![](https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Barrister-wig-2-1.jpg)
Barrister: Handed up a partial and selective extract of authority
A veteran barrister who attempted to recklessly mislead the court and failed to provide his direct access client with a competent service has been disbarred.
A Bar disciplinary tribunal found that John McLanachan’s conduct had fallen far short of standards expected of immigration practitioners and could have a serious impact on public confidence in the profession.
The barrister, who was called in 1980, was sanctioned over his conduct of three separate hearings. The full reasoning of the tribunal has not yet been published, but the headline findings have.
In April 2019, while appearing on behalf of a direct access client before Judge Canavan in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), he was found to have relied on an unarguable ground for judicial review and also attempted to rely on a submission based on a 2017 Court of Appeal ruling that was not founded in the grounds for judicial review or other pleadings in the proceedings. He also did not apply to amend the grounds.
Further, he failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the court had before it all relevant decisions and legislative provisions by handing up to the tribunal “a partial and selective extract” of the 2017 authority.
Also, Mr McLanachan told the Upper Tribunal that he assumed that the original grounds were drafted by previously instructed solicitors when in fact he was aware that “a person connected with his chambers” had done so, a statement he only qualified “on close questioning by Judge Canavan”.
He went on to wrongly tell the judge that this person was formerly a member of the Bar.
At the same hearing, he “recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the court” by stating that that he had only “had the case for a week”, when in fact the client had been introduced to him seven months earlier.
At a hearing in the Upper Tribunal in August 2019, Mr McLanachan “failed to observe his duty to the court”, damaged public trust and failed to provide a competent standard of work to a direct access client “by relying on grounds which were incoherent and failed to particularise any arguable public law errors in the decision of which judicial review was sought”.
The following month, he again recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the Upper Tribunal when a note concerning the history of his client’s representation which the judge had asked him to prepare “failed to provide all of the information available to him which was relevant”.
Commenting on the order to disbar, a Bar Standards Board spokesperson said: “Barristers have a duty both to their clients and to the court. Mr McLanachan’s actions were unacceptable and incompatible with the standards expected of the profession. The tribunal’s decision to disbar Mr McLanachan reflects this seriousness.”
The barrister admitted all the charges. The tribunal’s findings remain subject to appeal.
The tribunal also ordered him to pay costs of £3,510.
Leave a Comment