News

Barrister suspended for groping BPTC student he was supposed to be mentoring

By on
89

Incident occurred in taxi

A criminal barrister has been suspended for six months after groping a Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) student he was supposed to be mentoring.

A Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service panel found that Sam Clement Brown, 37, had “intentionally touched” his mentee in a “sexual” way without her consent.

That behaviour amounted to professional misconduct, as it was “likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in a barrister or in the profession”.

The 28-year-old complainant, known as T, was assigned Brown as a mentor by Inner Temple while she was studying for the bar. She was vulnerable, having been seriously sexually assaulted while working abroad and still “suffering the psychological effects of this during her bar training”.

T told a friend that Brown had put his hand “on the inside of her thigh” while the two were in a taxi together. She told another friend that he had “stuck his hands up her skirt”. Brown denied the charges.

The incident took place in November 2016, and T lodged a formal complaint in July 2017. The tribunal admitting that the delay in getting the case completed from there “has taken its toll on both the complainant and the respondent”.

The 2020 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

The panel said that Brown and T had been discussing “personal matters”, including the state of their relationships on the evening in question. It added that there was “incontrovertible evidence” that T had got very drunk during “two long drinking sessions” with Brown.

While Brown had given T some careers guidance, the boozy meet-ups were “of no assistance of her in that regard”. The panel found that some of his evidence was “unconvincing”, by contrast to T who was broadly a “credible witness”. It also heard from various others who T had spoken to about Brown’s behaviour.

The tribunal ultimately upheld two charges of professional misconduct, dismissing two others related to a separate allegation. It handed out the six-month suspension after hearing from character witnesses for Brown and submissions on mitigation.

The decision is open to appeal.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

89 Comments

Darron

Sounds like all he did was put his hand on her thigh. When will this madness stop? Is that literally a thing now – “do you give me permission to touch your thigh?”. Takes the romance out of everything. To me a touch on the thigh is like putting out a feeler as to whether you can go further / if she is interested. If the answer is no, then you have only touched a thigh. It isn’t as if he went in for anything meatier.

What is the world coming to?

(111)(112)

RDS

He touched her on the inside of her thigh. That’s not putting out feelers. Maybe you could argue that if he touched her knee but your inner thigh should not be touched by anyone without consent.

(27)(40)

Anon

If it was a date maybe. But it wasn’t.

(15)(20)

Anon

Woah, deeply concerning views expressed here Darron. Deeply concerning.

(49)(45)

A Nony Mouse

Ah yes, nothing says romance like someone in a position of power in a sector defined by informality and networking drunkenly groping the student he is supposed to be mentoring and helping.

Real Harvey Weinstein school of romance that one.

(64)(66)

Anonymous

Although a lot of people are attracted by power.

(5)(9)

Anonymous

Why on earth is he going out for boozy drinks and “putting out a feeler” to a student he’s supposed to be mentoring. How is that acceptable?

(35)(48)

Anonymous

As opposed to non boozy drinks? I suppose it’s down to her whether it’s acceptable.

(12)(2)

Anon

Quite. She’s an adult.

(15)(2)

Anon

Some people find it hard to refuse a request by someone in a position of power. Mr Brown ought to have opted for lunch or coffee as opposed to alcoholic drinks. Private drinks are intimate and not suited to professional relationships.

(9)(35)

Anonymous

Those people should be educated. He has no power to make her agree to his request.

It’s down to them to choose to drink alcohol if they want, they’re both adults. She chose to drink alcohol as well and could have refused if she didnt want to. It’s unlikely there would be criticism of a female mentor and mentee drinking alcohol together, it sounds like he’s being criticised just because he’s male.

Drinking can be social as well as intimate, and it sounds as if these ‘drinking sessions’ were in public rather than private. Drinking alcohol can be perfectly compatible with professional relationships. What if he had opted for private lunch or coffee instead – would that have been acceptable?

Realist

There is nothing improper or necessarily intimate about two adults having drinks in a professional context. To suggest otherwise is deeply immature, emasculates women, and is hugely patronising.

Ajay

Because many male Barristers see female students as fair game. It’s a horrendous problem at Inns events, weekends and when they act as mentors. Speak to female BPTC students and you will hear many a story.

(25)(26)

Anonymous

At the same time many female students see male Barristers as fair game. It’s a horrendous problem at Inns events, weekends and when they act as mentees. Speak to male Barristers and you will hear many a story.

(38)(15)

Anon

I’m curious. Is this actually true?

Anonymous

Which comment – the one suggesting speaking to female BPTC students or the one suggesting speaking to male Barristers?

Anonymous

Where?

(0)(0)

SILVER CIRCLE FUTURE TRAINEE

There’s no hard evidence he did this. Just her word against his. Of course the broken justice system will believe the woman without real evidence. Guilty until proven innocent. Shameful and sad times.

(58)(37)

Alan Robertshaw

Witness testimony *is* evidence; and it’s hardly an unusual feature of trials.

The Tribunal found the complainant’s evidence more compelling; and the Defendant probably didn’t help his credibility by denying what appeared to be incontrovertible facts.

(31)(35)

Anon

The evidence of a drunk woman with pre-existing psychological issues seems very flimsy basis to bar someone from a profession absent good corroborative evidence.

(51)(15)

A Nony Mouse

Here’s hoping your grasp of evidence improves before your training contract begins or you might end up with some disappointed clients. If it is reflects your general level of legal understanding, then ‘future’ may be as close as you ever get to a training contract.

Unless I’ve missed the statute specifying that evidence has to be ‘hard’, and defining that term…

(17)(5)

Anonymous

I think the point is that there was no hard evidence or witnesses, rather than that such evidence was required by statute. Given that at least one of them was drunk, it means there must be a considerable amount of uncertainty about what happened. It also sounds as if the commenter feels that an accused man might not get a fair hearing when this type of accusation is made.

(11)(3)

Alan Robertshaw

Well; there’s the evidence of the victim; and even intoxicated, someone sticking their hand on your thigh might be memorable.

There’s evidence of prior consistent statement, in that the victim notified a number of people.

Theres the cui bono point. What possible benefit would she have for making a false allegation? Just make the allegation at all could have all sorts of negative consequences. She had all to lose and nothing to gain; so that adds credence I would suggest.

There was the evidence of the Defendant. He was found to be unconvincing in relation to some peripheral, but incontrovertible points. There was also the circumstantial evidence (and circumstantial evidence can be very compelling) of how the Defendant took an already inebriated (although he denied she was) young woman to a further drinking establishment. It is difficult to see how that facilitates his purported mentoring.

So all in all it seems there was a compelling prosecution case; and an unconvincing defence case; so this hardly seems to be an unfair hearing.

It should also be noted that the Tribunal did not accept all of the victims’s evidence; so that would seem to mitigate against the idea that they were somehow predisposed to believe her.

(13)(29)

Anonymous

But all of this evidence originates from the person making the accusation. None of it is independent hard evidence. There was no evidence from the Defendant, nor was there circumstantial evidence. Whether or not he was a good mentor isn’t evidence that he was guilty of what he was accused of. Remember, and this is very important, just because we don’t know the motive for something doesn’t mean that no motive exists.

I suppose if the Tribunal were pre-disposed to find him guilty it could be argued that they wouldn’t accept all off her evidence so it wouldn’t be too obvious. Not saying they necessarily were pre-disposed, just that if they were they might act in this way.

Anon

People make false accusations all the time. They simply make shit up. They don’t need a reason and often don’t have one. Like that bloke “Nick” of Operation Midland fame, whose fantasies landed him in jail for perjury.

Ed Winchester

Evidence can be independent, from a party in proceedings or from someone who is linked to them. It can corroborative, not, or not be capable of being corroborated.

‘Hard evidence’ is not a term of art. I assume you mean independent evidence but keep banging on about ‘hard evidence’ like the Home Sec when she was on QT and spoke of the ‘full burden of proof’ like a malfunctioning semi-literate Legal Robot.

If you overall point is that people should be acquitted when the only people present are complainant and defendant then there goes the neighbourhood. Perhaps you’d like us to enact the same laws as parts of Asia where rape must be witnessed by more than one man for a finding of guilt to be lawful?

Anonymous

I think its pretty clear that hard evidence means independent evidence here, whether or not its a ‘Term of Art’.

If your point is that you think the ‘full burden of proof’ is a bad thing and that people should be found guilty unless they can prove their innocence then you ought to say so, although this would confirm the earlier commenter’s fears. I do think when there are only two people present and no hard evidence then there will be many times where it just isn’t possible to say what happened. Innocent until proven guilty has implications in such cases, perhaps you’re suggesting we dispense with this concept.

Anon

By “hard” evidence, I assume you mean corroboration.

Anonymous

It’s already been explained what was meant by “hard” evidence – see comments above.

Anon

That explanation is wrong. What he/she means is corroborative evidence.

Anonymous

No, that’s what you mean. It’s already been explained what was meant by “hard evidence”.

Anon

No, it’s what he/she means.

Anonymous

No, it’s what you mean. You just have no argument against what it really means.

Anon

No, he/she means corroborative evidence: independent evidence that is supportive. Look it up and consider the context.

Anonymous

It’s already been explained what was meant by “hard” evidence – see comments above.

Anon

That’s it: don’t engage with the point – just repeat yourself. If you look at what corroborative means, you will realise that this is what the commentator meant.

Anonymous

No, it’s what you mean. You just have no argument against what was really meant.

Anon

That was provided above: “No, he/she means corroborative evidence: independent evidence that is supportive. Look it up and consider the context.”

Sharpen up!

Anonymous

No, that’s what you mean. You just have no argument against what was really meant.

Sharpen up!

Anon

You are still not dealing with the point.

Apply what little intellect you have and you just might get there.

Anon

It’s been made pretty clear in the comments that the point was that there is no independent evidence.

Anonymous

Every silver circle firm just rescinded every training contract for the next few years intakes in the hope they shed themselves of you.

(4)(4)

Anonymous

I doubt that. Which of a lawyer observing the lack of evidence and the expression of a viewpoint on discrimination do you feel they wouldn’t like?

(2)(0)

Boner

Probably why he now practices in a different jurisdiction.

Bit more laid back on this sort of thing.

(4)(9)

Anonymous

6 months? First issue with the regulator? What a joke. A modest fine is all that is needed.

(21)(11)

BG

I know we’re all supposed to jump on the #metoo bandwagon with this sort of thing, like the BSB seem to have done, but Sam is a thoroughly decent man and I look forward to his total vindication on appeal.

(41)(11)

Anon

Absolutely. Sam is a thoroughly decent, kind and honest man. I have no doubt that he did not do what the complainant alleged.

(56)(6)

Anon

Why did Sam feel that it was appropriate to get drunk with a female mentee twice? The tribunal pointed out that these drinking sessions were of no assistance to her bar aspirations.

Even if Sam did not touch the alleged victim, he demonstrated remarkably poor judgement!

(5)(16)

Anonymous

In what way?

People are entitled to get drunk together if they want. The tribunal themselves said the sessions had no effect on her aspirations.

(11)(0)

Anon

Quite. She is an adult and capable of making decisions herself. Drinks between two adults in a professional context is commonplace and entirely normal behaviour.

(11)(0)

Anonymous

Criticising him even if he didnt touch his accuser sounds like victim blaming.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

According to the BSB report, Brown was an unregistered barrister. Why did Inner Temple appoint him as a mentor anyway? Am I missing something? What career advice did he have to offer as an unregistered barrister?

(8)(2)

Boner

How is a 6 month suspension any form of sanction on an unregistered barrister?!

(5)(0)

Anonnn

He was called in 2004.

Why continue to hang out at the Inns after all that time if you aren’t practising?

(2)(0)

anon

Because he was still practicising in London at the time.

(5)(1)

Anonymous

Probably because he wasn’t found to have sexually harassed anyone by the BSB!

(2)(31)

Anon

The BSB were not considering whether or not he had sexually harassed anyone – that fact had already been determined against him – but whether, in light of his established conduct, he should be given “clearance to practise”.

(29)(3)

Anonymous

The BSB didn’t determine that he had sexually harassed anyone and nobody has established that he did. Remember an allegation is not the same as a fact – the BSB remembered this when they found he didn’t sexually harass anyone!

(1)(38)

Anon

You sound like you are stomping your feet because things did not go Lester’s way. Remember that the House of Lords voted to endorse the findings of the Committee that Lester was guilty of sexual harassment and abuse of position. That is why they recommended that he be suspended. Of course, they would not and could not have done so if these were mere allegations. In turn, that is why Lester referred himself to the BSB when the House reached its decision.

The issue before the BSB was whether, despite his conduct, he should be given clearance to practise. The BSB gave him such clearance.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Things did go Lester’s way because it was voted by the House of Lords that the process against Lester was unfair. You sound like you’re stamping your feet because you didn’t agree with that vote. It isn’t true that the Lords voted to endorse his suspension – he was never suspended. That’s why the BSB made a finding of fact clearing Lester!

(0)(0)

Anon

You still sound like you are stomping your feet because things did not go Lord Lester’s way.

Read Hansard, which speaks for itself. The House of Lords upheld the findings of the Committee and recommended that Lord Lester be suspended. He resigned before that suspension could be implemented.

The initial vote was that the process was unfair. The matter was then remitted to the Committee to reconsider; the Committee concluded the process was fair; the Lords then reconsidered the matter and voted to approve the conclusion of the Committee that the process was fair. So the Lords decided the process was fair.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-12-17/debates/E9E8AE1E-3CD4-4166-BCF9-0765260054A9/PrivilegesAndConductCommittee

“The Senior Deputy Speaker

The noble Lord said that there were six contemporaneous witnesses. We invite Members to read their accounts.

In her own words,

“on the basis of the strong and cogent evidence of the complainant and her witnesses”,

the commissioner found that Jasvinder Sanghera was a victim of sexual harassment and that Lord Lester was guilty of a grave abuse of power. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct reviewed and endorsed this view. We ask the House to do the same. I hope the House will now agree to this report.

Motion agreed.”

Therefore, the House of Lords endorsed the findings of the Committee that (a) Lord Lester was guilty; and (b) the process which determined Lord Lester’s guilt was fair.

So despite being found guilty, after a fair process, of sexual harassment and abuse of position, Lord Lester was not sanctioned by the BSB.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You still sound like you are stamping your feet because Lester was cleared.

it was voted by the House of Lords that the process against Lester was unfair. It isn’t true that the Lords voted to endorse his suspension – he was never suspended. The Lords agreed that the Commissioner and Committee said they agreed with the process outcome, even although it had been voted that the process wasn’t fair. The BSB made a finding of fact which speaks for itself clearing Lester!

(0)(0)

Realist

Enough! Anon, you have proved your point and you can move on. This apologist for Anthony Lester will simply continue to contend that 2+2=5. In fact, he or she probably is not very well.

Hansard speaks for itself. As does the jurisdiction of the BSB and the nature of its decision.

The Motion before the Lords, which the House approved, was to endorse the report of the Committee which (a) found that Lester had sexually harassed the complainant and (b) recommend that he be suspended until 2022.

Lester resigned before the suspension could be implemented.

Due to the harassment findings, Lester referred himself to the BSB. The matter before the BSB was not whether he was guilty of harassment – that was already established – but whether, in light of his guilt, he should be allowed to continue in practice. The BSB said he should be so allowed.

(31)(1)

Anonymous

Indeed anon/realist:

It was never established or found that Lester was guilty of anything. It was voted by the House of Lords that the process against Lester was unfair. It isn’t true that the Lords voted to endorse his suspension – he was never suspended, as Realist agrees. The Lords agreed that the Commissioner and Committee said they agreed with the process outcome, even although it had been voted that the process wasn’t fair. The BSB made a finding of fact which, as Realist says, speaks for itself in clearing Lester and saying he has nothing to apologise for!

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Agree the Hewson decision was odd. Not sure this was sexual assault though.

(2)(1)

Name

Bet Sam would have cried if a sour-faced 50+ woman with a hefty BMI put a hand on his thigh in a taxi.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

That makes it sound as if Brown’s ‘crime’ was not being good-looking enough and that there would have been no complaint had T found him attractive.

(5)(3)

Anon

Attending a decent seduction course is money well spent, whatever level of attractiveness one has. The techniques once mastered can significantly improve both quality and quantity of outcomes.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

It should depend on what he actually did rather than how attractive he is perceived to be or how good his chat-up lines are.

(0)(0)

Anon

They don’t file complaints when they are up for it.

Anonymous

Probably time to change the process if that’s the case.

Anonymous

It was voted by the House of Lords that the process against Lester was unfair. It isn’t true that the Lords voted to endorse his suspension – he was never suspended. The Lords agreed that the Commissioner and Committee said they agreed with the process outcome, even although it had been voted that the process wasn’t fair. The BSB made a finding of fact which speaks for itself clearing Lester!

(0)(22)

Derek Masterson

The initial vote was indeed that the process was unfair. But the matter was then remitted to the Committee to reconsider. The Committee (a) concluded that the process was fair; (b) found that Lord Lester had sexually harassed the complainant; and (c) recommended that Lord Lester should be suspended from the House of Lords until 2022 as a result. The Lords then voted to approve a Motion, the terms of which were to endorse the Committee’s conclusion, finding and recommendation set out above. So Lord Lester was found to have sexually harrassed the complainant further to a fair process, and the House of Lords voted to suspend him accordingly. However, he resigned before that suspension could be implemented.

The BSB made no separate findings about Lord Lester’s conduct and indeed had no jurisdiction to do so. The issue for them was whether, in light of his behaviour as found by the House of Lords, he could continue in practice. The BSB decided he could.

(9)(0)

Anonymous

It was never established or found that Lester was guilty of anything. It was voted by the House of Lords that the process against Lester was unfair. It isn’t true that the Lords voted to endorse his suspension – he was never suspended. The Lords agreed that the Commissioner and Committee said they agreed with the process outcome, even although it had been voted that the process wasn’t fair. The BSB made a finding of fact which speaks for itself in clearing Lester!

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It was never established or found that Lester was guilty of anything. It was voted by the House of Lords that the process against Lester was unfair. It isn’t true that the Lords voted to endorse his suspension – he was never suspended. The Lords agreed that the Commissioner and Committee said they agreed with the process outcome, even although it had been voted that the process wasn’t fair. The BSB made a finding of fact which speaks for itself in clearing Lester!

(0)(0)

Balance

Perhaps being a peer makes power go to your head and you think you can behave as you like. Although Lord Lester’s earlier work as a champion for women’s rights, and as a distinguished advocate, will inevitably be overshadowed by his later conduct, lives are to be viewed as a whole, and his achievements cannot be disregarded.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Agreed about his earlier work. My view is that, far from overshadowing his earlier achievements, Lester will be viewed as a victim in relation to the allegations made against him, which he was cleared of. Indeed, to a large extent he is already viewed as such.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Not according to the BSB, who undeniably cleared him. We must indeed avoid victim shaming, and in doing so we must remember that many regard Lester as the victim. This is a valid point of view when one looks at what he had to endure. His achievements do indeed make what he was put through all the sadder, but having been cleared there was no ‘moment of madness’ to regret.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It was never established or found that Lester was guilty of anything. It was voted by the House of Lords that the process against Lester was unfair. It isn’t true that the Lords voted to endorse his suspension – he was never suspended. The Lords agreed that the Commissioner and Committee said they agreed with the process outcome, even although it had been voted that the process wasn’t fair. The BSB made a finding of fact which speaks for itself in clearing Lester!

(0)(0)

Weinstein's Wang

bUt ShE wAs AskInG fOr It, fUcKeN metoo bITcHeS! BaCK iN tHe DaY yOu CoUlD tRy It On AlL tHe TiMe. Its PoLiTiCaL CoRrectnEsS gOnE MAD.

(6)(5)

Fh

Must have taken quite a while to do that upper case lower case thing. Not really worth it.

(3)(3)

Just WOW

Absolutely shocking how many people are defending this sort of behaviour. It just shows that the bar isn’t a welcoming place for women.

(5)(20)

Anonymous

It’s more that people are questioning the process and also putting the allegation in perspective, while defending men from some of the more naive comments and attempts to shout down due process, some of which make the bar an unwelcoming place for men. Most women will agree with the majority of the comments posted.

(8)(0)

Alan Robertshaw

I’m not sure most women would agree. They may be concerned that the calls for ‘due process’ as defined here is just a backdoor way of trying to re-introduce the old sexist requirements for corroboration of women’s evidence in regard to sexual offences.

I also don’t see how the current rules make the Bar unwelcoming for men. We don’t require corroboration for any other offence* so why aren’t men worried about being accused of, say, theft?

(* Well, ok, treason, perjury, and speeding)

(1)(4)

Anonymous

I’m think most women would agree with comments disagreeing that men and women shouldn’t be allowed to drink together professionally, among other comments, Alan.

It’s not the current rules that make the Bar unwelcoming for men, so much as attempts to shout down calls for due process – the overall impression given is of a reluctance to look for evidence in case it gets in the way of an accusation. As has been pointed out numerous times, the ‘hard’ evidence missing is any form of independent evidence. Which posts do you perceive are asking for corroboration?

It’s hardly sexist to request corroboration given the high amount of false accusations of sexual offences, or even lack of understanding of what a sexual offence is. There are legitimate fears that people investigating accusations are terrified of being seen to not believe women, or of being accused of ‘not taking accusations seriously’. Are you suggesting that corroborating evidence where it exists, should be ignored?

(5)(0)

Alan Robertshaw

I missed anyone saying people shouldn’t be allowed to drink together; that’s obviously a pretty common thing at the Bar. However that’s different from, as the Tribunal held, plying an already inebriated woman with further drinks, for reasons that were found to be incredible.

I perceive the posts asking or hard evidence as seeking corroboration. Unless I’m missing something with criticism that there was a lack of ‘independent’ evidence; i.e. more than the victim’s testimony.

I think it is sexist to insist on corroboration where women give evidence of sexual assault. We don’t ask for it generally. If you were robbed and you recognised your assailant; are you saying there should not be a conviction unless someone else witnessed the offence?

And I’ve not seen any evidence that there’s a high level of false reporting of sexual offences. Don’t most studies show that sexual offences are no more subject to false complaint than any other crime?

Anonymous

I think the Tribunal erred here – unless I’m missing something they both went out drinking, and both were drunk. They both voluntarily went somewhere where they drank more. Both are adults. ‘Plying’ implies that she was somehow forced to drink or didn’t want to, but there is nothing to support this.

‘Hard evidence’ here, I would say, means independent evidence, not necessarily corroboration from a third party, but agreed, more than just the accusation of the (‘very drunk’) accuser.

It isn’t sexist to request corroboration or independent evidence for sexual offence accusations otherwise its just one person’s word against another, it would be sexist not to. Perhaps other cases ought to look more at independent evidence, but sexual offence allegations far more typically come down to ‘he said – she said’ applications, so independent evidence is more important. No one actually said corroboration is ‘required’ as far as I can see, the comment was more that the Tribunal appears not to have considered any independent evidence, but wouldn’t you agree that if independent or corroborating evidence exists then it should be considered? In answer to your question, if I accused someone of robbing me, but that person denied it, I would not expect them to be convicted in the absence of any other proof.

Unfortunately the instance of false accusations of sexual offences is massive, studies don’t correctly reflect this. The majority of accusations of sexual offences where details are reported will include some element of exaggeration. Worth remembering though, that Brown has not been found guilty of any sexual offence.

A Non

More seeing “sexism” where there is none. What makes most sexual offences different is that the alleged victim knows the alleged perpetrator and they are the only parties to the interaction in question. When it comes down to “he said
/she said” then it is perfectly proper to look for wider evidence and absent such evidence a jury is right to be exceptionally careful about accepting one party’s word against the other’s as proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That is why it is perfectly proper and right for the defence to see the complainants phone records, social media feeds etc too. The feminist lobby see increased conviction rates as a per se good which is a disgraceful attitude that obscures the objective reasons for the rates being what they are. Corroboration is prudent if not necessary.

Anonymous

Did Brown know that T was classed as vulnerable and why?

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories