Stenhouse v Bar Standards Board: barrister's appeal against misconduct findings dismissed by High Court

In John Stenhouse v The Bar Standards Board [2026] EWHC 1117 (Admin), Mrs Justice Jefford dismissed all twelve grounds of appeal brought by John Stenhouse, a barrister who had been found guilty of professional misconduct by a Disciplinary Tribunal in June 2025. The proceedings arose from emails sent by Mr Stenhouse in the course of his own tax appeal before the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

Background

Mr Stenhouse had appealed to the FTT against late payment penalties imposed by HMRC, which had since been reduced to nil or cancelled. When a Senior Tribunal Caseworker set aside earlier directions and invited him to confirm how he wished to proceed, Mr Stenhouse responded by alleging that HMRC had made secret representations to the caseworker and that a "secret proceeding" had taken place. He accused the caseworker of doing whatever HMRC had instructed him to do.

When the Chamber President, Upper Tribunal Judge Sinfield, investigated and rejected these allegations as "completely baseless", Mr Stenhouse characterised that response as "a rather pathetic attempt at a whitewash". He continued to press his allegations and declined to withdraw them or apologise when invited to do so by Judge Sinfield, who subsequently referred the matter to the BSB.

The disciplinary findings

The Disciplinary Tribunal found charges 1(a) and 1(b) proved on the basis of Core Duty 5 (CD5) of the Bar Standards Handbook: that Mr Stenhouse had behaved in a manner likely to diminish public trust and confidence in him or the profession. Charge 1(a) concerned the unfounded allegations of conspiracy against the caseworker and the HMRC officer; charge 1(b) concerned the allegation that the Chamber President had covered up the alleged misconduct. Charges 1(c) and 1(d), relating to rudeness and refusal to apologise, were not upheld.

Grounds of appeal

Mr Stenhouse advanced twelve grounds of appeal, including recusal, abuse of process, Article 10 rights, the appropriate standard of proof, and alleged inconsistencies in the decision.

On the recusal application, Mrs Justice Jefford found that the Chair's questions to Mr Stenhouse during evidence were proper and appropriate. Questions probing a party's case or putting propositions that do not reflect the tribunal's views are not indicative of bias, particularly in disciplinary proceedings where the informed observer would reasonably have the characteristics of a barrister.

On the central issue of whether the charge of "conspiracy" was made out despite the word not appearing in Mr Stenhouse's emails, the court found the charge properly reflected what had been alleged. The email of 16 February 2023 alleged a "secret proceeding" in which Mr Fairweather had done whatever HMRC asked him to do. Whether described as collusion, being "in cahoots", or conspiracy, the court held the implication was obvious and the Disciplinary Tribunal had not gone beyond the charges as formulated.

The court drew a sharp distinction between BSB v Proudman, where a barrister expressed robust opinion on a matter of public interest through tweets about a judgment, and the present case. Mr Stenhouse had not expressed opinion on a judicial decision. He had made personal accusations of serious misconduct against named individuals as matters of fact, without evidential foundation.

Sanctions

The Disciplinary Tribunal had applied the BSB Sanctions Guidance and found moderate culpability and moderate harm, identifying damage to the reputation of the profession, to the individuals accused, and to the administration of justice. A fine of £7,500 was imposed on each of the two charges found proved, totalling £15,000. Mr Stenhouse's submission that a simple apology would have sufficed was rejected, not least given his consistent refusal throughout proceedings to accept that his allegations were unfounded.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.