BSB alleged that, in explaining why she disagreed with the decision of Mr Justice Jonathan Cohen the tweets were misleading and insulting to the judge. One said: “This judgment has echoes of the ‘boys club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.”
However, the tribunal, chaired by His Honour Nicholas Ainley, upheld Dr Proudman’s right to freedom of expression, saying the tweets may not have been pleasant for a judge to read, but were “not gravely damaging” to the judiciary.
“We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that,” he said.
The three-person panel also rejected the argument that the tweets were misleading and thus amounted to a lack of integrity. Her thread had linked to the actual ruling and she had not misquoted the judge – her comments were therefore matters of opinion.
A full ruling will be published a due course and there will be a hearing over costs.
During the hearing, the BSB sought to distinguish Dr Proudman’s tweets from those of male barristers criticising judges on the basis that, unlike in her case, they were not acting in those matters.
Dr Proudman described the decision as “a turning point for both women’s rights and a barrister’s freedom to speak out against domestic abuse”.
She continued: “It is a wake-up call: misogyny within the legal profession must be eradicated, and the right to challenge harmful systemic attitudes towards domestic abuse must be allowed.
“The BSB has proven itself unfit for purpose. In my view, the BSB’s case against me is a clear case of sex discrimination. While the BSB argued that I do not have the right to criticise a domestic abuse judgment, male barristers are free to call a senior judge an ‘idiot’, ‘stupid’ and should be ‘sacked’.
“Even more disturbing is the gendered violence from male barristers who have been allowed by my regulator to publicly call me a ‘cunt’, an ‘insufferable wanker’, threaten me with being ‘taken down’, mock my appearance and my name, dismiss my PhD, claim that I can’t wait to get married and tell me I belong in a ‘padded room’.
“One of these barristers is now a full-time criminal judge who hears rape and domestic abuse cases.
“Despite all I have endured, I would be willing to work with the BSB to promote change, but under the current leadership, that is simply not possible.”
The self-proclaimed feminist barrister recounted that the BSB had also accused her of being ‘gender-critical’ and investigated her over the phrase “these male lawyers”, claiming it was gender-based derogatory language.
“The BSB have no understanding of gender inequality and no amount of in-house diversity reports can change that.”
Dr Proudman said the BSB “reached an all-time low during these proceedings, by scouring my X account and using my reclaiming of the word ‘cunt’ as evidence against me”.
She explained: “They absurdly implied my use of the word is equivalent to a male barrister using it to demean me. This is further evidence of their complete failure to grasp the dynamics of gender-based abuse and feminism.
“They also trivialised the misogyny I faced by suggesting it wasn’t serious because the slurs were used only once or twice. Shockingly, they suggested that regulating the use of the word ‘cunt’ would be too difficult given its frequent use by barristers on social media.”
Her solicitor, Manveet Chinna, commented: “This prosecution has not only threatened Dr Proudman’s livelihood but has also had a chilling effect on the vulnerable women who rely on her fearless advocacy. It is a matter of public concern that nearly £40,000 – funded in part through public money earned by barristers via legal aid – was wasted on this prosecution.”
One of her barristers, Monica Feria-Tinta of Twenty Essex, said: “The decision by the tribunal today is historic. It is an acknowledgement that value judgments by barristers on the functioning of justice is protected speech. The tribunal recognised that the treatment of women in English courts is a matter of public interest.”
Her other barrister, Mark McDonald of Furnival Chambers, added: “The BSB should never have brought this case. It is clear that Dr Proudman was legally entitled to send the tweets…
“This should be a wake-up call to the BSB and I hope in the future that instead of attempting to prosecute her, they recognise and thank her for the great work she has done for equality in the past 15 years.”
The BSB declined to comment.
On the first day of the hearing, a group of protestors came out in support of Dr Proudman, carrying banners such as ‘Double Standards Board’.
Leave a Comment