Blog
Private prosecutions – A route to justice for the charity sector
Sophie Tang
23 November 2015
Dog attacks – the Royal Mail bites back with private prosecutions
In May 2014, the Dangerous Dogs Act was amended so that dog owners can face prosecution if their dog attacks a person on private property.
Following this change in the law and the Royal Mail’s crackdown on dog attacks on postal workers, last month a dog owner from Manchester became one of the first people in Britain to be prosecuted by the Royal Mail. The attack, which left a postal worker with a six-inch wound, had initially been reported to the police but the owner only received a caution. Unsatisfied with this, the Royal Mail decided to launch its own private prosecution. The owner pleaded guilty to owning a dog which was dangerously out of control and was placed on a seven-week curfew, ordered to pay costs and compensation and was banned from keeping dogs for 18 months.
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.