A law student who wanted to resit an exam so much he took the the Bar Standards Board to a Judicial Review has failed.
Steven Prescott, 48, was a British Leyland worker until he became a teacher in 1999, until he become a religious minister, until he became a construction project manager in 2004, until he became a career advisor in 2010, until he quit to become a barrister, which he described as his "vocational calling". Unfortunately after studying the BPTC at ULaw in Birmingham he failed four modules. He retook them, but still failed Opinion Writing.
ULaw told Prescott that under BPTC rules he would have to re-sit the whole course if he wanted a third attempt. So he took the BSB to a Judicial Review. Prescott argued that he had demonstrated competent opinion writing skills by doing really well in his Personal Injury module, and that if he failed on that ground, retaking the whole course breached his right to respect of his private life under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Also, the imposition of exam conditions was "unreasonable, irrational and very unfair".
Mr Justice Hinckinbottom pointed out that article 8 "does not afford a right to work generally, nor a right to work in a particular job or profession". Dismissing the claim, Hinckinbottom ruled that "despite Mr Dixon's bold efforts, the Claimant has fallen very far short of persuading me that the Bar Council has acted in any way unlawfully".
BSB Director of Education & Training Dr Simon Thornton-Wood told RollOnFriday the finding "vindicated our approach", adding that it was difficult to justify allowing a student to progress "if they have stumbled over the same block multiple times". Although Prescott can still pay to retake the whole course.
Tip Off ROF
Steven Prescott, 48, was a British Leyland worker until he became a teacher in 1999, until he become a religious minister, until he became a construction project manager in 2004, until he became a career advisor in 2010, until he quit to become a barrister, which he described as his "vocational calling". Unfortunately after studying the BPTC at ULaw in Birmingham he failed four modules. He retook them, but still failed Opinion Writing.
ULaw told Prescott that under BPTC rules he would have to re-sit the whole course if he wanted a third attempt. So he took the BSB to a Judicial Review. Prescott argued that he had demonstrated competent opinion writing skills by doing really well in his Personal Injury module, and that if he failed on that ground, retaking the whole course breached his right to respect of his private life under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Also, the imposition of exam conditions was "unreasonable, irrational and very unfair".
 |
Prescott's vision for the BPTC |
Mr Justice Hinckinbottom pointed out that article 8 "does not afford a right to work generally, nor a right to work in a particular job or profession". Dismissing the claim, Hinckinbottom ruled that "despite Mr Dixon's bold efforts, the Claimant has fallen very far short of persuading me that the Bar Council has acted in any way unlawfully".
BSB Director of Education & Training Dr Simon Thornton-Wood told RollOnFriday the finding "vindicated our approach", adding that it was difficult to justify allowing a student to progress "if they have stumbled over the same block multiple times". Although Prescott can still pay to retake the whole course.