Deputy High Court Judge Richard Clayton KC heard Suleman Patel’s appeal against a nine-month suspension from practice in November 2024. He stated during the hearing he had read all the relevant material but was having difficulty navigating the PDF bundles from his ‘prone’ position in bed, and found it difficult to take notes. He dismissed Patel’s appeal.
Patel brought a second appeal, on the basis of the deputy judge’s practical difficulties and a 16-month delay in delivery of the final written judgment, although Deputy Judge Clayton gave reasons orally within 16 days of the hearing. Patel argued the case breached the principle that justice ‘should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’, as per R v Sussex Justice, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.
Dismissing Patel’s appeal, however, the Court of Appeal noted that while there were ‘a number of procedural irregularities’ there was ‘no arguable case of injustice’, in Patel v General Optical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 1206.
Lord Justice Phillips, in a postscript, commended Deputy Judge Clayton for his ‘willingness to hear a case while recovering from injury’ and for his ‘fortitude in doing so in bed’ but said he should not have heard the case.
‘I consider that, save in exceptional circumstances, such as great urgency or where a matter can only be heard by a specific judge, a judge should only undertake a hearing... when they have the essential tools to undertake the task properly and professionally... those must include proper working space and an ability to make electronic or written notes without impediment,’ Phillips LJ said.
‘I do not say that a judge should never undertake a hearing whilst in bed or otherwise than at a desk or table, but it should be a last resort... Further, the practice of reading out a draft judgment orally, which I have not come across before, should be discouraged as it is apt to lead to confusion.’
