Forced hearing to be adjourned
A barrister has been fined £1,000 after attending court while intoxicated and subsequently collapsing during proceedings.
On 13 March 2025, James Fredrick Hankinson was scheduled to represent his client at Maidstone Combined Court but turned up drunk. He collapsed at court and was taken away by ambulance. As a result, the hearing scheduled for that day was adjourned.
His client later reported to chambers that there were signs of intoxication when they met earlier that day, including a “strong smell of alcohol”, “red eyes” and “slurred speech”.
Hankinson subsequently informed his chambers of the incident and self-reported to the Bar Standards Board (BSB).
In reaching its decision, the bar regulator found that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct. It concluded that he had behaved in a way contrary to his duty to the court in the administration of justice, contrary to his client’s best interests, and in a manner likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession.
In mitigation, the BSB took into account that Hankinson had promptly self-reported the incident and engaged with the regulator. It also noted the steps taken following the incident, including voluntarily ceasing to undertake professional work as a barrister until suitable arrangements were put in place for his return to work, and supplying toxicology reports to his chambers at his own expense.
The BSB further noted that this was an isolated occurrence and that he had no other marks on his regulatory record since being called to the bar in 2014. His chambers were also made aware of the situation at an early stage.
The regulator considered that these factors, alongside his cooperation, remorse and insight into the seriousness of the misconduct, were relevant in deciding the level of sanction to impose.
The panel concluded that a fine was proportionate and initially determined that a fine of £2,000 was appropriate. This was then reduced to £1,000 in light of all the circumstances and Hankinson’s mitigation.
The case was resolved by way of a “determination by consent”, a procedure under which the barrister admits the misconduct and agrees an appropriate sanction with the regulator, avoiding the need for a full disciplinary hearing.
Not excusing the barrister’s behaviour (which was no doubt reprehensible) but the SRA could learn a thing or two from this about proportionality. I imagine that if he was a solicitor, especially a junior one, this would have resulted in an instant strike off. Any mitigation regarding depression, anxiety or alcoholism would be deemed relevant but simply not enough.
I’m not so sure. I have no desire to know what his mitigation was, but things have gone pretty far if someone is prepared to turn up to court so drunk that he collapses rather than informing the court (and client) that he will be unable to attend. I think you can mitigate the problem with alcohol, but the poor decision making to turn up to court like that? Surely his intention was to work drunk if he could. It doesn’t sit well with me anyway.
“It doesn’t sit well with me anyway.”
Your approval is not required. As for your prurient speculation on his mitigation, that is his business, not yours.
You might want to look up the definition of “prurient” before using it, especially in response to a comment that explicitly said that they have no desire to know what the mitigation was and is therefore not speculating on it nor claiming that it is their “business” as you said.
Alcoholism has underlying health issues.