header-logo header-logo

02 June 2020
Issue: 7889 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

BSB moves to dispel exam row

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has ordered Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) to conduct an ‘urgent reassessment’ of students’ needs, in response to exam complaints

The Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) exams in April were cancelled due to COVID-19. The BSB then contracted with US testing company Pearson VUE to run the exam online in August.

However, a group of students raised objections to the ‘unfair and discriminatory’ proposals, in a letter to the BSB this week. Candidates are required to have a private and quiet examination room, with no extraneous noise, and must be videoed by a webcam throughout the three-hour exam, which terminates automatically if the student moves away from the webcam.

The students called for open book conditions which allow for breaks. They complained about a ‘lack of prior consultation’ and ‘ongoing lack of information about the exams’ as well as the ‘potentially unfair and discriminatory impact’ on women, candidates with disabilities and candidates in other timezones, for example, 25 students are from Mauritius.

A survey conducted by the students, with 335 responses, found 93% agreed the requirements of the online exam would negatively affect their performance. Three-quarters did not have access to a quiet room. The survey highlighted other issues such as bladder problems, back pain and unreliable internet connectivity.

A BSB spokesperson said: ‘BPTC providers will be in contact with students shortly to discuss their individual needs with them in the first instance. We are very conscious of the need to ensure that the arrangements we have made are fair for everyone and we are committed to working with relevant experts, providers and others as we prepare to deliver the exams, in line with the public sector equality duty and our duty to make reasonable adjustments and our wider commitment to accessibility. We will also be publishing further guidance for students around these issues shortly.’

Issue: 7889 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll