View the PDF Here: LD and EK Letter.
6 November 2024
Dear Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services,
We write this letter to express our deep concerns regarding the continued charges levied against Dr Charlotte Proudman alleging various breaches of her duties pursuant to the Bar Code of Conduct. We believe that Dr Proudman is being discriminated against based upon her protected characteristics, specifically her sex and feminist beliefs. We raise these concerns not least because this is an incredibly important case for the rights of women such as Dr Proudman to speak out and criticise poor judgements when victims suffer victim blaming and harm, but namely because this is also something that we as scholars (whereby it should be noted Dr Proudman is also a scholar) do ourselves on a regular basis, along with thousands of others. It is, we argue, an absurdity to argue that a feminist barrister and scholar cannot or should not do the same.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) have charged Dr Proudman specifically with breaching the code of conduct because she criticised a domestic abuse judgment. The judge was Sir Jonathan Cohen (now retired), a former Etonian and member of the Garrick Club. The alleged perpetrator in the case was a barrister and part-time judge. Dr Proudman argued that the judgment had echoes of the ‘boys’ club’ because of the judge’s Garrick Club membership.
The family court’s stance towards women and their rights is reflective of the systemic abuse and victim-blaming of women and this is a well substantiated argument. We ourselves have contributed to decades-worth of research which validates this argument. In fact, our own government’s Ministry of Justice Harm Panel Report (2020), academic, charitable, media and independent inquiries have concluded the same and on numerous occasions.
The charges levied against Dr Proudman, specifically regarding a series of tweets/post on the social media platform ‘X’, are merely comments reflecting what has already been known and addressed publicly by many, including multiple current MPs such as Jess Phillips, Taiwo Owatemi and former MP Kate Kniveton. Dr Proudman’s comments about the judgment were correct and it is therefore imperative that women/women barristers are able to speak up to engender attempts at meaningful systemic change.
Below we outline the tweets from Dr Proudman and link them to publicly available academic/other evidence, highlighting that these arguments are well-founded in the extant literature:
1.(image of tweet 1/14)
1.1 As far as we are aware, any barrister is afforded the right to not agree with a judge’s
decision.
1.2 The case had finished, was published in the Daily Mail and the Times and Dr Proudman
was expressing her opinions.
1.3 The minimisation of domestic abuse within the family court is well-founded, as
discussed in detail in the Harm Report (2020).
2.(image of tweet 2/14)
2.1 Demeaning the significance of domestic abuse has the effect of silencing victims and rendering perpetrators invisible. This is well-founded and evidenced as leading to serious harm for victims and their children if they are mothers. See the Harm report, our research here and here and the evidence which has led for multiple organisations globally to call for systems to ‘pivot to the perpetrator’ (Katz, 2022).
3.(image of tweet 3/14)
3.1 Hitting a woman with a ‘forceful blow’ is an act of abuse and assault (whether intentional or reckless in terms of the application of unlawful force to another person), in regards to criminal standards and also according to the Domestic Abuse Act (2021) Statutory Guidance.
4.(image of tweet 4/14)
4.1 ‘H’ appears to be demonstrating a pattern of abuse towards ‘W’. While it is for the court find fact on domestic abuse, we would argue this further act resulting in the need for medical care is an act of domestic abuse. Again, the minimisation of this pattern of abuse as ‘reckless’ may result in serious implications for ‘W’, not least that it is well-founded that abuse escalates and can lead to a victim’s death/murder when perpetrators are not held to account (Monckton
Smith, 2020; Hill, 2020).
5.(image of tweet 5/14)
5.1 Describing abusive relationships as ‘tempestuous’ is documented as trivialising domestic
abuse, which again is evidenced as linked to one of many reasons that perpetrators of abuse
and murder escape conviction (LeCouteur and Oxlad, 2011).
6.(image of tweet 6/14 and para 33 of Traharne)
6.1 As we understand practice direction 12J FPR 2010 and the Domestic Abuse Act (2021), the above amounts to domestic abuse. Furthermore, difference in ‘character’ is not an acceptable reason to physically harm another person. If it were, society would fall into a violent free-for-all:
As defined in rule 2.3(1) FPR, “domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in the 2021 Act.
Sections 1 and 2 of the 2021 Act provide that:
“Definition of “domestic abuse”
1.- (1)This section defines “domestic abuse” for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is “domestic abuse” if—
(a) A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and
(b) the behaviour is abusive.
(3) Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of any of the following—
(a) physical or sexual abuse;
(b) violent or threatening behaviour;
(c) controlling or coercive behaviour; […]
…and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of
conduct. [Emphasis added].
7.(image of tweet 7/14)
7.1 We would argue on the contrary that multiple physical assaults with a shoe and books that have resulted in ‘W’ seeking hospital treatment are indicative that ‘W’ would have been in fear of further physical harm. It is common for domestic abuse victims to recant statements from police due to fear, duress and/or trauma, especially when they are still co-habiting with a perpetrator or engaged within traumatic criminal and/or civil proceedings (Crown Prosecution Service, 2024).
8.(image of tweet 8/14)
8.1 As Dr Proudman notes above, the statement regarding ‘W’s’ need to maintain the relationship as having eclipsed her ‘cognitive understanding’ is not only victim-blaming, pathologizing and harmful but also confusing. This implicitly suggests that the judge acknowledges the relationship was abusive, but that because the judge feels the onus is on the victim to leave the relationship, he has concluded this was not abusive. The extant literature is clear in that victims are frequently placed in a ‘bind’ whereby their options in abusive relationships are often no more than two-fold: a) stay in the relationship and be blamed for staying or b) leave the relationship and be blamed and stigmatised for the relationship ending (Hester, 2011). This also ignores the decades of research outlining the multiple and very real reasons a victim may be unable to escape such a relationship e.g. economic reasons (Sharp-Jeffs, 2022; Sanders, 2015).
9.(image of tweet 11/14)
9.1 We agree with Dr Proudman in that this is not only a sexist comment and misogynistic
(meaning prejudice against women), but it is also a sunk cost fallacy, where the arguer justifies their decision to continue a specific course of action by the amount of time or money someone has already spent on it. It is deeply concerning that any judge, whose very duty is to try such cases, would consider a thorough investigation of reported domestic abuse as ‘entirely unnecessary’.
10.(image of tweet 12/14 and para 64 of Traharne)
10. 1 We again return to our above points regarding the definition of domestic abuse and provide further emphasis and clarification regarding coercive control and the importance of judges noting patterns of behaviour. It is clear that further witnesses have testified that ‘H’ may be a prolific abuser in so far as he has coercively controlled previous victims/partners. The reference to ‘W’s’ ‘character’ in drawing comparisons to ‘H’s’ former partner is not only victim-blaming which is incredibly harmful (Bermek and Unan, 2024), but it is also a causal fallacy (implying a relationship between two things exists where one can’t actually be proven). The judge has no evidence to presume that the only reason ‘W’ consider herself a victim is because of her ‘character’ being dissimilar in ‘character’ to another woman. In fact, evidence tells us that regardless of character, anybody can be a victim of abuse. Women are statistically more likely to be victims than men (Myhill, 2015), but any ‘character’, personality, class or creed can be a victim and this is well evidenced (Domestic Abuse Act Statutory Guidance, 2023).
11. (image of tweet 14/14)
11.1 In an unusual turn of events, the judge then makes clear in the judgement that duress (which can be a part of coercive control which ‘presents the risk of death or serious injury’) is relevant when determining if a pre- or post-nuptial agreement is valid in principle, implying the judge did understand that if there were indeed incidents or patterns of abuse/control then it would be relevant. But the judge didn’t address the husband’s physical assaults of the wife making her fearful that could have led to her signing the PNA. This further supports Dr Proudman’s position and appropriate criticism of the judgement. We also see that at the top of the judgment it says the wife made a claim of sexual coercion, a very serious allegation, and nowhere in the judgment does the judge address that allegation, it is just left hanging as if it is not a significant matter.
12.(image of tweet on coercive behaviour)
12.1 However, the judge stops short of actually citing the relevant practice directions and statutory guidance, which again warrants appropriate criticism from Dr Proudman given the above.
It is clear to us, even from the limited judgement that is publicly available that in our expert opinion:
– The patterned behaviours of ‘H’ and subsequent actions from ‘W’ reflect that ‘H’ is likely to be a prolific perpetrator of coercive control and domestic abuse and ‘W’ a victim of this abuse.
– The judge in question has used derogatory and harmful language in describing ‘W’. He has repeatedly and erroneously drawn upon false sweeping generalisations regarding the victim, diminished her abuse and repeatedly victim-blamed her for having experienced these abuses.
– We agree with Dr Proudman that this is reminiscent of the ‘boys club’ mentality that not only permeates our family justice system but also our criminal justice system, where we note there are minimal cases that result in convictions for example in rape cases because of such victim-blaming tropes.
– Therefore, Dr Proudman has made sound criticism of this judgement and judge.
In addition to the above, we wish to repeat the statements made in the SHERA letter sent to the BSB:
We do not believe that Dr Proudman’s comments about the judgement by Sir Jonathan Cohen undermine the integrity of the system or reduce confidence in it; to the contrary, we believe it takes immense integrity to publicly defend a vulnerable individual from a judge who holds significant power. We ask the BSB to withdraw its misguided prosecution and to issue a formal and public apology to Dr Proudman. Ironically, the same judge in this matter, Sir Cohen, has now been recused from another rape case because of his Garrick Club membership this year. Additionally, one of the earlier judges Phillip Havers KC, who was hearing the regulatory case against Dr Proudman was recused because he too was a member of the Garrick Club and in fact went to school at Eton with Judge Cohen, further reifying the numerous concerns we have raised. Fortunately, Dr Proudman was successful in ensuring Judge Havers recused himself because of a perception of bias.
We are also concerned that 9 male barristers including a Silk, called HHJ Linford on social media an idiot, stupid, acting illegal, saying he should be sacked, biased, and the BSB said they had a right to free speech. Is it the case that male barristers have a right to be seriously offensive towards a judge, but a female barrister has no Article 10 right to express a legitimate opinion about a domestic abuse judgment? We agree with others in the media and the public arena, the BSB is silencing women and is not fit for purpose.
The double standard is all the more apparent when one considers that the BSB neglected to reprimand or punish members of the Bar who made seriously offensive, threatening and derogatory public comments about Dr Proudman, which included calling her a c*nt, w*nker, as well as dreadful, mentally ill, and narcissistic. In both cases, the BSB said these men had a right to free speech. It cannot be right or fair that the BSB dismissed these comments as ‘unpleasant and inflammatory’ but not serious enough to warrant disciplinary action and yet singled out Dr Proudman’s criticism of a High Court Judge who is a member of The Garrick Club as being in the ‘old boys club’ as ‘seriously offensive, derogatory language’. We ask the BSB to redirect its efforts towards those lawyers who abuse Dr Proudman and other women online.
Furthermore, the BSB wrote in their letter (when they opposed the strike out being in public) dated 6 September 2024, “The Respondent appears also to have provoked the open letter at p.808 of the Respondent’s bundle, which refers to complaints made by her to the BSB.”. To be clear, Dr Proudman did not provoke the letter signed by 60 MPs, lawyers, academics and activists who asked the BSB to drop their case against Dr Proudman. We wrote and sent the letter of our own volition to Maya Oppenheim asking her to write about the letter in the Independent, because of our deep concerns as detailed in the letter. We request that the BSB provide a further public apology to us and Dr Proudman for this unfounded accusation.
Since then, others such as the United Nations Special Rapporteur have joined our efforts, who wrote directly to the government expressing their support for Dr Proudman. There have been many other letters and efforts to support Dr Proudman, because this is a matter that speaks to all of us as women and advocates.
Dr Proudman was also awarded Advocate of the Year in 2023 and was highly commended as Woman of the Year in 2024 from the Women and Diversity in Law Awards. She has also appeared in a number of other reported judgments which have helped set precedent in the family court including the naming of a sex offender in a judgment, which helped to develop Cafcass guidance on domestic abuse and child sexual abuse.
In conclusion, we provide this witness statement in support of Dr Proudman and to express our continued deeply held concerns that the BSB charges levied against Dr Proudman are entirely discriminatory, unfounded and are in direct contradiction to the values she displays in upholding the integrity, professionalism and passion for women and children’s rights to live a life free from violence.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno, Lecturer, University of Manchester and Director and Founder, SHERA
Research Group
Dr Emma Katz, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Edge Hill University and author of the book
Coercive Control in Children’s and Mothers’ Lives (Oxford, 2022).