News

Barrister who touched two people ‘sexually’ handed three-month suspension

By on
24

Incidents occurred in the summer of 2019

A barrister who touched two individuals “sexually” and without their consent has been handed a three-month suspension order.

Craig Charles Tipper, who was called to the bar in 2018, was found to have “behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession”, according to a bar disciplinary ruling handed down last week. The incidents took place on or around 21 June 2019.

The 2021 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) brought charges of professional misconduct against Tipper, a crime and family law barrister and former solicitor.

Commenting on the order, a BSB spokesperson said:

“This conduct is entirely unacceptable and our decision to bring charges of professional misconduct against Mr Tipper demonstrates our commitment to taking action against such behaviour by members of the bar.”

Tipper was ordered to pay costs of £900. The decision is open to appeal.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

24 Comments

Anonymous

Doesn’t sound as if these allegations were work related.

(19)(6)

NotCraig

Thank you for literally copying and pasting the BSB press release. Must be fun being a LC ‘journalist’.

(17)(3)

Anonymous

What did he actually do – its not clear from the BSB ruling? What is meant by ‘sexual touching’?

(11)(1)

Hmmm

Please don’t get into criminal law.

(4)(10)

Herrrrrr

Why not – are unclear statements and not knowing what is meant by ‘sexual touching’ requirements to practice?

(6)(3)

Anonymous

It simply means touching where the touching is sexual. It’s a jury question whether the touching was sexual.

(13)(3)

Anonymous

In what way was it sexual? This was a BSB hearing, not a trial by jury.

Anonymous

The touching was sexual because the BSB, as the fact-finding tribunal in the absence of a jury, heard the evidence and decided that the touching was sexual. The term “jury question” simply means that the fact-finder has to decide, be that judge or jury as the case may be. I appreciate the reasoning is circular but trust me this is the law: touching involving facts x, y, z happened: was that touching sexual? Fact-finder decides.

Anonymous

But in what way was the touching sexual? I understand that the BSB and not a judge or jury found the touching to be sexual, but the question is what was sexual about the touching? It is not clear from the BSB’s summary.

Atthebar

Seemingly a of this being reported lately involving barristers

(7)(8)

NotCraig

I see comments relating to standards of journalism are being deleted by LC. What happened to good old fashioned constructive criticism being taken on board by editors?

(13)(1)

Anonymous

Heaven help you if you are critical of certain regular commentators on here who like to bring up how immoral the bar is and take every opportunity to shoehorn claims of racism into everything to cover for their own inadequacies. LC will not tolerate them having upset feelings and will delete critical comments on sight.

(6)(3)

Anonymous

Most of the public won’t care about this (assuming they understand what he was accused of) in relation to his role as a barrister.

(19)(5)

Anonymous

To the BSB when someone obtains a practising certificate all their thoughts and deeds are subject to the morality police review. From an off colour joke in an after-dinner speech to some drunken minor sexual indiscretions that did not lead to any criminal complaint they will be there watching, even when it has nothing at all do with professional activities.

(24)(5)

A

Like you wouldn’t dump a woman for an ‘off colour joke in an after dinner speech’ or a ‘drunken minor sexual indiscretion’

(0)(5)

Anonymous

I would still instruct her.

(4)(1)

Me

I would still. Better to have someone who likes their red meat than some woke lentil muncher.

(7)(4)

Double Standards

Junior solicitor: *jaywalks*
The SRA: STRIKE HIM OFF! REEEEEEEEE

Barrister: *sexually assaults one of the pandas at the London Zoo in front of four children while on coke*
The BSB: Hmm… six minute suspension.

(21)(4)

Anonymous

Its more a case of the SRA being too harsh than the BSB being too lenient.

(12)(2)

Anonymous

There is no need to make these minor matters public in the internet age. The barrister should be entitled to privacy rights when the matter is not of criminal conduct or directly involves practice issues. What appears a minor indiscretion should be an albatross for life. We now live in a world where an out of character fumble after too many drinks in the pub is a fast track to having your career ruined.

(20)(7)

Me Too

Would you like to know if your child’s teacher has had any ‘minor indiscretions’?
Would you like to know if your wife’s doctor has had any ‘minor indiscretions’?
Would you like to know if the care worker looking after your elderly parents has had any ‘minor indiscretions’?
Would you like to know if someone who is in a position of power and responsibility, with direct influence over the lives of others is capable of a basic understanding of the concept of consent?
Or perhaps you are just concerned about your own ‘minor indiscretions’ that you would prefer not be a matter of public knowledge.

(5)(19)

Anonymous

1. Not really.
2. Not really.
3. Not really.
4. The question does not relate to the issue at hand.
5. No, but a nice try at undermining substance by fictional personal attacks.

Go off to some leftist echo chamber, we are tired of you lot.

(13)(5)

Rumpole of the Riverina ...

Anybody think there might have been a “B” complainant, whose complaint might not have been substantiated? Why “A” and “C”, and not just “A” and “B”? Just a thought …

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Perhaps – hopefully the full report will tell us. Releasing these summaries with limited or no information is unfair on the accused.

(2)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories