Barrister suspended after offering to photograph woman ‘without clothing’

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

7

She was part of a case he worked on


A barrister has been suspended for two years after making “inappropriate comments” and behaving in a “sexual nature” towards a female involved in a case he was working on.

Alan Wheetman, who was called in 1995, was brought before a bar tribunal for his actions.

A notice, published by the Bar Standards Board in advance of the tribunal’s full written judgment, states that Wheetman’s behaviour was “likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession”.

It goes on to say that Wheetman’s sanction arose from “inappropriate comments and behaviour of a sexual nature” made towards a female involved in a case he was working on in the magistrates court.

Wheetman is said to have showed his photography website to an individual “which included semi-nude images”, before offering to take photos of the woman “with the suggestion this could be without clothing”.

Commenting on the order, a BSB spokesperson said: “Inappropriate conduct of a sexualised nature is not something that the public should expect from members of the Bar and the decision to prevent Mr Wheetman from practising reflects the seriousness of his conduct.”

A listing on PurplePort, a website for freelance models and photographers, under the name Alan Wheetman has republished the BSB’s statement.

The profile has also added a comment on the disciplinary action, saying, “Please let the following serve as a warning to all photographers who are employed or working in a regulated profession.”

“Please be very careful when engaging people in discussions about modelling or showing any images from your portfolio to anybody in the workplace. What may be viewed by some as as an innocent discussion about your hobby or pastime, can so readily be interpreted by others as ‘inappropriate comments and behaviour of a sexual nature’”.

The decision is open to appeal.

7 Comments

Fembot

Sounds like a clumsy conversation from
someone who should know better, but to take away someone’s livelihood for two years for an action that does not even amount to a criminal offence seems disproportionate in the extreme.

Anonymous

Only 24 months??? But a junior would be struck off for accidentally incorrectly filling in court documents…something seems ofd

Soraya

Sounds like he doesn’t really understand why his behaviour was inappropriate in a professional context, which is a bit concerning.

Riothamus

No it sounds as if ignorami are jumping to conclusions about art and photography.

Soraya

Well you go & work with him then and have a nice conversation about taking your clothes off. 🙂

Anonymous

Should have been sacked.

KEENOBI

This is pretty puritanical rubbish. Barely rises to the level of a 1960s Carry On film.

Join the conversation

Related Stories

Bar regulator warns barristers to ‘think carefully’ about social media usage

Blog post follows BSB's battle with Charlotte Proudman

Feb 11 2025 8:46am
5

Magistrate reprimanded over ‘sweet dreams’ remark during sentencing

Prompted angry response from defendant

Feb 12 2025 8:49am
9