Bar Standards Board fails to take harassment seriously – again

In August last year, we complained to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) after Sarah Phillimore misgendered, deadnamed and shared photos of Kate* in more than 50 posts on social media. Those posts led to dozens of others hurling abuse at Kate online, which ultimately led her to try to end her own life.

As a barrister, Phillimore is meant to be held to high standards by the Bar Standards Board. The board’s handbook makes clear that barristers must not “behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession”.

But the regulator ignored their guidance and rejected our complaint, concluding that “an investigation does not need to be started and that no further action should be taken”.

After we appealed, the BSB’s independent reviewer has decided that there was no “material factual mistake, material misapplication of the Handbook or procedural error” in the regulator’s decision.

We stand by our view that Phillimore’s awful conduct amounted to harassment. Our complaint to the regulator was made after taking advice from counsel, including King’s Counsel.

In an independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar, Baroness Harriet Harman KC stated that: “What might be permissible speech by a member of the public may not be permissible to a barrister constrained by the ethics of the profession”

Baroness Harman went on to observe that;

“… the BSB does not appear to deal with online comments in a cumulative way. Each individual’s tweet is assessed in isolation to determine whether there was a breach of the Handbook. In my view, a pile-on was critical context for assessing whether the conduct amounted to bullying and harassment. Taken in isolation, comments may not cross the threshold. Taken together, the threshold may be surpassed.”

In this case, we believe that the independent reviewer failed, as the regulator did, to take into account that barristers are meant to be held to a high standard of behaviour. And in our view, they did not appreciate the level of harm that can be and was caused by Phillimore’s relentless focus on one individual.

Phillimore is entitled to her view – and to express said view – on trans rights. But we continue to believe that her targeting of Kate in dozens of abusive tweets fell well below the behaviour which ought to be expected of barristers.

We will be reviewing the independent reviewer’s report with counsel and considering next steps.

Meanwhile, Good Law Project’s founder, Jolyon Maugham, has also been sued by Phillimore for defamation after he described her behaviour on X, Bluesky and TikTok as “wicked”. Jo stands by his words and will be defending the case in court.

Should you wish to contribute to the costs of defending Phillimore’s defamation claim, or our work defending the right of trans people to live dignified lives free from harassment, you can do so below.

*Kate’s name has been changed because of concerns about her safety.