The board had seen no evidence to support a contention that Rose had knowingly misled anyone or that she was reckless in doing so.
Rule of rose joshua professional#
She had been correct to act in accordance with her professional obligations and It had taken no regulatory action against Rose and had made no ruling against her The Bar Standards Board did not find that Ms Rose had wrongly claimed that she had been professionally obliged to accept the instruction when she had not and nor did it find she had acted recklessly in making that claim.Ī day after the article appeared, the Bar Standards Board said that: The article further reported that while the Bar Standards Board, to whom a complaint about Ms Rose had been made by the campaign group, had decided to take no action against Ms Rose, it had decided adversely to her that she had been wrong to make that statement and had been reckless in doing so.
The article reported claims by a gay rights campaign group based in the Cayman Islands that Ms Rose had wrongly claimed that she had been professionally obliged to accept the instructions when in fact she had not. Her involvement had attracted criticism from those who thought the case was promoting a ban on same-sex marriage. Rose had represented the islands’ government in an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. William Bennett KC, for Rose, told the High Court this morning that an article published on 21 November 2022 - now withdrawn - was about her involvement in a case about same-sex marriage legislation in the Cayman Islands. They have agreed to pay her “substantial” damages and her legal costs. The publishers of The Times and the newspaper’s legal editor Jonathan Ames have apologised to Dinah Rose KC for an article they published about her.
0 kommentar(er)
