Sharp: Public ruling marks court disapproval
The High Court has referred a barrister to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for launching a judicial review (JR) which was “abusive and bound to fail” on behalf of a client facing extradition.
However, the court decided, in a separate case heard with the first, against referring a solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and barrister to the BSB for failures which were “the result of careless errors rather than recklessness or any attempt to mislead the court”.
Both cases were referred to the High Court under the Hamid jurisdiction, employing its inherent jurisdiction to require lawyers to explain their actions in cases where a judge has concluded that they may have acted improperly.
Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench, said the unnamed represented person (RP) was the subject of an extradition order made by Westminster Magistrates’ Court in August last year.
The RP was refused permission to appeal on the papers in February 2024 and by Mr Justice Swift in July 2024. His barrister, a Mr Lixandru, then “purported to file a JR claim form” making no reference to the appeal.
Dame Victoria said the statement of grounds “relied on the same arguments as had failed on his extradition appeal” – that extradition “amounted to a disproportionate interference” with the RP’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR.
The Administrative Court Office (ACO) told the barrister that the claim could not be issued for various reasons, including that it did not appear he was authorised to conduct litigation, and he launched a second JR soon after.
It was refused by Mr Justice Swift and certified as totally without merit. He described it as “a transparent attempt to misuse the JR procedure to delay surrender pursuant to the extradition warrant”.
Responding to a ‘show cause’ letter from the ACO, the barrister said he was admitted to the Bar in 2012 as a registered European lawyer, having qualified in Romania. He said he had told the RP the claim was a waste of time and money.
Dame Victoria recorded: “Mr Lixandru did not fully answer the questions which had been put to him, including as to his qualifications and areas of practice and experience of extradition work. He purported to apologise but it appeared that he did not consider that his actions were to be criticised.”
As a result, he received a second ‘cause’ letter before attending a hearing in person at the High Court.
Dame Victoria said she and Mr Justice Linden had decided to refer Mr Lixandru to the BSB. The JR was “abusive and bound to fail”. He advanced a case which “was not properly arguable and wasted the resources of the court”.
In filing the first JR, the barrister appeared to be “purporting to carry out litigation” when he was not authorised, though this was a matter for the BSB.
“The BSB may wish to consider whether this was the first occasion on which he had done so. He did not suggest that it was or appear to appreciate the seriousness of conducting litigation without authorisation,” the judge noted.
Mr Lixandru also charged the RP “a substantial fee [that] he knew was a waste of his money” (£1,100) and appeared to have a “troubling lack of knowledge” of the regulatory framework for barristers.
The other Hamid referral concerned an application to admit as fresh evidence a psychiatric report arising from another extradition appeal from Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
Michael Turner instructed Mr Arora, a consultant solicitor working on a self-employed basis for Saunders Solicitors, in April 2023.
Counsel, Ms Priory, was briefed in August 2023, because existing counsel was unavailable, the day before an extradition order was made. An appeal was lodged, with the psychiatric report – the possibility of which had been raised at a hearing in May – then prepared.
Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Holgate said he considered the court “had been misled” by the explanation as to why the report was not available at first instance.
Ms Priory told the court she was called to the Bar in 2016, but did not begin pupillage until “around three years later” and this case “was her first full extradition appeal”.
Dame Victoria said the application to rely on the psychiatric report was “seriously misleading in relation to the grant of the legal aid certificate and in failing to volunteer the fact that there had been more than one opportunity to apply for a postponement of the extradition hearing” – and that the client had instructed his lawyers not to seek an adjournment.
However, the High Court accepted that “these failings were the result of careless errors rather than recklessness” or any attempt to mislead the court.
“Both have accepted the criticisms of them, both are highly apologetic and both have unblemished professional records. There is no evidence of any previous conduct of this nature in either of their cases and we accept that this experience has been salutary for them.
“We have been persuaded to give them the benefit of the doubt on this occasion and that it is sufficient for us to mark our disapproval in a public judgment.”
Leave a Comment