By Sheila Mckenzie-
The Uk High Court has ordered the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to hear a fraud related prosecution case again, following a judgment it described as ‘seriously flawed’.
In a damning assessment of the tribunal’s decision that a city solicitor, Nabeel Sheikh, had no case to answer, Lord Justice Davis exposed the SDT’s decision in the case of Sheikh- accused of fraud as ‘plainly wrong and revealed an inadequate understanding’ of the principles that should be applied. The ruling exposed fundamental weaknesses in the Tribunal’s entire approach t0 the case.
The appeal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“the SRA”) was challenging a decision of a panel of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“the SDT”) filed on 24 January 2020. The decision was, following the conclusion of the presentation by the SRA of its case, to the effect that there was no case to answer on all allegations made. The proceedings were accordingly dismissed. The SDT was very critical of the SRA:
The case will be remitted for a fresh hearing before a different tribunal panel, with the decision to make a £63,000 costs order against the Solicitors Regulation Authority also disallowed.
The Solicitors Regulator Authority (SRA)had challenged the tribunal’s decision to throw out the case against Sheikh, formerly a partner at now-closed London firm Neumans, over costs charged in a criminal appeal. After the client’s appeal was allowed, Neumans lodged a bill of costs for £2.9m, the largest the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had ever received.
Master Egan QC was ordered to investigate the matter. According to the latest judgment, Master Egan reported ‘clear evidence of fraud’ in the costs claim and the matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the SRA. No criminal proceedings have been brought and Sheikh has always denied fraud. It was noted at the tribunal that police investigators did not contact Sheikh, let alone request that he attend f an interview, after spending two years looking at the case.
The 65-page judgment of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had segmented Master Egan’s report into ‘both fact and opinion’, admitting to have ‘disregarded’ all aspect of opinion in it. The tribunal stated that it would not draw inferences ‘based on the opinion evidence of Master Egan, who was not a witness in the proceedings and who was not an expert, to substantiate a case to answer’.
Lord Justice Davis criticised the SDT for falling into ‘serious error’ in both its approach and conclusions.
He added: ‘I have to say that one gets no sense here of the SDT seeking to take the SRA’s case at its highest or asking itself whether on one possible view of the facts a conclusion to the criminal standard could properly be reached.’
The judge said the way Master Egan’s report was handled was not acceptable. The SDT was also ‘completely wrong’ to dismiss out of hand a report from the SRA’s regulatory supervisor, and failed to ask whether any contrary conclusion was reasonably sustainable.