Barrister, 40, ‘went on drugs binge after being suspended from his job’, tribunal hears

View
comments

A barrister who dealt in the chemsex pills that killed his teenage boyfriend went on a drugs binge after he was suspended from the profession, a tribunal has heard.

Henry Hendron, 40, is facing 18 charges of professional misconduct brought by the Bar Standards Board in relation to behaviour which followed a previous suspension. 

In 2015, Hendron bought £1,000 of mephedrone and GBL, a drug similar to GHB, from BBC producer Alexander Parkin, 42, to deal ‘in bulk’ on to the gay party scene.

He gave detailed instructions to his Colombian boyfriend Miguel Jimenez, 18, on how to use and package the drugs to which Miguel replied: ‘Blimey, and I’m the Colombian.’

Hendron woke up to find Miguel lying dead next to him in bed at his exclusive flat in London’s Temple, the collection of chambers where Britain’s top lawyers and judges are based.

He dialled 999, but the teenager had suffered a lethal overdose of a combination of mephedrone, known as ‘meow meow’, and GBL in January 2015.

During a search police recovered 60 self-seal bags of mephedrone and found Hendron’s fingerprints on the jars and envelopes containing the drugs at his flat above 6 Pump Court – unrelated to Pump Court chambers.

The lawyer, who charged up to £1,750 per day for his legal services, at first denied buying and supplying the drugs but admitted using them with Miguel, who he met in August 2014.

Hendron admitted dealing the drugs at the Old Bailey in 2016 and was given a 140 hour community work order on May 9 2016.

Parkin was also convicted of drug dealing and was sentenced to 200 hours of community service. 

Hendron was suspended from the bar, but escaped a striking off order and is now facing a further string of misconduct charges.

The 40-year-old is accused of behaving ‘in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession’ and ‘in a way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity.

The charges, which are being heard before a panel of the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS), relate to alleged incidents that took place between 2016 and 2019. 

A former client, senior accountancy advisor Charanpal Matharu told the BTAS today that Hendron and his brother demanded increasing sums of money from him – then sued him when he refused to pay.

He complained about Hendron to the Bar Standards Board and the Legal Ombudsman in late 2016.

Neither Hendron’s brother Richard, nor his firm Defacto Legal are facing charges by the BSB in relation to this matter. 

Mr Matharu had engaged Hendron to represent him in a civil court claim for a fixed fee of £2,400, but he failed to do so.

He then tried to charge the accountant as much as £24,000 and tried to sue him in the small claims court, the tribunal was told.

The action failed because Hendron was on a ‘drugs binge’ and had not filed the claim forms correctly.

Mr Matharu tried to contact Hendron repeatedly after reading about the criminal proceedings in the Evening Standard, but said he was given a ‘catalogue’ of excuses by staff at Hendron’s firm Defacto Legal.

He then received a short letter saying there had been a ‘restructure’ and his brother Richard Hendron would represent him.

But three weeks before the civil trial Richard said he was ‘too busy’, the tribunal was told.

Employing a new barrister cost the senior accountant a further £4,500.

Under cross-examination by Hendron, Mr Matharu expressed deep offence that he had been accused of lying to the court about costs after swearing on the Sikh holy book.

He said: ‘You made an allegation that I lied under oath, something I take very seriously, that I committed perjury, that I take very seriously.

‘I have sworn on the Guru Granth, I take offence that you are saying that I lied.

‘I had to take legal advice over that, that cost me more money, and then you attempted to sue me.’

Explaining the dispute, he said: ‘The first time I became aware that you had criminal proceedings was the day I read it in the Evening Standard on my way home.

‘I can’t remember the date but I’m sure you do, at no point had Mr Hendron told me previously, upon engagement.

‘They provided me with a catalogue of feeble excuses and tried to reassure me that my matter would still go to court under Mr Hendron – that his personal and professional conduct are two different matters.

‘He told me it was business as usual. But then the brother took up the case.

‘My matter had been transferred in what was described to me as ‘restructuring of organisation’ to Mr Hendron’s brother,’ Mr Matharu said.

‘I never received anything from his brother, three weeks before trial his brother decided he was too busy to attend my matter – he left me without a barrister.

‘I had to go on and find another barrister who would be credible enough to go through my matter and represent me at court.

‘I incurred legal fees that were a duplication and also had to pay Mr Graham Kirk for his attendance in court.

‘Your brother told me he was too busy and wanted to put my case out to tender because he was too busy.’

Mr Matharu said he was asked for increasing sums of money by Hendron.

‘I feel this is as if you are trying to ridicule me and everyone around you.

‘It went up to £18,000 and then £24,000. I think Richard Hendron said “look give me £3,000 and we’ll call it quits, if you don’t do it by 3pm on Friday it’s £6,000.

‘I had to instruct a solicitor, that claim was thrown out on a technicality, Mr Hendron had not complied with some technical term.’

Hendron replied: ‘At the time I was suspended, I wasn’t working.

‘I was on a prolonged drugs binge, I had been seven or eight times in intensive care.

‘I was not competent to do anything, so I didn’t pay much attention to anything.’

Laughing, Mr Mathuru said: ‘There was no falling out, you didn’t attend court, you didn’t complete the bundle.

‘I had to instruct another barrister, you sued me, I’m not sure why I’m laughing, it was quite a traumatic experience.

‘I had a conversation with you and your brother, I wasn’t sure who was suing me.

‘My complaints are an array of complaints around the service he provided and his professional conduct throughout his service – whether he sued me or not I would have made those complaints against him.’

Mr Mathuru accused Hendron of trying to ‘ridicule him.’

Hendron, when pressed by panel member, barrister Darren Snow, was unable to explain why he tried to charge Mr Matharu additional costs over the agreed £2,400.

He said: ‘What I did then, I had a team of paralegals and assistants, and I operated as a law firm operates.

‘I was going to court every day around the country and my paralegals would deal with my admin.

‘I would go on the record for my clients and then Sarah and Sue or Tom would then deal with the day-to-day work.

‘There is a whole plethora of forms and things.’

Hendron yesterday dismissed the charges against him as ‘rubbish’ but said he failed to bring his papers because he was a ‘rabbit in headlights’.

His requests for further adjournment were rejected by the panel who expressed concerns about time passed since the misconduct allegations.

The panel outlined how Hendron had himself caused delays by attempting to strike out proceedings, insisting on an in-person hearing and then raising fears of having Covid.

Hendron said: ‘They sat on evidence, there’s no good reason why, they sat on it, non-stop since 2016 when I was suspended.

‘It’s been one thing after another, I batted them off, most of them haven’t got to the tribunal.

‘One thing after another, unrelenting, they think they can sit on them for four years and out of the blue they can pursue them.

‘Why can they delay for four years? It doesn’t seem to me to be a right or fair response.’

He added: ‘I’m not competent to represent myself in these proceedings, you wouldn’t believe the hours I’ve spent staring at the screen, it’s overwhelming.’

After a pause, Judge Meston asked: ‘Have you approached anyone else to represent you?’

‘I’m a bit of a rabbit in the headlights,’ he answered.

Taking his head out of his hands, he asked for an overnight adjournment to ‘gather papers’.

When the judge asked why he hadn’t brought them, he said ‘I can’t explain,’ adding ‘most of the charges are rubbish’.

For supplying the drugs Hendron was sentenced at the Old Bailey in May 2016 to a community order with 18 months’ supervision and 140 hours unpaid work.

Hendron previously admitted a charge relating to his conviction and two charges of mismanagement relating to when he was the head of the Strand Chambers.

He was suspended by the BTAS in 2017 for three years following the drug revelations and for not running his chambers adequately.

Hendron was back before the tribunal in 2019 for the decision in whether he harmed public confidence in the profession after failing to pay a debt of £850.

But the further attempt to suspend Hendron was dismissed at the Court of Appeal in June 2020, when the BSB itself admitted it had no jurisdiction because he was already suspended. 

He now denies 18 charges of professional misconduct including behaving ‘in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession’ and ‘in a way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity.

The charges, between 2016 and 2019, relate to Hendron conducting litigation, online advertisements, and referring to himself as a barrister, all while suspended from professional practice.

He also denies using inappropriate or threatening language in email correspondence on four occasions between May and July 2017.

The hearing continues.