Christmas party: Barrister was very drunk
“Exceptional” personal mitigation led a tribunal to reduce the suspension of a male barrister who harassed a woman at his chambers’ Christmas party below the indicative sentence, it has emerged.
The indicative sanction for the conduct of Henry Charles William King, who was called in 2018, was a suspension of 12-24 months, but the tribunal decided on just three months – with a dissenting member supporting a reprimand coupled with a fine instead.
We reported on the headline facts and sentence last month but the tribunal’s full decision has now been published.
This explained that, at the party in December 2023, Mr King began dancing with Person A and “touched her sexually without her consent” – once under her skirt on the top of her thigh and once over clothing on her breast – and “he made reference to her protected characteristic”.
Person A was upset and disappointed “because she liked and trusted” Mr King and had worked well with him.
Person A did not want to report the matter because she did not want to cause him trouble. “She felt anxious, awkward, and embarrassed and she was worried that she would have to leave chambers if the matter were reported,” the tribunal recorded.
However, she did provide a detailed account of what had happened, leading to the chambers suspending Mr King for four weeks and giving him a formal written warning.
The barrister apologised in person to Person A and his apology was accepted. He self-reported to the Bar Standards Board; his head of chambers also made a referral.
The tribunal acknowledged that Mr King has always admitted the allegations and that they amounted to serious misconduct.
“His account, which was uncontested and which the tribunal accepted, was that he had no recollection of the incident because he was extremely drunk at the time. He had no reason to doubt the truth of Person A’s account. He liked Person A and considered her a good friend and valuable colleague.
“He has always regretted his behaviour and the upset and stress it has caused Person A. He drew attention to the fact that Person A did not want to take part in the BSB investigation, preferring to put the matter behind her.
“Both Person A and [Mr King] wished to be able to resume their friendship and professional relationship.”
The tribunal found it was “a one-off incident of short duration” and “directed at a person in a vulnerable situation”. It involved sexual touching that could have amounted to a criminal offence.
It considered the misconduct fell within the lower range of seriousness, the indicative sanction for which was a suspension of 12 to 24 months.
But there were “many compelling mitigating factors”. Mr King “has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate insight and genuine remorse”.
He has taken steps to address his problem with alcohol misuse “and he has contributed to a support group to assist other barristers to deal with addiction”.
The tribunal judged it unlikely that the misconduct would be repeated.
It went on: “He is a man of good character not just in the sense of there having been no previous disciplinary findings against him, but also in the sense that he has worked hard for the benefit of his chambers and for the profession generally was attested by his referees.”
Although the sanctions guidance sounded a note of caution when it came to personal mitigation in sexual misconduct cases, the tribunal was unanimous in its view here it was “exceptional”.
It explained: “It was clear from the evidence about [Mr King’s] background that he has had to overcome significant adversity in order to achieve great success academically and in order to qualify at the Bar.
“Since qualifying he has gained a reputation as a hardworking, respected, and talented lawyer. He has devoted considerable time to encouraging and mentoring aspiring barristers from non-traditional backgrounds.
“All of this at a time when his personal circumstances were extremely difficult. To date his achievements and contributions to the profession have been outstanding. He has a great deal to offer the profession in the future.”
This all meant the indicative sanction would be “unjust and disproportionate”.
By a majority of four to one, the tribunal concluded backed a three-month suspension. The minority support for a reprimand coupled with a fine “would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct”, the majority concluded.
There are many areas of the law where legal decisions can be seen to be controversial. If a man abuses a woman in a sexual way ,instead of the law taking the view that the man’s culpability for the offence is lessened because he was drunk at the time of the offence, I would recommend that a new law should be passed that makes it illegal for any one to ever get drunk on alcohol- because a lot of serious crimes have happened in the past when a person has had too much to drink ( in terms of alcohol ). So that for the general public to be protected from such crimes ever occurring again in the future, I think that the law should embody the general mode of thinking that every person should always be responsible for his or her actions – and if a person allows himself or herself to become drunk through consuming too much alcohol- then that person is clearly not able to be responsible for their actions . And we have seen in the past where this kind of behaviour has sometimes led to the victim of a crime losing their life in such circumstances ( taking into account domestic violence for example).