Barrister who wrote book on sleepwalking falls asleep at inquest
A barrister who wrote a book on sleepwalking has been hauled before a disciplinary tribunal after falling asleep during a coroner’s inquest.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has accused Ramya Nagesh, a member of commercial chambers 4-5 Grays Inn Square, of professional misconduct after she “dozed off” during a virtual hearing and missed her client giving evidence.
The barrister was appearing remotely on behalf of a nurse witness in a coroner’s inquest in Pontypridd County Court, Wales, in December 2022.
Ms Nagesh attended the trial virtually from her hotel room at the Holiday Inn Express in Stockport, where she was taking part in a separate six week inquest.
The tribunal heard that Ms Nagesh fell asleep shortly after she began eating a baked potato during the inquest’s 45-minute lunch break.
The barrister woke up and returned to the inquest nearly 15 minutes late despite the coroner repeating three times that the case would adjourn at 1.30pm.
The BSB accused the barrister of failing to provide an adequate explanation or apology for her late appearance.
David Welch, the watchdog’s lawyer, said: “That would undermine the public’s trust and confidence if you can’t even get that right.”
Ms Nagesh, whose camera was turned off during the inquest, fell asleep again during the afternoon session for nearly two hours.
The coroner became aware that Ms Nagesh was not fully present after the barrister failed to respond to her invitations for further questions.
Mr Welch: “You’re not doing your job, simple as that. You can’t make an effective contribution if you can’t ask simple questions from the coroner.”
The coroner’s court, the coroner’s clerk, her solicitor and her own chambers attempted to locate Ms Nagesh but were unable to reach her by phone, text or email.
The barrister’s absence forced her instructing solicitor at Plexus Law to represent the client on her behalf, dialling into the inquest via telephone.
Giving evidence to the tribunal on Monday, Ms Nagesh said that was “in a fog” and thought she had been only asleep for 10 minutes at most.
She claimed to have fallen asleep while sitting at the desk in her hotel room and denied suggestions she moved to the bed.
The barrister said she was “shocked and surprised” to learn the court had been looking for her and initially suggested an “internet glitch” affected her virtual appearance.
When Ms Nagesh reappeared at the inquest, the coroner questioned why the lights in her hotel room were switched off and later complained that the barrister appeared drowsy and her speech was slurred.
The inquest and professional discipline specialist recalled feeling “flabbergasted” and told the coroner that she had been present for the past hour and a half, a response Ms Nagesh felt was accurate at the time.
However, the barrister has since said she does not know whether she was asleep the entire time or drifting in and out of her client giving evidence.
Ms Nagesh, who has worked on the Grenfell Inquiry and Hillsborough Inquest, previously wrote a legal academic textbook on how cases involving sleepwalking, blackouts and hypoglycaemia are treated in criminal law.
The BSB argued Ms Nagesh’s closing submissions would have been severely hampered because she failed to pay attention and did not take any notes during her client’s testimony.
Ms Nagesh has since claimed she was suffering from fatigue and excessive sleepiness caused by a Covid infection, vitamin D insufficiency and a sleep disorder which affected her cognition and memory.
In written evidence, Ms Nagesh’s lawyer argued this meant she was “confused and disorientated”, impairing her ability to participate in the inquest and properly answer the coroner’s questions at the time.
The barrister is said to “profoundly regret” the incident and repeated her apologies to the coroner and her client.
However, Ms Nagesh denied acting without honesty and integrity or attempting to mislead the coroner’s court in breach of professional conduct rules.
The BSB said reliance on these health conditions is not a reasonable excuse and described the barrister’s medical evidence as “retrospective, vague, somewhat inconclusive”.
The barrister was also scrutinised by the BSB for initially charging for work on the case, before deciding to waive the fee entirely.
She said: “I’m not clinging to every penny even if the client’s not happy.”
Ms Nagesh, who has no disciplinary previous findings against her, was described as a “very level headed, decent, good person” by David Perry KC, a senior barrister who provided witness evidence about her character.
Mr Perry, previously the accused’s pupil supervisor, added: “I’ve known her [Ms Nagesh] for over a decade now. In my opinion, she’s a person of the utmost integrity.”
Ms Nagesh’s lawyer declined to comment further.
The case continues.
