![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Solicitors Regulation Authority v Main [2018] EWHC 3666 (Admin) (10 October 2018) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3666.html Cite as: [2018] EWHC 3666 (Admin) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE MCGOWAN
____________________
SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY | Appellant | |
- and - | ||
![]() | Respondent |
____________________
MR P. CADMAN (instructed by Russell Cooke LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE:
The Facts
The Tribunal's Decision
"In terms of maintaining the reputation of the profession, the Tribunal felt that this matter was far too serious for either no order or a reprimand and was also too serious for a fine. The conduct merited some interference with the respondent's ability to practise. Public confidence in the legal profession demanded no lesser sanction than suspension, but the Tribunal did not consider that the protection of the reputation of the legal profession justified striking off the roll. The Tribunal considered whether it was necessary and/or appropriate for a fixed period of suspension to coincide exactly with the requirement for the respondent to remain on the sex offenders register. The Tribunal had in mind that the respondent had appealed unsuccessfully against the length of his community order, which in turn automatically generated the period of his registration. However, it felt that in all the circumstances a period of suspension, which would have to be around four years, would be longer than was merited. There was no evidence that the respondent continued to present any kind of risk to the general public and the criminal court had not chosen to impose any additional restriction orders upon him, aside from that in respect of the complainant. The respondent had effectively been unable to practice from the date of his summary dismissal from his last position as a solicitor, which occurred on 4 January 2017, the day following his conviction. He had taken a lower paid job outside the legal profession in order to contribute to the support of his young family. The Tribunal determined that it would be appropriate to suspend the respondent until the expiry of a 2-year period from the date he had ceased to practise, that is up to and including 4 January 2019."'
The Appeal
"Because the sanction imposed by the tribunal needs to maintain the reputation of the profession as a whole, matters of personal mitigation will carry less weight than they might in a criminal case."
"Absent any error of law, the High Court must pay considerable respect to the sentencing decisions of the tribunal. Nevertheless, if the High Court, despite paying such respect, is satisfied that the sentencing decision was clearly inappropriate, then the court will interfere."
It is, therefore, common ground between the parties that in this appeal the burden is on the appellant to show that the sanction imposed by the Tribunal was clearly inappropriate and requires the interference of this court.
The Submissions
MRS JUSTICE MCGOWAN:
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: Are there any consequential applications?
MISS CARPENTER: Thank you. Yes, I have an application for costs and a costs schedule has been sent but I do not know if it has reached----
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: I have certainly got a schedule. Let me see whose it is. Yes, dated 9 October.
MISS CARPENTER: That is right. The total is £8,870.05 plus VAT.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: Yes. Thank you. Mr Cadman?
MR CADMAN: Unlike at the tribunal, when I can pray in aid Baxendale Walker, I cannot here. So, I do not. All I would say is you have an element of criticism to the amount of time that the SRA will have spent preparing the schedule of matters which you found of no assistance and also there is also the matter of (inaudible) by other courts before, so I would ask for a reduction to cover that. His financial statements have not changed, have not improved, but they are not relevant matters for you.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: Thank you. We will just retire and consider that.
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: The respondent must, in principle, pay the appellant's costs. However, in two respects it seems to us that the costs on the appellant's side have been unnecessarily increased: first, in the preparation and presentation of the first ground of appeal, which this court has found to be without merit; secondly, in the preparation of a detailed schedule of other sanctions which we have found to be inaccurate in at least one respect and which, in any event, would have been of no assistance to this court.
We think it right, in those circumstances, to make a reduction in the costs payable by the respondent to the appellant. A precise calculation is not possible. We think it fair in all the circumstances to reduce the amount claimed by £1,000.
In the result, therefore, our order is that the appeal is allowed. The period of suspension imposed below is quashed and we substitute for it an order that the respondent be suspended from practising as a solicitor until 23 January 2022 and we order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs, summarily assessed in the sum of £9,404.56.
Thank you both.
MISS CARPENTER: Thank you.
CERTIFICATE Opus 2 International Ltd. Hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the judgment or part thereof. Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd. (Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.) Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 admin@opus2.digital This transcript has been approved by the Judge |