PUMP COURT CHAMBERS TEMPLE EC4

NOVEMBER 12 2013-11-12

Dear Michael, I note from the Agenda for November 15th that there are to be further preliminary representations that my report should not be considered by the relevant Sub Committee before a civil action is concluded, whenever that may be. I think it is only fair to the Sub Committee that, as the author of the report, I should set out my own position plainly for them to bear in mind, together within the other representations or advice they receive. It is a strengthening of my previous view that there should be no further delay in this matter. Indeed that was my final conclusion in the report. My reasons are: (1) Having seen the complainant on two occasions, I formed a clear view, not only of the accuracy of her account, but also of her plain and obvious vulnerability and frailty. (2) In the light of that additional matter, it is my considered and strong view that every effort should be made to avoid further delay. (3) In my view, the complainant is bound to see a decision not to proceed as a further rejection and put down of matters of which she has complained, which go back four years. (4) I have read the extracts provided of both opinions. Elizabeth Laing QC sets out some factors to be balanced by the Sub Committee in deciding whether or not to proceed. I note that the opinion properly leaves it for them to decide. One factor encompasses the argument of the solicitors for Mr Hancock that a decision should await a High Court determination, as it covers the same factual dispute. Plainly that is a factor, but I also note that the Advice anticipates that there may be other factors arising from representations to be made. I would invite the Sub Committee to bear in mind the concerns I have raised above in paragraph (1). (5) Further it does seem to me to be necessary to point out the uncertainty of the time when any defended High Court action would take place. It is reasonable to suppose that it cannot be much less than nine months. Some would advise a much longer period. That means a determination well after a year from the time when I was commissioned to write a report. It is not easy to see how such a delay in deciding an issue which affects the disciplinary procedures of the Council can be justified. Finally, I note that the first opinion of Ian Wise QC expressed views about the public perception of not going ahead and the obvious vulnerability of the Council to judicial review if at that time the Sub Committee had not proceeded. It is for the Sub Committee to consider questions such as public opinion and publicity and the weight they should carry in this matter. I would simply suggest that the question is asked - what essentially has changed from the prior decision to proceed? I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of all members of the Sub Committee and others you deem appropriate. It represents my honest view of the position. Yours sincerely Nigel Pascoe QC