'The Reality Is... You Both F***ed Up' – Beckwith's Counsel Grills Complainant On Day Three of Hearing
The complainant's alcohol tolerance and social media posts are questioned by the counsel for the Freshfields partner accused of sexual misconduct.
October 02, 2019 at 12:05 PM
6 minute read
Ryan Beckwith's lead counsel, Alisdair Williamson QC, opened day three of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing into the Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner's alleged sexual misconduct, by grilling the complainant over perceived "conflicts" and inconsistencies in her evidence.
In his cross-examination of the complainant, known as Person A – who has accused Beckwith of having engaged in sexual activity with her without consent – Williamson attempted to discredit the evidence she has put forward in support of her claim that she was too drunk to have consented to any sexual activity, that a kiss had taken place after an event in Oxfordshire, and at times intimated that her relationship with Beckwith was not as fraught as she has claimed.
At one point, the complainant suggested a Freshfields in-house counsel had lied and acted "to minimise the consequences" for Beckwith.
Cross-examination
At different points in his cross-examination, Williamson suggested that Person A had misled the tribunal by suggesting her psychiatrist was a qualified doctor; questioned how drunk she actually was during the two incidents in question; and contested specific details in her and another witness's account relating to the night on which the alleged sexual activity took place.
Attempting to weaken Person A's assertions around how drunk she was on both occasions – following the Oxford trip and on the main night in question following drinks at The Harrow pub – Williamson pointed to apparent inconsistencies across her witness statement and that of her flatmate and friend, known as Witness B, suggesting she had not consumed as much alcohol as she said, and that it did not impair her judgement to the extent she claims.
Williamson examined evidence concerning the day after the night in question on July 2, 2016, in which she visited Henley with friends, and even presented her with a picture of herself smiling with a glass of wine in hand at the event. The barrister grilled her on whether this was behaviour consistent with someone who had the previous night "never been more drunk than ever before" in her life.
"But you'd be feeling shocking, barely able to face any alcohol, one would've thought," Williamson argued.
"My plan was to carry on, the next day," she responded, stressing she was unable to "contemplate what had happened" the night before and was "going through the motions".
Alcohol tolerance
He further pointed to a line in Witness B's statement that indicated Person A was able to "hold her alcohol". Person A threw off this assertion, suggesting Witness B was "wrong" and that the alcohol consumed on the night of the main incident "evidently" left her "significantly impaired".
Williamson pointed to an event the week after the night in question, on Person A's last day in the office, when she returned to The Harrow on July 8, 2016. She was shown a photo on social media of herself, captioned: "[Hashtag] Harrow, [Hashtag] My boss, [Hashtag] Wine and Shots. However, at this point, the counsel for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Riel Karmy-Jones QC interjected, making it known to the tribunal that the 'boss' referred to here was not Beckwith.
Attempting to throw water on the assertion that her and Beckwith's relationship was fractious, Williamson referred the tribunal to interviews involving Freshfields' in-house counsel – known as AS, in whom Person A had confided – in which Person A allegedly said there was a "third person" at the pub that felt like "a third wheel". Williamson argued this was a reference to another associate at the firm, Witness C, who had attended The Harrow with Person A and Beckwith.
Person A contested this, at which point Williamson asked her whether she was accusing AS of lying. Person A responded: "Unfortunately, that is my view… I don't think her recollection was right." And when asked whether she thought AS was "acting in the course of the investigation for the respondent's benefit", Person A said she felt that, "as a result of them being friends" that "she was acting to minimise consequences for respondent".
The alleged kiss
Regarding the alleged kiss in The Harrow before the alleged sexual contact, Williamson drew on flatmate Witness B's statement, in which Person A apparently told Witness B that Beckwith had kissed her which, Williamson underlined, conflicted with other evidence in which she allegedly said it would be "absurd to suggest" she had kissed him. At this point, Person A remarked that it was likely Witness B had confused the events in Oxfordshire with those in The Harrow.
Williamson also went on to question whether the experience in Oxfordshire really had "accelerated" her decision to leave the firm, asserting that "the truth is, you already decided to go" by this point.
Drawing on an interview with her psychotherapist, Williamson attacked her claim that she had fallen over repeatedly following drinks at The Harrow on her way to her front door with Beckwith, saying bluntly: "You didn't fall over, did you?" He argued that she had no cuts or bruises that one might have suffered falling onto hard surfaces.
Though Person A claimed she was asleep, Williamson later suggested that she was in fact an "active" participant in looking for a condom on the night of July 1, concluding: "The reality is, you were having a great time in the pub, got back home with the respondent, and the pair of you 'fucked up'," he said, referring to earlier evidence in which Person A suggested both her and Beckwith had made a mutual mistake, and that sleeping with her married boss was "such a cliché". Person A denied this, stressing that any sexual activity was not consensual.
Toward the end of the third day, Karmy-Jones responded briefly to Williamson, drawing on evidence that, to her mind, did indicate that the kiss on the first event did happen, and that the suggestion Person A was a "willing party" or "even an instigator" to the second was untrue.
"I'm telling the truth," Person A said tearfully.
The case continues. Tomorrow (October 3), the tribunal will hear from Person A's flatmate, Witness B, and will hear from the respondent Beckwith on Friday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore than Half of South Australian Lawyers Report Suffering Harassment
3 minute readKing & Spalding, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Launch Pro Bono Legal Initiative for Tennis Players
2 minute readTrump Ordered to Pay Legal Bill Within 28 Days After Rejecting Costs Order
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 2Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firms Innovator Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
- 3Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 4'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
- 5A Texas Lawyer Just Rose to the Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250