Blog
Share plans and proprietary estoppel: be careful what you promise
Samuel Sherr
20 November 2015
Bringing justice - private prosecutions for companies and individuals
Over the last five years City of London Police have had their budget reduced by 15% arguably leading to a reduction in the number of white collar crime investigations. As with the reduction in raids by the SFO this year, the stretch on resources for those responsible for investigating white collar offences is increasing while wrongdoing by corporates and individuals is ever present.
13 November 2015
Case update: High Court finds Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Panel’s sanction of £15,000 fine was inconsistent with the gravity of the misconduct
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Richard Ali Chan, Rajob Ali, Abode Solicitors Limited [2015] EWHC 2659
Judgment date: 22 July 2015
Overview
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) appealed to the High Court to challenge certain decisions made by a Panel of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and the sanction ultimately imposed. The SRA submitted that the original findings were “inconsistent with the Tribunal’s own primary findings of fact with regard to the respondents’ conduct”.
12 November 2015
Case update: Barrister found guilty of threatening to sue his dentist in circumstances which were likely to diminish public confidence in the profession
Davies v Bar Standards Board [2015] EWHC 2927 (Admin)
Background
Mr Davies, a barrister, faced two charges in contravention of paragraph 301(a)(iii) of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (8th edition) herein after referred to as ‘the Code’. The relevant paragraph states as follows:
‘A barrister must have regard to paragraph 104 and must not:
(a) engage in conduct whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise which is:
(iii) likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute’
12 November 2015
Case update: Solicitor’s dishonesty was within the ‘exceptional’ category and suspension stands
R. (on the application of Solicitors Regulation Authority) v Imran Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), 22 July 2015 [2015] EWHC 2572
As a mandatory principle which helps define the fundamental ethical and professional standards of those providing legal services, acting with honesty and integrity is something that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) advocates when dealing with dishonest conduct. Striking off seems the inevitable sanction for such conduct. However, perhaps surprisingly, in the case of R. (on the application of Solicitors Regulation Authority) v Imran Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), 22 July 2015, the SRA unsuccessfully challenged the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s (SDT) decision not to strike off a solicitor who had acted dishonestly.
12 November 2015
Case update: High Court confirms NMC panel’s original decision flawed as they failed to take into account all mitigation at sanction stage
O v Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) [2015 EWHC 2949 (Admin)
Judgement Date 22 October 2015
Background
Mrs O (the appellant) a qualified nurse of Nigerian descent, settled in the UK in 2007 along with her husband and three young children. The appellant worked for the National Health Service (NHS) from approximately 2010. In November 2012, the children were taken into care and the appellant and her husband were charged with ill treatment, pursuant to s.1 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It was alleged that when their children behaved badly, the appellant and her husband would beat the children with a cane or a wire coat hanger. The appellant and her husband pleaded not guilty at trial, which meant that their children had to give evidence against them. In March 2014, both parents were convicted and received 36 week custodial sentences. The appellant later explained that she had entered a not guilty plea out of ignorance in that corporal punishment was acceptable in Nigeria and she was unaware that such a form of chastisement was wrong and illegal in the UK. Between April and June 2013, the appellant attended a parenting course and a parenting assessment concluded that the children would not be at significant risk if returned to their parents. The appellant completed a reflective statement whilst in prison and upon her release conducted further research in respect of parenting skills. She apologised to her children and obtained professional testimonials. Meanwhile, the appellant’s conviction was referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).
