Which “journalist” wrote this rubbish? Name and shame.

Just to note that since leaving Radcliffe Chambers, I am not sure he is still listed as practising at the Bar. I don’t think you’ll find him on the BSB ‘find a barrister’ page.

Just leaving this here… 🙄

Sorry you’ll have to enlighten me….

Steven Barrett. He blocked nearly every lawyer who pointed out his errors back at The Bad Place.

Steven Barratt is a joke. I don't know a single lawyer (and I am one) who thinks he is anything other than a clown.

One of the best things about leaving twitter was that I had forgotten he existed

This is hilarious. Steven Barrett is warning his followers in advance that his language will be getting fruity. And he's taken to referring himself as "a Published Gentleman".

I think “Published Gentleman” needs scare quotes in the same way “Actress” did in Edwardian times…

So does "leading barrister."

“Leading barrister” is a dead give away.

Apparently he isn't a barrister any more. He appears to live in some kind of fantasy Xanadu bubble of his own.

At least now everyone can reply "Bøllocks" when he posts.

I think I may have done something like that in the other place. Probably explains why I was blocked.

It must have been a relief to be blocked 😅

Isn't there a Secret Barrister on here?

Yes, but we are not talking about that barrister.

Secret Barrister is good. Barrett is not.

I had a scary thought they might be the same person. If they aren't, I'll sleep easy at night.

Ofc eing a right wing supporter wouldn't matter eh. The law is the law

🤦🏻‍♂️

Wasn’t that jackanapes shown the door by his chambers for making a holy show of himself over Southport?

I believe so.

Also for getting basic stuff wrong: eg claiming that provisions in a Schedule to an Act didn’t have the same legal force as sections in the Act. (Quite how anyone survives at the Chancery Bar thinking that is not an easy question to answer.)

It wouldn’t be equitable to require him to actually know stuff? 😉

Falsely claimed that the withdrawal agreement fully expired at the end of the Brexit transition period...

Excellent use of the word "jackanapes". It is not used nearly enough nowadays.

FFS. Clearly does not satisfy the recusal test.

I think you are being WAY too charitable, Aileen

It is also clearly outwith the jurisdiction of the JCIO, which deals only with complaints about judges’ personal conduct. And Barrett is not disinterested, but is associated with Lawyers for Borders who support local authorities in seeking these injunctions

lawyers for what now???

“Lawyers for Destitution” and “Lawyers for Cruelty” were presumably considered and rejected.

Or ‘Lawyers for Britain’ that seemed to be more ‘Lawyers for Brexit’

I assume it’s a play on “Lawyers Without Borders”

but is it a real thing? a google search didn't return anything

Yes, it is. I don’t think they have a website but they have a Twitter/X account and Barrett has been associating himself with it and inviting local authorities to get in touch with them for assistance in applying for these injunctions

Thanks Barbara - do we know who else is involved?

Not specifically, no. There’s an article here which is quite informative as background conservativehome.com/2025/08/21/f...

“Lawyers with Boundaries” might be slightly more in their damned line.

I wonder when we will see “Doctors for Borders” as a reaction to “Médecins sans Frontières”.

More right-wing lawfare. Does he have no shame?

Barrett

Oh FFS, why can't these people just disappear

Did they mention that the original verdict judge has stood as a Tory candidate, including in Northern Ireland..?

It can’t be. Surely not the buffoon?

The only who "doesn't do politics, only law" yet has never, seemingly, had a public legal opinion which conflicted with his politics?

In this case, he is associated with a “cross party” group calling itself Lawyers for Borders which has been encouraging and assisting local authorities to apply for these injunctions. He is thoroughly parti pris

I can’t imagine the JCIO are going to be amused.

Barrett’s not fit to polish Bean LJ’s boots. Anyone who has appeared in front of him will know that he is fair-minded and leaves any political sympathies at the door. I have had the pleasure on at least five occasions and had no inkling of past Fabian connections!

The problem is that Barrett is engaging and persuasive to a growing audience of ordinary people who will never appear in front of a judge, and who are resolute in their disbelief that a judge with previous political associations they distrust would adhere to his judicial oath of impartiality

I suspect the audience effect is heightened by the trend in the US of politically-appointed Supreme Court judges’ judgments

which is precisely why you would need journalists to DO THEIR JOB and don't amplify this nonsense

I’ve made an editorial complaint to the Telegraph about their piece: its omission to mention Barrett’s association with Lawyers for Borders, and its omission to mention that the JCIO has no jurisdiction to deal with his complaint

Yes, and even for a certain UK audience, it’s easy to assent to the tearing down of an appointments system they perceive as producing the wrong results, but harder to think through and face the consequences of a system in which appointments are political. They should be careful what they wish for

He is toxifying the rule of law. It’s dangerous stuff

It is. It all appears motivated and to be pure lawfare, ultimately with the effect of undermining public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice, and in judicial appointments and conduct regulation

Let’s put it this way: I find it hard to see how it maintains the trust and confidence that the public place in the profession.

I think I’ve read that wording somewhere else. A link on the BSB website perhaps…

As the BSB discovered the hard way in the Proudman case, there’s a very high bar for professional misconduct involving criticism of judges. It must risk “gravely damaging the judiciary”. Does this meet that test?

He appears, however, to have been handed a précis of Surkov

I self-harmed by watching a 10 minute clip of him on GB News dissecting the Epping judgment. His comments about Bean LJ were not merely disrespectful but were rude and debasing. His legal analysis was, unsurprisingly, inexpert.

And I doubt whether it was made clear, as it should have been, either that he is a former Conservative councillor or that he is associated with the group that has been encouraging these injunction applications

What possessed you man?!

Intrigue. It was posted with approval by a misguided Facebook friend. I've not thought about Barrett since leaving Twitter, so thought it mind flood back the nostalgia. It was as appalling as I remember.

I would say that the Twitter user demographic has shifted and grown in a way which aligns with and is receptive to him as a law explainer. It’s a demographic which is largely legally illiterate and which to an extent flirts with lawlessness

I admire those good lawyers who've stayed involved to try to counter the 'expert' spreading of legal illiteracy, but I fear that my social media experience is far healthier through not engaging on X.

But he knows everything about law from a particular point of view….

Always law Sean. Never politics

Glorious drive-by that!

I dunno. His relentlessly powerless reasoning might work

How very dare you?! He is a "Published Gentleman" dontchaknow? bsky.app/profile/snig...

It is slightly amusing that said PG thinks those two words are a bit daring. There are Scots and Irish on here for whom swearing is a way of life (before anyone gets arsey there is a BBC programme on the Celtic love of swearing - honest, I am not taking the f@@@ing p££s)

The B word has been fine since 1977, right?

First album I bought

Well before. There’s two small islands off Oysterhaven called The Sovereigns. On older charts, they’re marked as, “The Sovereign’s Bollocks”. For once, on this one I suppose the Victorians had an excuse for a bit of cleaning up.

Pish, shurely.

BBC speak, feck&r

What in the name of flaming Zeus’ butthole is a Published Gentleman?

The next Billable Hour T-Shirt

I am a published gentleman read my works ye mighty and despair (not in a good way)?

In an honourable way, of course.

My god that’s desperate stuff

Does it mean he's been lished in a pub?

You certainly look like a published gentleman in the photo AI attaches to my Google search

Right. That’s my Chambers photo getting changed

“Are we displaying it, sir? Your Gentleman, sir, are we Publishing it, sir? Your Published Gentleman for all the world to see, sir?“

"I am not a number, I am a Published Gentleman".

Sir definitely dresses to the right, doesn’t he sir

The far right?

🤣🤣🤣

Nice

And here at Jazz Club is Published Gentleman and the Fictions. Sweet.

It isn’t within the JCIO’s remit and so will inevitably be rejected. It couldn’t be clearer on their website. If Barrett didn’t know this, that’s a poor reflection on his competence, and if he did know it, that’s a poor reflection on his integrity. Incurious journalists amplifying it are no better

I understand Barrett is already impugning the JCIO’s integrity in The Other Place. Doubtless because he has now realised that his complaint is hopeless and is seeking to deflect from the idiocy of making the complaint in the first place.

Is he still practising? Impugning the JCIO on social media strikes me as a high risk activity if he is.

It doesn’t matter if he is practicing or not - if be remains an unregistered barrister then I believe he is still subject to the code of conduct.

I think that’s right. I also thought it was an interesting piece of information for a different reason - it seems to show that he has chosen to earn a crust through means other than providing legal services. Some might say that this is a significant moment in the context of consumer protection.

Yes, unregistered barristers are still subject to BSB regulation (although with a high bar for Article 10 freedom to criticise the judiciary). Without a practising certificate his lawyerly work must be limited and I imagine he generates income from his substack and social media instead

He is just begging to be cancelled by the hive of woke that is the Standards Board

I’ve no doubt that he would seek to present any disciplinary process as unjust martyrdom by a flawed institution (and of course he wouldn’t be the first barrister to do so either)

I think @legalmusings.bsky.social has written that he is no longer practising. I understand he now has a role with “Lawyers for Borders”.

That is also my understanding. He isn’t currently on the barristers’ register, and he has clearly been associating himself with “Lawyers for Borders” on his social media account, using “we” to speak of them, and urging local authorities to apply for these injunctions

Lawyers for Borders? Do they have particularly strong views on the use of nasturtiums or perhaps general bedding plants?

Doesn't appear to be on the register

Not on the register but unregistered barristers are still subject to the jurisdiction of the BSB and bound by relevant core duties. Though I don’t think his conduct in criticising the judiciary yet meets the demanding test articulated by the tribunal in the Proudman case

(I know, I am one!)

I recall when he appeared before Parliament and failed to disclose that he was a (Conservative) councillor in Buckinghamshire, which led a member of the committee to immediately add the qualification: parliamentlive.tv/event/index/... (at 11:37.45)

One wonders why he didn't refer Eyre J, who ordered the interim injunction and a former four time Tory PPC to the same committee

It reminded me of this: www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio...