header-logo header-logo

07 April 2011 / Robert Rhodes KC
Issue: 7460 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

In the hot seat

Robert Rhodes QC on avoiding the risk of judicial review when chairing a disciplinary tribunal

The growing risk of judicial review can be a constant worry to chairmen of disciplinary tribunals. There are, however, certain straightforward and simple matters which, if properly borne in mind, should minimise this risk.

Fairness

This is the key concept. If this underlines the conduct of the proceedings, the other points set out below will flow from this. Thus no member of the tribunal should be, or appear to be, biased. A financial or proprietary interest in the proceedings will automatically disqualify the member. If a member has a close connection to a party to the proceedings, he will be disqualified from sitting. Thus in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577, [1999] 2 WLR 272, an extradition decision of the House of Lords was set aside because one of the judges was a director (albeit unpaid) of a company controlled by a party

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Flint Bishop—Charlotte Harris

Flint Bishop—Charlotte Harris

Sheffield expansion continues with appointment of commercial property partner

Browne Jacobson—Paul Duggan

Browne Jacobson—Paul Duggan

Browne Jacobson strengthens banking and finance practice with latest partner appointment Paul Duggan

Ward Hadaway—Chris Piggott

Ward Hadaway—Chris Piggott

Employment partner joins Ward Hadaway

NEWS
The Law Society RFC Festival of Sport returns next month, bringing together legal and financial services professionals for one of the sector’s largest annual sporting events
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

back-to-top-scroll