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.