[Addendum and Update, 5 September 2021: since I blogged in relation to my disbarment etc, there have been developments, some of which are covered in the updates at the foot of the original blog. However, two other important changes have been that, firstly, the Bar Standards Board wrote to me a couple of years ago, explaining that I should never have been “tried” by a 5-person Tribunal (the only type that has the power to disbar), but only by a 3-person Tribunal (which can only impose lesser penalties). The BSB offered me the chance to have my case reheard. In that event, whatever happened, I should be reinstated as a barrister.
I decided at the time not to reopen the matter. My decision was partly a gesture of contempt towards the System and the Jew-Zionist lobby that procured the “prosecution”, “trial”, and eventual disbarment. Also, as someone over 60, I had no practical use for my “Barrister” status.
The second development, arising out of one of the more recent parts of the Henry Hendron case, is that, as an “unregistered” barrister (since 2008), I should never have been “prosecuted” at all, because the relevant parts of the Bar Code of Conduct would not have applied to me on the facts. I did, I believe, make that point in early correspondence with the BSB in the 2014-2016 period.
In other words, my 2016 disbarment was not only wrongful, but actually unlawful].
[Original blog article from 9 July 2017]
When I started to blog, I intended to write about things of general or objective importance. I intended to avoid the personal and subjective. Above all, I wished to avoid mixing the objective and the subjective. However, I think that some of my personal reminiscences and thoughts might be of interest to others. I also consider that objective conclusions can be drawn about UK society from some of my experiences.
Many of those who are reading this will be aware that I was disbarred in late 2016. That happened after a group of Jew-Zionists calling themselves “UK Lawyers for Israel” (some of whom, probably many, also belong to the so-called “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”) made official complaint (in 2014) about a number (at first, several dozen) of tweets which I had posted on Twitter. Eventually, the number of tweets comprising the subject-matter of the charge was reduced to seven. Seven (7) tweets (reduced to 5 at Tribunal) out of, at the time, at least 150,000.
Now, though I may blog in detail about the manifold injustices around my own case at a later date, my purpose today is to compare the overall “justice” I received with that meted out to another Bar defaulter recently, in order to illustrate wider points.
Now the bare bones of my own situation were that:
- I ceased Bar practice in 2008 and last appeared in court in December 2007;
- I did not hold a Practice Certificate after 2008;
- I joined Twitter in 2010 and started to tweet in 2011 or 2012;
- My Twitter profile and picture never made any reference to my being or having been a barrister (whether practising, non-practising or employed);
- Only a tiny handful of the 155,000-200,000 tweets I had posted made any mention of the fact that I had, years before, been a practising barrister; none of the supposedly “offensive” tweets did so;
- The tweets I posted (whether complained of or not) were all posted as part of my “personal or private life”, I having had no professional life after 2008 anyway.
It should be said (without getting too technical) that the Bar Code of Conduct was once a slim volume but has expanded into a fairly lengthy and complex code. Suffice to say that the now-usual “race and religion”, “diversity” etc stuff is now included (and I think that we can be sure what kind of persons drafted those clauses…).
In the past, a barrister’s private life was not justiciable under the Code except in a few carefully-drawn exceptions, the main one being where a barrister had been convicted of a (serious) criminal offence (parking, speeding etc excluded). The new Code, in force for a number of years, kept those boundaries but, crucially, made them advisory only, taking away the cast-iron defence that whatever was complained of had been done in the course of the barrister’s personal or private life.
At the same time, the old and sensible distinction between barristers who are in practice, or who are employed as barristers, as against those not practising, or not employed as barristers, was removed in relation to “Core Duty 5”, i.e. in effect “bringing the Bar into disrepute”.
In short, I was, in effect, “bringing the Bar into disrepute”, or so decided a Bar Tribunal panel of 5 chaired by a retired Circuit judge, when (6+ years AFTER having given up Bar practice) I tweeted the seven *reduced at Tribunal to five) “offensive” tweets (on my Twitter account that made no mention in its profile etc that I had ever been a barrister).
I should say that the presiding judge made the point in his summation and sentencing that I had had an unblemished record at the Bar throughout the years since I was Called in 1991.
Other barristers had and have Twitter accounts. Some post obscene comments, such as the “lady” QC whose every sentence contained a swear word. Many have pictures of themselves in wig and gown, or advertise their practices via website links etc (which is now OK but would have been a serious Bar offence only 20 years or so ago). None of those who have used obscene language etc (including telling people to “fuck off” etc) has ever been hauled before a Bar Tribunal, despite their proclaiming their professional status, despite having photos of themselves in Bar clothing in some cases, despite their being in practice at the Bar and talking about it and the law constantly. The presiding judge at my 5-person Tribunal called my case “unprecedented”.
There are so many examples today of barristers doing things which would have meant disbarment decades ago but which are now laughed at and even applauded. We see, for example, the Jewish barrister known to the public as “Judge Rinder” (not in fact any kind of judge) on TV, the show aping that of (also Jewish) “Judge Judy” in the USA. The barrister who plays the role of “Judge Rinder” is acting entirely within the ambit of what is now tolerated by the Bar regulators, but one could not imagine such a show on TV in, say, 1967 or even 1987.
That is even leaving aside the vulgar advertizing and self-promotion undertaken by members of the Bar in practice. That was not permitted until the 1990s. The following example of a Bar defaulter was also one of the most shameless self-promoters.
Now let us look at how the Bar treated so-called “celebrity barrister” Henry Hendron, who, despite being a horrible little bastard –from what I have heard on radio and read in newspapers (I have never met him, admittedly)–, was treated very leniently by the Bar Tribunal, certainly as contrasted with my case.
Hendron supplied so-called “chemsex” drugs, apparently used in gay orgies, to his 18-y-o foreign boyfriend, who died as a result.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/
Hendron was ALSO found guilty, on his own admission, of failing to administer properly his chambers (which he headed as Head of Chambers) and in respect of that was fined £2,000, a trivial sum for someone who made hundreds of thousands of pounds in a year.
So the Bar Standards Board and a Bar Tribunal think that a barrister and indeed head of chambers who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of supplying illegal drugs for immoral purposes, and that supply having resulted in death (within the Temple itself at that!) AND failing to run his chambers properly should get suspended from practice for three years (in fact only two, because time was ruled to run from 2016!) and get a modest fine, whereas I, “found guilty” of having tweeted five (reduced at hearing from seven charged) supposedly “offensive” tweets about Jews, and not a practising or employed barrister at all, had to be disbarred! You really could not make it up.
This is what the Bar Standards Board official , Sara Jagger, Director of Professional Conduct, said about the Hendron case:
“A conviction for supplying illegal drugs is a serious matter. In this case, it had tragic consequences. Mr Hendron failed to meet one of the core duties of a barrister, which is to uphold public trust and confidence. The suspension imposed by the tribunal reflects this.”
This is what the same woman said about my case:
“The use of such offensive language is incompatible with the standards expected of barristers. The Tribunal rightly found that such behaviour diminishes the trust and confidence the public places in the profession and the decision to disbar Mr Millard reflects this.”
The Board’s press statement (still on its website today) also repeated the lie that my Twitter account “made it clear that” I was a barrister. An out and out lie.
Who, I wonder, would the public think less properly able to reflect the standards expected of a barrister? A snivelling, drug-taking degenerate, convicted of illegal drug supply resulting in death, and who also ran his chambers improperly, OR someone who, as part of his non-professional life and indeed post-professional life, posted seven supposedly “offensive” tweets (taking them as described by the Bar Tribunal)?
You decide.
Postscriptum: The BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme interviewed Henry Hendron in a very sympathetic way recently; the popular Press handled the story with a relatively light touch. Contrast that with the day or three of msm storm around my case last year! We can see the way society is going: downhill, fast.
Update, 26 January 2019
Now he is or has been selling “legal packages”! Perhaps he could set up a stall or barrow in one of the London street markets? Is the Bar Standards Board OK with this? Is the Bar itself OK with this?! I begin to think that the whole bloody system should be chucked into the mire…
And what is one to make of this? He now intends to sail around the world! Hello sailor! He even has the cheek to solicit donations from the public! As for his hypocrisy, in pretending to be a “victim” of “unequal justice” when he has been treated so incredibly leniently compared to me (read the blog article, above!), words fail me…(his crowdfunding page from August 2018 raised….just £40. Seems that the public are not so stupid after all). [Update, June 2019: Hendron has now deleted all his blog posts about sailing around the world with a bumboy etc and seems to be intending to use his website to flog more “legal services”]
According to the blog below, he set off in August 2018, not knowing how to sail, and had to be rescued by the Coastguard the same day…then set off again a day later…The blog writer wants him to give up his “suicidal” journey. Seems that Hendron has one friend, anyway. [see above update, however]
https://www.russelldawkinsbackontrack.co.uk/my-mates/
In fact, it seems that he survived at least until 4 September 2018 (see his blog, below). What appals me about it is the poor grammar, spelling, use of English generally. That such a person was not only treated better than me by the Bar “regulators”, but was at the Bar at all, makes me fume (almost literally). Incidentally, and as of September last year, he had managed to get as far round the globe as Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, having started off in…the Isle of Wight or the nearby Hampshire coast.
https://henryhendron.com/author/hhendron/
[see update above]
I have to wonder, looking at his obviously disordered mind and his poor use of the English language, whether there really are mugs stupid enough to want to retain him on any basis. He asks for £600 an hour. Apparently, in the past his services were utilized by Nadine Dorries MP! Comedy gold.
Ah, seems that Hendron is no longer sailing around the world, unless his navigation is up the creek (literally)…he’s in Romania! https://twitter.com/henryhendron/status/1079764170…
[again, please refer to update, above]
or was, as of New Year’s Eve. Listening to him, I have to admit that I start to feel sorry for him, so pathetic is he. Compassion is my weakness, often.
A Few Stray Bits of News
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4618544/Celebrity-barrister-fighting-sibling-court.html
a dissatisfied client of Hendron having his or her say…
https://twitter.com/VobeShy/status/1007513247224877056
https://twitter.com/VobeShy/status/1046465514736881664
Update, 15 March 2019
Now he is on Question Time! (ironically, I agree with most of what he is saying!)
https://twitter.com/BenJolly9/status/1106535042115870726
Update, 10 May 2019
Just noticed this (see below). Made me laugh that a young (?) lady calling herself @pussycatt1984 tweeted that she wanted to have the babies of “pink jumper man”. She might be disappointed…
Update, 21 July 2019
The online legal news site, Legal Cheek, reports on Henry Hendron’s return to Bar practice, presumably operating from home or his boat (if he still has it):
Another barrister does not sound very thrilled at the news (or at Hendron being described in a “newspaper” as “QC”!)…
https://twitter.com/darrylcherrett/status/1140896761294270465
Quite. Rather a shame, though, that Cherrett apparently does not know the difference between “practise” (as in “to practise”) and “practice” (as in “his practice is criminal”). Still, I suppose that one could be broadminded or charitable and say that, in the USA, the words are reversed…I should not want to be too much of what some call “a grammar nazi”…Oh, fuck it! Why not?! I am sick and tired of semi-educated or narrowly-educated people at the Bar (especially..) and elsewhere in good positions in this sliding country! The Bar, journalism, msm generally, Westminster.
In fact, reverting to Hendron, I was just reading a few of his recent tweets. He is at least not too bad from the political point of view:
and he seems to be an animal lover, so not all bad in that respect either, having retweeted this:
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1108377430962696193
Update, 30 July 2019
Seems that Hendron has yet again been suspended from Bar practice, though only for 3 months:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/chemsex-barrister-suspended-again-by-tribunal/5071174.article
https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/07/henry-hendron-suspended-again/
So Hendron
- supplied illegal drugs to his foreign teenage boyfriend;
- as a result of which the boy died;
- at a “chemsex” orgy held
- within the precincts of the Temple in London;
- as a result of which Hedron and others were convicted and sentenced
- at the Old Bailey
and
- also found guilty at Bar Disciplinary Tribunal of failing to run his Chambers (of which he was Head) properly
and now also has been found guilty by a BDT of
- failing to pay a lay client monies
- despite having been ordered to by the Legal Ombudsman
but instead of being disbarred, has once again been only suspended. He must really have some good contacts in the Bar establishment! Or does he “know too much”?
Still, he only did what is chronicled above (oh, and sold so-called “legal packages” to the public from a metaphorical barrow), all of which have been in the newspapers. It is not as if Hendron did something really bad, like tweeting a few critical remarks about Jews…
I was looking at a few of Hendron’s tweets from 2016 and 2017. Only semi-literate. Does he claim to have dyslexia or something? No wonder that the Bar has lost most of the prestige it had half a century ago. It is just a multikulti dustbin now.
Update, 2 September 2019
Jew-Zionist hypocrite Simon Myerson Q.C. belongs to both main organizations that have persecuted me, “UK Lawyers for Israel” and “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [“CAA”]. Now he is playing the Jewish “victim” because others are trying to get him disbarred for his tweets etc…Ha ha! What goes around comes around.
It must be yet another case of “anti-Semitism”!…Another Jew hypocrite. Myerson was one of those who conspired to have me expelled from the Bar, and he has been both snooping on me and trolling me on Twitter for a decade.
Ha ha!
Update, 25 October 2019
“They” are still mentioning me online, really getting “full value”…
Update, 5 January 2021
Henry Hendron wins appeal against second suspension
“Mr Justice Fordham wrote: “[T]he BSB’s position is that a barrister whose practising certificate has been suspended is not a ‘BSB regulated person’”, adding that “I have heard no argument and seen no analysis to the contrary.”
The judge praised the BSB and its barrister, Zoe Gannon, for telling him about the “suspended-barrister problem” even though it cost them the case. Hendron himself “had not identified it or relied on it in his grounds of appeal”.“
“Hendron himself had not identified it…“, Well, it is well known that “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client“. I would not want his barrister to represent me, though! Semi-literate, and unable to identify legal issues, as well as morally suspect in various ways.
I should remind myself and my blog readers that the purpose here is not to attack Hendron but to show up the Bar itself, and to highlight the injustice to which I was subject.
I saw a few tweets from Hendron:
The “Crime Bar“?! As I said, semi-literate…
More?
I don’t care if he does claim “dyslexia”; if so, he should never have become a barrister.
As for this, what is one to make of it?
“Your“? (Should be “you’re” or “you are“, of course). Calls his chambers his “office”, and seems to be in a position to pay someone up to £60,000 p.a.! Not sure that I believe a word that he says, though.
An older tweet, from 2011:
The Petersham Hotel? All human life must have been there! I certainly have been, though in the 1980s. “SS Headquarters Normandie”, as my friends and I used to call it! https://www.petershamhotel.co.uk/. Used to be a good place for a quiet drink.
Update, 3 February 2021
Looks like Hendron has finally run out of road. Not that I was ever personally hostile to him; I have never met him, and indeed only heard of him after the scandal involving his “drugs and sex” activities came to light in the Press a few years ago. My aim in the blog was to compare his very lenient treatment by the Bar with the totalitarian repression that bore down on me because I said (on Twitter) a few supposedly “offensive” things about Jews.
Update, 20 March 2021
Update, 16 May 2021
Lest anyone think that the Hendron matters have been the only ones where leniency has been egregrious as compared to my own case, take a look at this report from 2019: https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/12/controversial-barrister-suspended-for-two-years-over-obscene-tweets/.
“Controversial barrister” merely “suspended” for 2 years. In my case, I tweeted general socio-political comments in 5 specified tweets. Contrary to the lying statement put out by the BSB, I did not “identify” myself in any of them, nor on my Twitter profile, as a barrister. My tweets were not “addressed” to any particular person, either. Sentence? Disbarment.
“Controversial barrister” Barbara Hewson? Merely suspended for 2 years:
“A controversial barrister has been suspended for two years for “obscene” and “abusive” language on social media” [Legal Cheek magazine]
“Her social media activity has drawn attention for many years. In 2015, Legal Cheek reported several examples of tweets sent from Hewson’s Twitter account telling people to “grow up you cunt” and “get off my tits, you cunts”.” [Legal Cheek magazine]
“[Sarah] Phillimore has said that Hewson’s past behaviour included telling her “fuck off” and calling her a “nasty C**t” and “continually making references to my daughter when she knows full well that her tweets are ‘liked’ and ‘retweeted’ by at least one convicted and unrepentant paedophile”.” [Legal Cheek magazine]
In fact, the sentence was reduced later to suspension for 1 year, because Ms. Hewson was suffering from terminal cancer, and died of it in 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Hewson]. That does not vitiate my point about the earlier leniency.
The difference between my case and hers (apart from the fact that I did not address comments to any named individual, posted only 5 tweets complained of at Tribunal, did not post anything obscene or threatening, and did not identify myself in those tweets or on my Twitter profile as a barrister)? Jews. I mentioned Jews and their behaviour etc; Ms. Hewson did not.
Any fair-minded observer would surely conclude that Ms. Hewson’s defaults (like those of Henry Hendron) were far worse than mine; indeed, I committed no default anyway, as far as I am concerned.
Pro-Jewish bias meant bias against me.
Also:
Update, 28 August 2022
“A barrister who has represented Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries and Apprentice winner Stella English has been charged with encouraging a client to supply drugs.
Henry Hendron, 41, whose rostrum of well-known past clients also includes the Earl of Cardigan, is facing allegations he bought crystal meth and party drug GBL.”
Please continue to monitor this blog post for further updates…
Update, 8 October 2022
“A barrister accused of encouraging his client to supply drugs has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Henry Hendron, who previously represented high-profile figures including the Earl of Cardigan and Nadine Dorries, is alleged to have bought crystal meth and GBL.
The 41-year-old represented himself, and barrister Kerry Broome was prosecuting, as he appeared at Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London on Thursday.
Wearing a grey suit and striped shirt, he pleaded not guilty to all counts.“
[Evening Standard].
Update, 14 March 2023
I have no idea what was the result of Hendron’s latest trial; it may have been deferred, as many have been in the past few years.
Whatever the fact of that, I notice that Hendron still has a Bar Practice Certificate, valid until April 2023! See https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/28719507B95237D35C7E529721FB5145.html.
Update, 19 March 2023
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-barrister-chemsex-death-case-29495008.
As previously noted, Hendron is still being described, risibly, as a “top barrister“! I have blogged more than once about how, for tabloid scribblers, there are only two types of barrister, “top” and “disgraced” (or both?).
Update, 17 June 2023
Well, there we are…
As said previously, I have no personal animus against Hendron (whom I never encountered). I just think that he has no reasonably-good ability, in that he is unable to reason clearly, cannot spell or use the English language properly, and overall should never have been at the Bar. Also, I still think that, until this week, he was treated very leniently by the Bar establishment, whereas I was treated very badly (and contrary to law), and that because the Bar and Bench always seem to run scared of the Jewish lobby these days.
Update, 1 September 2023
Note: https://news.sky.com/story/barrister-ian-millard-disbarred-for-offensive-anti-jewish-tweets-10635920
Addendum: In respect of the above:
“He was jailed for 14 months by Judge Mann after previously admitting two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the supply of class A drugs, one similar charge involving class C drugs, and possession of a class A drug.
Mann described Hendron as “clearly bright and capable”, adding: “It is clear you are a well-thought-of person both professionally and personally.”
“I want to make it clear that it is not the fact that you are a barrister that is so serious.
“What is so serious is these offences have been committed by you in the context of you asking those you represent, or represented, to supply you with drugs.”
The said Judge Mann called Hendron “clearly bright and capable” and that he is or was “a well-thought-of person both professionally and personally.”
Read my above blog. Would the assessment of Hendron by Judge Mann be yours? It is not mine.
Hendron was sentenced to 14 months, so will be released, at latest, after 7 months, i.e. on or before 1 April 2024; April Fools’ Day.
Update, 17 April 2024
I happened to see the Evening Standard report below, which tells the story of how Hendron’s appeal has just now been dismissed:
Apparently, “The Court of Appeal noted that Hendron had not been disbarred after that conviction, noting “unusual and very serious” feature of his case.“
Ambiguous. Does that mean that Hendron’s not having been disbarred was an “unusual and very serious feature” of the case, or was he not disbarred because there was some (unspecified) “unusual and very serious feature” in the matter? The way I read the (nowadays, typically) semi-literate newspaper report, the former seems to be the case.
Anyway, there it is. On the face of it, Hendron, when released (he may already have been released) can resume, it seems, his Bar career, if he can find any clients.
Update, 20 May 2025
Well, that’s that, then (finally). I only today noticed that Hendron was disbarred last year, only months after the last update to this blog post.
Ian Robert Millard 