SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No and. Before:

Transcription

1 SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case N BETWEEN: SHADAB AHMED KHAN Applicant and SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Respndent Befre: Mr J. A. Astle (in the chair) Mr J. Evans Mr M. R. Hallam Date f Hearing: 5 January 2018 Appearances Mr Jnathan Gdwin, slicitr advcate, f Jnathan Gdwin Slicitrs Advcate Ltd, 69 Ridgewd Drive, Pensby, Wirral CH61 8RF fr the Applicant. Ms Nimi Bruce, cunsel, f Capsticks LLP, 1 St Gerge s Rad, Lndn SW19 4DR instructed by Ms Kelly Sherlck, slicitr, f the Slicitrs Regulatin Authrity, The Cube, 199 Wharfside Street, Birmingham B1 1RN fr the Respndent. JUDGMENT

2 2 Applicatin 1. On 26 September 2017 the Applicant, Mr Shadab Ahmed Khan, applied fr his name t be restred t the Rll f Slicitrs. The Applicatin was supprted by a statement als dated 26 September 2017, with exhibits. The Applicant had been struck ff the Rll by Order f the Tribunal made n 9 Nvember The Tribunal s Judgment (in case number 10727/2011) was dated 15 December The Tribunal issued directins n 3 Octber 2017 which, amngst ther matters, required the Respndent Slicitrs Regulatin Authrity t respnd t the Applicatin by 3 Nvember 2017 and listed the Applicatin fr hearing n 5 January The Respndent filed and served its Respnse, with supprting dcuments, n 3 Nvember The Applicant filed and served a Reply t that Respnse n 15 Nvember The matter was listed fr hearing n 5 January Dcuments 4. The Tribunal reviewed all the dcuments submitted by the parties, which included: Applicant Applicatin in Frm 4 dated 26 September 2017 Applicant s statement dated 26 September 2017 with exhibits including: Tribunal Judgment in matter 9808/2007 arising frm a hearing n 22 April 2008 Certificate f Cnvictin relating t the Applicant s cnvictins n 30 September 2009 and sentencing n 2009 Sentencing remarks f HHJ Cahill QC Tribunal Judgment in matter 10727/2011 heard n 9 Nvember 2011 Ruling f HHJ Belcher in Prceeds f Crime applicatin, 29 September 2014 Dcuments relating t an applicatin t the Respndent fr permissin t emply the Applicant as a paralegal (2015), including references/testimnials Cpy Re a Slicitr (N.11 f 1994) Adjudicatr s Decisin n the applicatin 11 June 2015 Bundle f testimnials/references Reply t Respndent s Respnse dated 15 Nvember 2017 Cpy advertisements f the Applicatin in the Law Sciety Gazette (23 Octber 2017) and the Asian Express (Octber 2017)

3 3 Cpy Tribunal Judgment in matter 11624/2017 (Farrimnd) Respndent Respnse t the Applicatin, dated 3 Nvember 2017 with supprting dcuments including: Cpy Bltn v Law Sciety [1994] 2 All ER 486 ( Bltn ) Cpy Thbani v SRA [2011] EWHC 3783 (Admin) ( Thbani ) Cpy SRA v Kaberry [2012] EWHC 3883 (Admin) ( Kaberry ) Cpy Ellis-Carr v SRA [2014] EWHC 2411 (Admin) ( Ellis-Carr ) Cpy Ebhgiaye v SRA [2013] EWHC 2445 (Admin) ( Ebhgiaye ) Cpy Camach v Law Sciety [2004] EWHC 1675 (Admin) ( Camach ) Cpy Jidef and thers v Law Sciety/SRA [N 6 f 2006, N 1 f 2007 and N 11 f 2007) ( Jidef ) Cpy Re a Slicitr N.13 f 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 944 ( Masrur ) Respndent s statement f csts dated 28 December 2017 Other Guidance Nte n Other Pwers f the Tribunal (December 2016) Letter frm Mr Green f Bradfrd Law Sciety dated 28 Nvember 2017 Letter frm Mr Idris Mir f Mir Slicitrs, Bradfrd dated 14 December frm Mr Green t the Respndent dated 4 January 2017 Preliminary Matter (1) Advertisement f Applicatin 5. The Tribunal nted that the hearing f the applicatin had been advertised in the Law Sciety Gazette n 23 Octber 2017 and in the Asian Express in Octber 2017, and was satisfied that it had been advertised in accrdance with Rule 9(5) f the Slicitrs (Disciplinary Prceedings) Rules 2007 ( the Rules ). Preliminary Matter (2) Dcuments 6. Mr Gdwin referred t Rule 9(6) f the Rules which prvided that: Any persn may, n later than 10 days befre the hearing date f an applicatin t which this rule applies, serve n the Tribunal and n the parties t the applicatin ntice f his intentin t ppse the grant f the applicatin and the Tribunal may allw that persn t appear befre the Tribunal at the hearing f the applicatin, call evidence and make representatins upn which the Tribunal may allw him t be crss examined.

4 4 7. A letter had been received by the Tribunal frm a Mr NA, wh had nt prvided an address r cntact details. That letter had been received n 2 January 2018, after the Tribunal s Christmas and New Year clsure. Mr Gdwin submitted that this letter had been received late and shuld nt be cnsidered by the Tribunal. Mr Gdwin submitted that as an expert and independent bdy the Tribunal culd and shuld ignre the letter. It was submitted that it cntained whlly prejudicial material and shuld nt have been prvided t the Tribunal members, given that it was received such a shrt time befre the hearing. 8. Ms Bruce fr the Respndent submitted in relatin t this dcument that the Respndent did nt urge the Tribunal t cnsider it, nting that it was late and that the Tribunal wuld be able t disregard it. 9. With regard t this item, the Tribunal gave a preliminary indicatin that it wuld cnsider, as part f its verall deliberatins, what weight if any t give t the letter frm Mr NA; if any weight were t be given, it wuld be very limited as the dcument had nt been served in accrdance with the Rules. As nted belw in the Tribunal s decisin, the Tribunal chse t disregard cmpletely what was said in Mr NA s letter. 10. Mr Gdwin referred t a letter received frm a Mr Green, secretary f the Bradfrd Law Sciety, cncerning the applicatin and dated 28 Nvember That letter indicated that the Bradfrd Law Sciety (being the lcal law sciety fr the area in which the Applicant used t wrk) ppsed the applicatin fr restratin. A letter frm Mr Mir dated 14 December 2017 had questined the circumstances in which that letter had been written. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that the Respndent had then cntacted Mr Green, wh had respnded n 4 January Mr Gdwin submitted that there were cncerns abut the cntents f Mr Green s letter and , and in the circumstances the Tribunal was invited t disregard this crrespndence. Mr Gdwin submitted that his primary psitin was that the crrespndence shuld be ruled ut f cnsideratin cmpletely. If the Tribunal was nt with him n that pint, he submitted that the Tribunal shuld als take int accunt a petitin which the Applicant had circulated recently. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that 31 slicitrs in the Bradfrd area had signed the petitin t indicate that they did nt think the reputatin f the prfessin wuld be harmed by allwing the Applicant t be restred t the Rll. 11. Ms Bruce submitted that the Tribunal wuld be able t assess what weight, if any, t give t the crrespndence cncerning the Bradfrd Law Sciety. Ms Bruce tld the Tribunal that she had nt yet seen the petitin mentined by Mr Gdwin (which Mr Gdwin himself had nly seen n the mrning f the hearing) but had n bjectin t it being seen by the Tribunal, albeit there had been n pprtunity t verify the cntents f the petitin and the signatures. 12. The Tribunal gave a preliminary indicatin that the issue wuld be cnsidered in full when the whle case had been heard. The Tribunal wuld give the dcuments such weight as was apprpriate, taking int accunt the submissins made by Mr Gdwin. If there were t be any weight given t the views expressed by Mr Green and/r Mr Mir, it wuld be limited. In the event, as nted belw, the Tribunal decided t disregard cmpletely this exchange f crrespndence.

5 5 Applicant s Submissins 13. Mr Gdwin fr the Applicant submitted that the functin f the Tribunal n an applicatin f this kind was t determine whether the Applicant had shwn that he was a fit and prper persn t be restred t the Rll f Slicitrs. In cnsidering that issue, the Tribunal shuld nte that n dishnesty had been alleged r prved against this Applicant in any curt r tribunal, s the Applicant did nt need t shw that there were exceptinal circumstances. As nted in the Tribunal s Guidance Nte n Other Pwers f the Tribunal (December 2016) ( the Guidance ), where the strike ff was impsed fr disciplinary ffences nt invlving dishnesty, the guidance prvided by Lrd Dnaldsn in Case N. 11 f 1990 (unreprted) was that the Tribunal shuld ask: If this was the srt f case where, even if the back histry was knwn (that is whatever explanatin and mitigatin was available t explain why the slicitr cmmitted the riginal ffence) and withut the explanatin as t what has happened subsequently, the members f the public wuld say that des nt shake my faith in slicitrs as a whle. 14. Mr Gdwin submitted that in rder t restre the Applicant t the Rll, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applicant had been ttally rehabilitated and that public cnfidence in the prfessin wuld nt be damaged. 15. Mr Gdwin submitted that the Applicant, if restred, had n intentin t practice n his wn accunt and that it may be apprpriate fr the Tribunal t impse cnditins n his practice; the Applicant wuld be cntent with that. This wuld enable the Tribunal t put in place safeguards cncerning the Applicant s wrk and emplyment in future. Backgrund 16. Mr Gdwin reminded the Tribunal that the Applicant, wh was brn in 1971 and admitted as a slicitr in 1997 was struck ff by the Tribunal in He had previusly appeared at the Tribunal n 22 April 2008 in case number 9808/2007. The Tribunal had accepted n that ccasin that the Applicant had acted in errr, nt deliberately; clients had paid what had been agreed and had nt been vercharged. Whilst the Applicant had been in breach f a technical rule, his miscnduct was twards the lwest end f the scale f seriusness, and he had been reprimanded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had als taken int accunt that the Applicant had put matters right and that he undertk valuable wrk in the cmmunity. Mr Gdwin submitted that nearly ten years had passed since that matter was heard and the Tribunal was invited t regard that matter as nt significant r material. 17. Mr Gdwin referred the Tribunal t the certificate f cnvictin dated 30 September 2009 and the sentencing remarks f HHJ Cahill n 23 Octber 2009, which were annexed t the Applicant s witness statement. In the sentencing remarks, it was nted by the Judge that:

6 6 It was incmprehensible why yu shuld have chsen t be invlved in these matters ther than thrugh sheer greed r perhaps thrugh a naivety that ges well beynd any stupidity 18. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that he had represented the Applicant at the Tribunal hearing in bth the 2008 and 2011 hearings. The Tribunal had nted, at paragraph 27 f its Judgment dated 15 December 2011: One f the referees suggested that the [Applicant] had been naïve and it was that which had led t his cnvictin, thers referred t his wrk in and fr his lcal cmmunity Mr Gdwin submitted that it was clear frm the Judgment that there had been n suggestin f dishnesty in the case. It was clear that in a dishnesty case, an applicant fr restratin wuld face an uphill struggle. Mr Gdwin referred the Tribunal t the statement at paragraph 37 f the Judgment that: it was clear that the [Applicant] had cntributed t his cmmunity and it had n dubt he wuld cntinue t d s 19. Mr Gdwin referred t the sentencing remarks f HHJ Cahill, which shwed that the criminal case against the Applicant had arisen frm tw cnveyancing transactins in r abut Mr Gdwin submitted that the issue f the Applicant s naivety had been relevant t a cnfiscatin hearing which had taken place befre HHJ Belcher in Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that that hearing had taken place after a detailed investigatin int the Applicant, his firm and his family. Ntwithstanding that the prsecutin alleged that the Applicant had benefited frm the crime, the curt had accepted that the nly mney he had derived frm the criminal matters was his firm s cnveyancing fees in the tw transactins, ttalling Mr Gdwin referred t the Judgment f HHJ Belcher, in which it was nted that the investigatin int the Applicant s affairs had been exhaustive. Mr Gdwin nted that, as set ut abve, the sentencing Judge had cnsidered that the Applicant may have been invlved in the criminal matters thrugh naivety. At the cnfiscatin hearing, HHJ Belcher nted that: The difficulty is it is unclear exactly what he was cnvicted f, in the sense that we cannt knw whether the jury frmed the view that [the Applicant] had knwledge r simply suspicin. The Applicant s psitin was that he was cnvicted because he shuld have suspected that the transactins had a criminal element, but had nt actually suspected this. 21. Mr Gdwin referred t the finding by HHJ Belcher, Even lking at the salame (sic) as a whle, I am nt satisfied, n a balance f prbabilities, that I can prperly reach the cnclusin that this defendant (i.e. the Applicant) was in bed with and fully part f the drugs team, and in thse circumstances I decline t make the finding sught, that he was acting ther than as a slicitr, albeit undubtedly amrally, and that I decline t find

7 7 that he was part f the team and therefre it is unnecessary fr me t g n and ask further questins Mr Gdwin submitted that the sentencing remarks f HHJ Cahill suggested greed r naivety as the basis f the Applicant s invlvement. After detailed investigatin, HHJ Belcher was able t eliminate greed as a mtivatr which, it was submitted, left nly naivety as an explanatin f the Applicant s cnduct. 22. Mr Gdwin referred t the Applicant s witness statement in which he dealt, amngst ther matters, with a request made by Certus Slicitrs in 2015 t emply the Applicant as a paralegal. That applicatin had been refused. Mr Gdwin submitted that the Tribunal shuld have regard t the impact f that refusal, which was n dubt influenced by the ppsitin f the Bradfrd Law Sciety t the applicatin at that time. 23. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal abut the Applicant s teenage sn s serius medical cnditin details f which are nt given here t preserve the child s privacy. As a result f the diagnsis in 2015 and risks f serius cmplicatins, the Applicant needed t wrk in the Bradfrd area, s that he wuld be available t assist schl staff in dealing with any urgent prblems which ccurred. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that the Applicant is als a carer fr his elderly parents. The need t be in r clse t Bradfrd fr these persnal, family reasns meant that the Applicant s jb search was restricted. Rehabilitatin 24. Mr Gdwin referred t the Tribunal s Guidance Nte with regard t rehabilitatin. It was nted that the Tribunal wuld generally regard an applicatin fr restratin made within six years f the strike ff rder t be premature. That six-year perid had passed in Nvember The Tribunal was invited t cnsider that this applicatin was nt premature. 25. Mr Gdwin submitted that the Tribunal culd be satisfied that the Applicant had been rehabilitated. During his perid in prisn, the Applicant had been trusted t leave n licence and, during the secnd year f the tw years he had served, had been given permissin t wrk, and t visit and stay at hme frm time t time. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that the Applicant had been emplyed by a charity called Grange Interlink since Octber Mr Gdwin submitted that the fact that the Applicant had been able t leave prisn shwed the level f rehabilitatin and trust, even during his prisn sentence. T the Applicant s credit, he had nt betrayed that trust and had abided by the terms f his licence. Mr Gdwin referred t the Applicant s witness statement in which he stated that whilst in prisn he had vluntarily assisted thers with English and maths. This was smething he had chsen t d; this shwed the Applicant s character and cmmitment. 26. Mr Gdwin referred t a reference prvided by Grange Interlink dated 15 August 2017 which detailed the wrk, rles and respnsibilities the Applicant undertk. He was nw a senir administratr in the charity. The referee, wh stated he had knwn the Applicant fr ver thirteen years, stated that the Applicant s hnesty, independence and integrity are unquestinable. Mr Gdwin referred t a

8 8 further reference frm anther charitable rganisatin, Save the Mthers Trust, dated 22 August This set ut the rles and respnsibilities the Applicant had had with that rganisatin, fr which he had wrked as a vlunteer frm 2004 including frm 2011 when he was released frm prisn. The letter stated, amngst ther pints, that the Applicant is unquestinably a fit and prper individual and I whleheartedly supprt this applicatin t becme a slicitr again Mr Gdwin submitted that ther than the matters which led t the cnvictin there were n questins ver the Applicant s prbity, integrity and prfessinalism. 27. Mr Gdwin referred t the Applicant s witness statement, which set ut the steps he had taken t keep up t date with legal matters, including reading articles and peridicals, and listed the training curses he had undertaken, primarily with Practice Enterprise Ltd trading as The Slicitrs Grup. Mr Gdwin was instructed that these curses were undertaken in abut July/August 2017 t ensure that the Applicant was up t date in the areas f law in which he wanted t practice. 28. The Tribunal was asked nt t hld it against the Applicant that the applicatin under s41 f the Slicitrs Act 1974 (as amended) in 2015, t permit him t wrk as a paralegal, had nt been granted. The applicatin had been cnsidered by an fficer f the Respndent. It had been refused fr reasns set ut in a Decisin dated 11 June Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that the Applicant believed that decisin had been wrng, but it had nt been appealed; as the applicatin had been made by Certus Slicitrs, it wuld have been fr that firm t appeal. Mr Gdwin referred t a letter sent by the Applicant t the Respndent n 25 June 2015 abut the decisin, which read: Having read the Adjudicatr s decisin in detail and having discussed the same with my prspective emplyer, we bth cnsider that the decisin is plainly wrng. Hwever, an appeal wuld have t be prperly funded and I cannt expect either my prspective emplyer r my family (given my pr persnal financial psitin) t bear that cst. Rather, the indicatin frm the adjudicatr that the applicatin is premature is nted and a further applicatin will fllw after a suitable further time has passed. In the meantime, I thank yu fr yur cnsideratin f the applicatin. Mr Gdwin submitted that even when disappinted, the Applicant remained curteus. 29. Mr Gdwin submitted that the Applicant had made valiant attempts t wrk within the legal prfessin. He had had an pprtunity t undertake vluntary legal wrk fr his lcal cuncil, but the Respndent s authrisatin sectin had infrmed the cuncil that s41 authrisatin wuld be needed. The cuncil was nt willing t g thrugh that prcess. It had later transpired that the indicatin t the cuncil had been incrrect; the Respndent s permissin was nt needed fr wrk f the kind envisaged fr a public authrity. Mr Gdwin submitted that, in effect, the requirement t btain permissin befre wrking in the legal field had had a significant impact n the Applicant s ability t wrk in law and hence his ability t shw he was fully rehabilitated. Mr Gdwin nted that in a letter t the Applicant dated 15 June 2017 it was stated, Having cnsidered this issue further, ur view is that s41 f the Slicitrs Act des nt apply when a struck ff slicitr wishes t

9 9 wrk fr a lcal authrity n a vluntary basis. This is because yu wuld nt be emplyed directly by slicitrs in this cntext. Mr Gdwin submitted that it was a matter f cncern that the Respndent s initial advice had been incrrect. By the time this issue had been reslved, the lcal authrity n lnger had a suitable pprtunity fr the Applicant, as cnfirmed in a letter dated 16 Octber If the Respndent had given crrect advice, the Applicant may have been able t take up a rle which wuld have shwn even mre cmpellingly that he was suitable t wrk in the legal field. The Applicant culd nt be blamed fr the incrrect advice; he had been entitled t rely n the Respndent s advice. Applicant s Future Intentins 30. Mr Gdwin referred t an ffer f emplyment made t the Applicant by Certus Slicitrs f Bradfrd, set ut in a letter t the Tribunal dated 30 August That letter made clear that the ffer was made strictly n the basis that the Applicant was permitted t practise as a slicitr, but acknwledged that there may be cnditins impsed n the Applicant s right t practice. The letter set ut the expected duties the Applicant wuld undertake, predminantly in the field f dispute reslutin and debt enfrcement, and the way in which he wuld be supervised by ne f the partners at the firm. This firm was the same ne which had applied fr permissin t emply the Applicant as a paralegal. At that time, n cncerns had been expressed by the Respndent abut the firm s suitability t emply/supervise the Applicant. It was acknwledged in the reprt presented t the Adjudicatr in 2015 that the fficer, des nt dispute that the firm wuld be a suitable emplyer, r that Mr Anwar has sufficient experience in rder t supprt [the Applicant] ging frward Mr Gdwin submitted that the Tribunal culd be satisfied that the Applicant had been ttally rehabilitated. Public Trust and Cnfidence/Reputatin f the Prfessin 31. Mr Gdwin submitted that public trust and cnfidence in the prfessin wuld nt be damaged by readmitting the Applicant. Om SRA v Kaberry [2012] EWHC 3883 (Admin), at paragraph 64, it was stated by Elias LJ that the crrect test t be applied n an applicatin fr restratin was, wuld the public have cnfidence in the slicitrs prfessin if it admits a persn with the disciplinary and persnal histry f the respndent, in circumstances where it had recgnised that it had t act n the assumptin that there was sme culpability, and having regard t the amunt f lsses Mr Gdwin nted that the Kaberry case had invlved a finding f dishnesty, whereas there was n dishnesty in the case f this Applicant. Therefre, it was submitted, the Applicant did nt have t shw that there was sme exceptinal factr in his case. It was submitted that in the light f the Applicant s cnsiderable effrts at rehabilitatin, the reputatin f the prfessin wuld be better served by his restratin than by his exclusin. 32. Mr Gdwin referred t the varius references prduced by the Applicant, frm members f the prfessin and thers, including members f the public. Mr Gdwin submitted that these references were persuasive, and it wuld be hard t find mre

10 10 cmpelling references. Mr Gdwin made what he submitted was a bld submissin, that in cnsidering public cnfidence ne had t cnsider nt just the cnduct f individuals but als the prfessin s regulatr. Mr Gdwin referred t the case f Jidef and thers v Law Sciety [N.6 f 2006] and in particular the matter f Ms B [N.11 f 2007]. Ms B had pleaded guilty t and was cnvicted f several cunts f theft, an ffence f dishnesty, prir t admissin as a slicitr. Sir Anthny Clarke MBE had stated, It seems t me that there is likely t cme a time in the nt t distant future in which it will be pssible t say, bth that [Ms B] is nt a risk t the public and that the time has cme when the reputatin f the prfessin will be better served by the admissin f [Ms B] with all that she has t ffer bth the prfessin and its clients than by her cntinued exclusin. The Law Sciety was, hwever, entitled t cnclude that that time has nt yet cme. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that his enquiries had shwn that Ms B was subsequently admitted as a slicitr, in Mr Gdwin submitted that if Ms B, wh had findings f dishnesty made against her, had been admitted then a regulatr acting cnsistently wuld nt ppse the readmissin f the Applicant, wh had nt been dishnest. Mr Gdwin accepted that each case had t be taken n its wn merits. It wuld be fr the Tribunal t decide this case, but the public may be cncerned that it was perverse if the Applicant were nt readmitted. 33. Whilst Mr Gdwin appreciated that cases were fact specific, the Tribunal s attentin was drawn t the decisin made by a divisin in the case f Farrimnd (11624/2017), n 2 August In that case, the Respndent had been cnvicted f a very serius ffence (attempted murder) but had been allwed t remain n the Rll. Mr Gdwin submitted that the Tribunal and Respndent shuld shw cnsistency f apprach. 34. Mr Gdwin nted that the Respndent s primary submissin was that public trust in the prfessin wuld be damaged if the Applicant were readmitted. Hwever, the Respndent had nt fully articulated why it wuld nt be in the public interest t readmit the Applicant. Mr Gdwin s primary submissin was that the Applicant shuld be restred t the Rll. His secndary submissin was that if the Tribunal did s, it wuld be apprpriate t impse sme cnditins n the Applicant; that realistic psitin was reflected in the ffer f emplyment frm Certus Slicitrs. The Applicant was an individual wh had reached and passed the fitness threshld t becme a slicitr and had an ffer f emplyment frm a suitable firm. Making gd f lsses 35. Mr Gdwin submitted that the nly lsses relevant t this matter were the csts f the Tribunal prceedings. The Applicant had instructed Mr Gdwin that these had been paid; Ms Bruce was t make enquiries with the Respndent n this pint. Witness The Applicant 36. The Applicant gave evidence n his wn accunt. He cnfirmed that the cntents f his witness statement dated 26 September 2017 were true t the best f his

11 11 knwledge, infrmatin and belief. The Applicant adpted the submissins made n his behalf by Mr Gdwin. 37. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that everything in his studies, frm GCSE nwards, was geared twards wrking as a slicitr. He had wanted in particular t fcus n cmpany/cmmercial wrk and had btained a Master s degree in business law. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he had undertaken a training cntract frm 1995 and fr the next 14 years had wrked in his chsen career f law. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that his skills, judgement, hnesty and integrity were attested t by the testimnials prduced in this case and the fact he had had ffers f emplyment, including sn after his cnvictin and befre the Tribunal hearing. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he had smething t ffer the prfessin and that he wanted t help peple. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he had received an award in 2003 fr being the yung prfessinal f the year, selected by his peers. The fact that thers were cnfident in his abilities was shwn by the ffer f emplyment in 2015, which had been renewed in The Applicant tld the Tribunal that a career in law was bth a vcatin and a way f life. Frm 2009 nwards he had wrked relentlessly n rehabilitating himself and rebuilding the trust and cnfidence thers wuld place in him. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he had learned a valuable lessn frm all that had happened. The Applicant referred t his family and private life, and the impact his current psitin had n his family. 38. Under crss-examinatin, the Applicant accepted that in rder that he shuld be restred t the Rll, the Tribunal had t be satisfied that he had been rehabilitated and that the reputatin f the prfessin and public cnfidence in it wuld nt be damaged. The Applicant accepted that the Tribunal wuld have t cnsider his insight int the miscnduct which led t the striking-ff decisin, as accepting what he had dne wuld signify that the risk in future wuld be minimised and the Applicant culd then mve n. 39. The indictment n which the Applicant had been tried in September 2009 was read. The Applicant accepted that he had been fund guilty n three cunts, including f an ffence under s328(1) f the Prceeds f Crime Act 2002, the particulars f which were stated t be that, n days between the 25 th day f March 2003 and the 1 st day f December 2005 entered int r became cncerned in an arrangement which he knew r suspected facilitated (by whatever means) the acquisitin, retentin, use r cntrl f criminal prperty by r n behalf f Khalid Malik. The Applicant was referred t his witness statement in which he had stated, I was fund guilty f Cunts 2, 3 and 4. In s finding, the jury cncluded that I shuld have been suspicius. It has never been a case against me that I was suspicius r indeed had any knwledge f any wrngding. (Emphasis as in the riginal). It was put t the Applicant that this was incnsistent with the verdict, which n Cunt 2 was that the Applicant knew r suspected certain matters. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that the cntext was that the jury had been directed that if they fund him guilty n Cunts 3 and 4, they shuld als find him guilty f Cunt 2. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that the 2014 findings f HHJ Belcher in the cnfiscatin prceedings nted that it was uncertain whether the jury had fund there was

12 12 knwledge r suspicin. The Applicant maintained that the jury had been directed t find the allegatin prved if he shuld have been suspicius abut the transactins. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he accepted that he shuld have been mre vigilant with regard t the transactins. Having accepted that, he had tried t mve n t rehabilitate himself. The Applicant did nt seek t g behind the cnvictins. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he had paid the price and tried t mve n. He had thught that thse he dealt with in the cnveyancing transactins were decent peple. 40. It was put t the Applicant that the trial Judge s sentencing remarks did nt simply refer t greed r naivety, but referred t naivety that ges well beynd any stupidity. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he understd that the trial Judge had said he may have been exceptinally naïve. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that the cnfiscatin hearing in 2014 had fund his nly benefit had been the 900 plus which he had charged fr the tw cnveyancing transactins. The Applicant was referred t his witness statement in which it was said, Having had the benefit f my affairs being frensically scrutinised and being presented with this infrmatin, HHJ Belcher s finding f fact eliminated greed as the mtive behind my judgement call fr nt reprting the tw transactins, leaving naivety as the alternative justificatin. It was put t the Applicant that he was suggesting that he relied n naivety as the reasn fr his miscnduct, whereas the trial Judge had referred t naivety ging beynd stupidity. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that as greed had been ruled ut, the cnduct culd nly have been caused by naivety. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that the purpse f the cnfiscatin hearing was t examine the extent f the relevant criminal activity and what benefit, if any, the party had derived frm it. The Applicant accepted that he culd nt g behind the criminal cnvictin and that nthing that HHJ Belcher said undermined the cnvictin. The Applicant accepted that HHJ Belcher had fund that he had acted nly as a slicitr albeit amrally. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that HHJ Belcher had fund that he was nt part f the criminal team. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he understd amral t mean that he had nt been cncerned with, r was indifferent t, the mrals f the situatin and that, t a degree, it meant he had lacked a mral sense. The Applicant accepted that, in sme respects, naïve and amral had different meanings. 41. It was put t the Applicant that in his statement he had repeatedly referred t the nly benefit t him f the criminal transactins being the fees his firm had been paid, whereas his culpability related t the fact that significant sums f mney had been laundered thrugh his firm. Mr Gdwin interjected t nte that the Applicant did nt seek t g behind the cnvictin. 42. The Applicant was asked abut his insight and it was put t him that insight required an acceptance f what ne had dne. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he accepted that he culd have dne things better. Fr a lng time he had accepted that he had fallen well shrt f the standards required f a slicitr, as he culd have been mre vigilant and culd have reprted the transactins. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he had paid a heavy price fr that failure. It was put t the Applicant that he had still nt accepted his culpability. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he had. In 2011, befre the Tribunal, he had accepted that his cnduct was nt befitting

13 13 a slicitr and had expressed remrse. The Applicant tld the Tribunal that he accepted that he had allwed peple t launder mney thrugh his firm, and he shuld nt have dne s. Respndent s Submissins 43. Ms Bruce fr the Respndent referred t and relied n the Respnse dcument prepared and filed n 3 Nvember 2017 by the Respndent and simply wished t highlight sme f the key pints. 44. Ms Bruce submitted that the Applicant had been sentenced t fur years imprisnment, fr very serius ffences. The Tribunal was referred in particular t the particulars f the ffence under Cunt 2, which required that the Applicant either knew r suspected that the transactins related t criminal prperty. On a charitable view, the Applicant may have been cnfused by the distinctin between suspected and shuld have suspected but, as a slicitr, wh sat thrugh the criminal trial, with the benefit f legal advice and representatin, the Applicant must have appreciated the difference. It was submitted that the Applicant s nging failure t recgnise he had been cnvicted f either knwing r suspecting what was ging n indicated a lack f insight n his part. 45. Ms Bruce submitted that the Applicant had pleaded nt guilty at the criminal trial. He had been cnvicted f serius ffences, which indicated serius breaches f the Applicant s duties as a slicitr, including the duty t uphld the rule f law. The jury had fund that the Applicant was suspicius f criminal activity, nt just that he shuld have been suspicius. It was relevant t the matters under cnsideratin that mney had been laundered thrugh the firm. 46. Ms Bruce submitted that it was imprtant that a persn applying fr readmissin t the prfessin shuld demnstrate insight, in rder t reassure the prfessin and the public that any future risk culd be avided. If there was n insight, it was unlikely there was true remrse. Ms Bruce submitted that public trust in the prfessin wuld be damaged by restring this Applicant t the prfessin. 47. Ms Bruce referred t the Decisin f the Adjudicatr in 2015 t reject the applicatin fr permissin t emply the Applicant as a paralegal. It had been suggested fr the Applicant that the Adjudicatr had fund that the applicatin was premature, but the Decisin als made the pint that the Applicant did nt accept his cnvictins. 48. Ms Bruce referred t the case f Bltn v Law Sciety [1994] 1 WLR 512 ( Bltn ) which set ut clearly that the Tribunal s rders were nt primarily punitive, but intended t prtect the reputatin f the prfessin. It was made clear that this was the Tribunal s primary cnsideratin, whatever the persnal circumstances f an individual. Ms Bruce asked the Tribunal t refuse the applicatin. Applicant s Further Submissins 49. In respnse t the Respndent s submissins, Mr Gdwin submitted that the fcus f the curt in Bltn was n cases f dishnesty. It was clear frm s47 f the Slicitrs

14 14 Act that it was envisaged that a slicitr wh had been struck ff culd be restred t the Rll. 50. The Tribunal was urged t give little weight n the Respndent s submissin that the Applicant may appear nt t have accepted his cnvictins. Mr Gdwin submitted that it may have been hard fr the Applicant t understand sme f the questins put t him. Whilst ne wuld hpe he wuld understand the subtleties f the questins, he may nt have dne s. Mr Gdwin submitted that the Applicant had genuine insight and had learned a valuable lessn frm all that had happened. 51. Mr Gdwin submitted that the reputatin f the prfessin wuld be enhanced by the readmissin f the Applicant, as it wuld be by readmissin f ther individuals in suitable cases. It was submitted that the Applicant was nt a risk t the public and the Tribunal was reminded that he had nt been fund by any curt t have been dishnest. As the then Master f the Rlls had cmmented in the matter f Ms B, there culd cme a pint where the admissin f an individual culd enhance rather than damage the reputatin f the prfessin. Mr Gdwin submitted that the Applicant wuld nt repeat his miscnduct. The Tribunal was asked t restre the Applicant t the Rll, subject t cnditins if deemed apprpriate. The Tribunal s Decisin 52. The Tribunal carefully cnsidered the ral representatins f the parties, the dcuments submitted (which had been read befre the hearing began) and the ral evidence f the Applicant. It nted that it was fr the Applicant t satisfy the Tribunal, n an applicatin f this kind, n the balance f prbabilities that: a) the Applicant had been rehabilitated and b) that the reputatin f the prfessin wuld nt be damaged by readmitting the Applicant t the Rll. The Tribunal was grateful t Mr Gdwin and Ms Bruce fr setting ut s clearly the relevant tests and matters fr the Tribunal t decide. 53. The Tribunal specifically decided that the letters frm Mr Green, Mr Mir and Mr NA (as referred t under Preliminary Matter 2) shuld be ignred in their entirety. The reliability f this crrespndence was unclear and in determining such an imprtant applicatin it was bth unnecessary and undesirable t place any weight at all n any f the representatins made. 54. The Tribunal nted that the three ffences f which the Applicant had been cnvicted did nt include any ffences f dishnesty. Hwever, they were very serius ffences and had ccurred whilst the Applicant was wrking as a slicitr. The mst serius cnvictin was fr an ffence that the Applicant was cncerned in an arrangement t facilitate the acquisitin, retentin, use r cntrl f criminal prperty between 25 March 2003 and 1 December 2005, which he knew r suspected facilitated such acquisitin, retentin, use r cntrl. It was because the Applicant was a slicitr that a criminal gang had been able t launder a significant sum f drugs mney, understd frm the trial Judge s sentencing remarks t be at least 340,000. The Tribunal nted that the mst serius ffence f which the Applicant was cnvicted was ptentially cnfusing, in that the same ffence ccurred whether the defendant knew r suspected that criminal prperty was invlved. It may have been that the prsecutin had suggested that the Applicant shuld have been suspicius abut the

15 15 transactins. Hwever, the finding f the jury was that the Applicant either knew r actually suspected he was dealing with criminal prperty; a finding that he shuld have suspected wuld nt have been sufficient t prve this particular ffence. 55. The Tribunal nted that the ffences in issue had taken place between 2003 and As the Applicant had been admitted as a slicitr in 1997, he had been between six and eight years qualified at the relevant time, and was aged between abut 32 and 34. He had been neither inexperienced nr yung in the relevant perid. 56. In additin t the inherent seriusness f the ffences themselves, the Tribunal nted that the Applicant had been sentenced t fur years imprisnment (with sentences f 6 mnths imprisnment n each f tw ther cunts t run cncurrently). That was a very significant sentence, impsed by a trial Judge wh had heard the whle case and was well placed t assess the seriusness f the Applicant s criminal cnduct. The Tribunal nted that the Applicant, with the benefit f legal advice, had chsen nt t give evidence at the criminal trial. Withut repening the criminal case in any way, the Tribunal nted that it was unusual and, perhaps, undesirable fr a prfessinal persn such as this Applicant t chse nt t give an accunt f their actins in such a serius matter. 57. In any event, the Applicant had been cnvicted f ffences underlying which was the very serius pint that criminals had passed mney thrugh the Applicant s firm. Of curse, the matter wuld have been clearly mre serius if it had been prved that the Applicant knew he was dealing with criminal prperty. The trial Judge had nted that the Applicant may have been either greedy r naïve, but that if naïve it was a naivety which ges well beynd any stupidity. The sentence impsed by the trial Judge clearly shwed that she regarded the Applicant s culpability and the impact f the ffences t be significant. 58. The Tribunal nted that the Applicant had been allwed t leave the prisn n licence fr perids during the tw years he had actually served. The Tribunal accepted that this shwed he had, fr gd reasn, gained the trust f the prisn authrities. He had used his time in prisn t assist thers, and fr this he shuld be given credit. 59. The Tribunal nted frm the Judgment f the Tribunal frm Nvember 2011 that it had been reprted that the Applicant had sught t appeal his cnvictin but that permissin t appeal had been refused and that a further attempt t ask fr permissin t appeal had been discntinued r withdrawn by abut Nvember The decisin t strike ff the Applicant had been taken n 9 Nvember 2011, abut tw years after the cnvictin. The Tribunal nted that at that hearing the Applicant, maintained that he was inncent f all the ffences. It als tk int accunt the remrse he expressed. 60. It was clear frm the evidence which the Applicant had given t the Tribunal that whilst he said he did nt seek t g behind the cnvictins, he had still nt accepted that he had been crrectly cnvicted f serius ffences, including either knwing r suspecting that he was dealing with criminal prperty. This put the Applicant in a difficult psitin. The cnvictin clearly std, and was a prper cnvictin, but the Applicant culd nt bring himself t accept the decisin f the jury which was that, as a minimum, he had suspicins abut the transactins. The Tribunal culd nt be

16 16 satisfied that the Applicant had shwn any, r sufficient insight int the seriusness f the ffences f which he had been cnvicted. The lack f acceptance indicated that the Applicant culd nt shw cmplete remrse fr his actins and culd nt be said t have shwn that he was a fit persn t be restred. 61. The Tribunal tk int accunt the testimnials submitted fr the Applicant, including thse frm charities fr which he wrked. These shwed that the Applicant was carrying ut gd wrk fr the benefit f the cmmunity and that sme members f the prfessin and the public were prepared t supprt the applicatin fr restratin. The Tribunal als tk int accunt that the Applicant s attempts t btain wrk in the legal prfessin had been unsuccessful. Whilst the 2015 applicatin t wrk as a paralegal had been rejected, partly because it was cnsidered t be premature, it had als been a factr that the Applicant had nt shwn insight, in that he had nt accepted the reality and seriusness f his cnvictins. 62. The Tribunal nted the submissins made by Mr Gdwin cncerning cnsistency f decisin-making and in particular the suggestin that incnsistency may damage the prfessin as the Respndent had admitted a slicitr after her cnvictin whereas it was ppsing the readmissin f this Applicant. The Tribunal nted that cases were fact specific. Whilst cnsistency f decisin-making was generally a gd thing, there had t be discretin s that the individual facts f a matter culd be cnsidered. The Tribunal nted that it appeared that Ms B had been admitted as a slicitr, despite her cnvictin f a number f ffences f theft. It als nted that in her case in the High Curt (N. 11 f 2007) the then Master f the Rlls had indicated that the time may cme when the prfessin wuld be better served by allwing her admissin rather than refusing her admissin, albeit that time had nt cme as at The Tribunal als nted that that decisin recrded that Ms B had: been under cnsiderable stress at the time f the ffences; was ashamed f her actins; been given a cmmunity sentence. In the present case, the Applicant still did nt accept prperly his guilt. He had als sught t diminish the seriusness f his ffences, by drawing attentin t the limited financial gain the curt fund he had made rather than nting the very cnsiderable sums f criminal prperty which had been laundered thrugh his firm as a cnsequence f his ffences. The trial Judge had impsed an immediate custdial sentence, even having taken int accunt the testimnials f a number f witnesses. The trial Judge had nt nted any particularly stressful circumstances at the time f the ffences, but had nted: Yu chse nt t give evidence, which is astnishing fr a man f yur purprted gd character, and as part f yur defence yu thught t hide behind the practices f yur cmmunity f assisting thers within that cmmunity. In s ding, yu brught that practice int disrepute. Whilst the Tribunal nted that dishnesty cases were almst invariably at the highest level f seriusness, this did nt mean that ther ffences and cnvictins culd nt be equally serius in the impact they had n the reputatin f the prfessin. In this case, the Applicant s cnvictins were fr serius matters which, as the Respndent had submitted, went t the heart f the Applicant s duties as a slicitr. The trial Judge s sentencing remarks, and the sentence she impsed, supprted the view that

17 17 the ffences were serius and such as wuld cause significant damage t the reputatin f the prfessin. 64. The Tribunal was nt satisfied that the Applicant had shwn sufficient rehabilitatin t mitigate the damage t the reputatin f the prfessin which wuld be caused by his re-admittance at this stage. The applicatin had been made abut six years after the strike-ff decisin, being abut fur years after the expiry f the fur-year prisn sentence (albeit nly tw years had actually been served) and sme 12 years after the relevant ffences. The passage f time since the strike-ff decisin may have been sufficient, if the Applicant had been able t shw sufficient insight and rehabilitatin. 65. The Tribunal nted the difficulties the Applicant had faced in btaining permissin t wrk as a paralegal. The fact that the Applicant had nt wrked in legal practice since 2009 (when he was cnvicted) had cntributed t the Tribunal s cnclusin that he was nt yet a fit and prper persn t be restred t the Rll. It wuld be fr the Respndent t cnsider any future applicatins by the Applicant fr permissin t wrk in the legal prfessin and it may cnsider at sme pint in the future that such permissin shuld be granted. 66. Having cnsidered the case very carefully, the Tribunal fund that the very gd and supprtive testimnials fr the Applicant, and his wrk fr charitable rganisatins, did nt utweigh the damage t the reputatin f the prfessin which wuld be caused by restring t the Rll an individual wh had been cnvicted and sentenced fr very serius ffences, when he did nt yet appear t understand the gravity f the ffences and his rle in them. 67. The applicatin fr restratin was refused. Csts 68. Ms Bruce fr the Respndent made an applicatin that the Applicant shuld pay the Respndent s csts f the case, and referred t a csts schedule dated 28 December 2017, as amended n 5 January That schedule put the ttal csts claimed at 6,115 including VAT (where applicable) which had been mitted frm the schedule initially. Ms Bruce submitted that the wrk dne by the in-huse legal team at the Respndent was charged at 130 per hur; n VAT was payable n such wrk. The csts fr Ms Bruce s preparatin and attendance were a fixed fee f 4,500 plus VAT. Ms Bruce submitted that the csts claimed were reasnable and were cmmensurate with the cmplexity f the case, in which three files f dcuments had been prduced and referred t in the case. The case had als raised issues arund the cnfiscatin f prperty in criminal prceedings, which were nt usual in Tribunal cases. Ms Bruce tld the Tribunal that it had riginally been intended that the advcacy in the case wuld have been undertaken by an in-huse lawyer frm the Respndent, which Mr Gdwin may suggest wuld have been a less expensive ptin. Ms Bruce submitted that given the vlume f dcumentatin and the fact that the case had becme mre adversarial than riginally expected, the decisin had been taken t pass the case t Ms Bruce and her firm. In the event, the case had turned ut nt t be particularly cmplex, albeit there had been issues at a late stage abut the admissibility f varius dcuments and letters.

18 Mr Gdwin fr the Applicant cnfirmed that the Applicant was nt making any applicatin fr his wn csts. Mr Gdwin reminded the Tribunal that it had full discretin with regard t making csts rders, and the Tribunal was invited t make n rder fr csts in this case, in rder t avid rubbing salt int the Applicant s wunds (as his applicatin had been refused). 70. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that he had asked the Respndent fr details f the retainer when it had appeared n the schedule that Capsticks LLP s csts had been calculated at an hurly rate. It was nw understd that a fixed fee had been agreed, albeit there was n evidence abut this befre the Tribunal. Mr Gdwin queried why the Respndent had nt instructed ne f their in-huse legal team and that there wuld have been a 2,000 r thereabuts saving if the Respndent had dne this, particularly given that n VAT was payable n in-huse legal csts at the Respndent rganisatin. Mr Gdwin submitted that the Tribunal shuld nt hld it against the Applicant that the Respndent had chsen t use an external advcate whse wrk may have been charged at 130 per hur. 71. In respnse, Ms Bruce submitted that the fixed fee had been agreed in the expectatin that the hearing and preparatin wuld take abut 20 hurs; the fee wuld then be the same whether mre r less time was needed. 72. Ms Bruce infrmed the Tribunal that in the 2008 prceedings, csts f 6,000 had been rdered against the Applicant. The Applicant and Respndent had agreed a lwer sum, which had been paid. In the 2011 prceedings, the Applicant had been rdered t pay csts f 1,750. This rder had been made at a time when the CPS sught t recver 3.8 millin f criminal prperty and the Applicant s assets had been valued at abut 2.3 millin, albeit nly was fund t be the Applicant s benefit frm the criminal prperty transactins. Ms Bruce s instructins were that the csts f the 2011 prceedings had nt yet been paid. Mr Gdwin tld the Tribunal that his instructins were that the csts had been paid by a family member. The Tribunal s Decisin 73. The Tribunal was satisfied that it shuld rder the Applicant t pay at least sme f the Respndent s csts f this applicatin, which had been unsuccessful. It had been prper fr the Respndent t respnd t the applicatin and t ppse it. The case had been f cnsiderable imprtance fr the reputatin f the prfessin and it was in the public interest fr it t be prperly and fully heard. The Respndent shuld therefre be able t recver its reasnable csts frm the Applicant. 74. The Tribunal cnsidered carefully the csts claimed by the Respndent. Ntwithstanding the excellent representatin and advcacy prvided by Ms Bruce, the Tribunal was satisfied that, even taking int accunt the vlume f dcumentatin and the significantly adversarial quality f the applicatin which had been anticipated, an in-huse slicitr r barrister frm the Respndent rganisatin culd have cnducted the hearing prperly, and at lwer cst. Nting that the Respndent s in-huse wrk was generally charged at 130 per hur, with n VAT, but that there may be travel csts assciated with smene attending frm Birmingham, the Tribunal determined

19