A recent tribunal has brought into focus the prosecution practices of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) concerning a ‘sleeping’ barrister.
- The tribunal criticised the BSB’s decision to prosecute despite clear medical evidence provided by the barrister, Ramya Nagesh.
- The evidence suggested Ms Nagesh suffered from an undiagnosed sleep disorder, affecting her participation in an online inquest.
- Despite allegations, the tribunal found Ms Nagesh to be a credible witness, dismissing all charges against her.
- Concerns were raised about the BSB’s failure to re-evaluate the charges with the available medical evidence.
A disciplinary tribunal has recently issued strong criticism towards the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for its handling of a prosecution involving barrister Ramya Nagesh. The tribunal examined the circumstances under which Ms Nagesh, who provided substantial medical evidence, was prosecuted for allegedly failing to actively participate in an inquest due to falling asleep.
Ramya Nagesh, a barrister since 2008, faced accusations of not engaging adequately during the online inquest proceedings held at Pontypridd Coroner’s Court, while she was connecting remotely from a hotel in Stockport. Despite an immediate apology for her late return after lunch and non-participation, the BSB pursued charges of professional misconduct against her.
The tribunal, led by Her Honour Janet Waddicor, found that the BSB should have reconsidered pursuing the matter, given the medical reports provided by Dr Neil Munro. These reports confirmed Ms Nagesh’s medical condition, which included symptoms such as excessive sleepiness resulting in impaired cognition and insight.
Ms Nagesh was vindicated by the tribunal as a reliable and honest witness, with the charges dismissed. It was noted that what appeared as negligence on her part was largely attributable to her health condition. The tribunal accepted that if she had been physically present in a courtroom, her condition might have been noticed, potentially altering the circumstances.
The tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the BSB’s approach, especially its decision not to employ its own medical expert or adequately verify the transcript. This lack of diligence was further emphasised given Ms Nagesh’s previously impeccable professional record and the undue stress placed upon her during significant personal life events.
Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the regulatory body acted hastily without thoroughly considering the medical evidence, leading to unwarranted stress and reputational risk for Ms Nagesh.
The tribunal’s findings underscore significant concerns regarding the BSB’s prosecutorial judgement and processes.
