John Stenhouse

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

John Stenhouse, a barrister, faced 4 charges of professional misconduct arising from his alleged refusal to delete a prospective client's (DK) personal data (Charges 1-3, under CD5, CD10 and rC87) and failure to be open and co-operative with the ICO (Charge 4, under CD9). Charges 1-3 (applying the criminal standard due to conduct spanning April 2019) alleged misconduct over about 5 years; the BSB conceded it could not prove misconduct for August 2018-January 2023 and applied to amend the charged period to begin 10 January 2023. The tribunal refused the amendment as substantially prejudicial to the respondent and made too late, and the BSB then offered no evidence, so Charges 1-3 were found not proved. On Charge 4 (civil standard) the tribunal found S had responded in good faith to the ICO, referring to earlier explanations, and had not failed to be open and co-operative; it also indicated any breach would not have been serious enough to amount to professional misconduct under Khan v BSB. Charge 4 was not proved. No dishonesty was alleged or found. The tribunal awarded the respondent, acting in person under the Chorley principle, £9,500 costs against the BSB (reduced from the claimed schedule, with no costs for Charge 4).