By Eric King And Bethany Ruby Rose
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has revealed it spent a whopping £3.1m into the investigation of the unsuccessful Leigh Day case- a case in which Iraqi nationals accused British soldiers of unlawful killing during the 2004 iraqi war in 2014. The Solicitors Regulation Authority also published its correspondence with the Ministry Of Justice and the Ministry Of Defence.The MoJ said its interest in the case was to maintain trust and confidence in the legal regulatory regime .
The decision to make the information public was a complete U turn from its previous insistence to keep the details private because SRA chief executive Paul Philip had previously seemed determined to keep this private. Only due to pressure from the legal profession and researchers from The Eye Of Media.Com, did it finally decide to publish full details.
The revelation also comes about 2 weeks after this publication began its own probe as to whether the SRA and the Bar Council were affording solicitors and barristers unfair protection from public shame and identification in the face of proven misconduct. A careful investigation by this publication into some undisclosed practices of the SRA(nothing fraudulent, but issues relating to transparency) have led to the Information Commission’s Office being involved for purposes of clarity, despite the SRA not being subject to Freedom Of Information Requests like public bodies are. Th information disclosed by the SRA has been quite staggering in many respects.
FLOP
The SRA’s flop case relates to the conduct of Leigh Day and three of its lawyers acting for Iraqi nationals at the Al-Sweady inquiry. British soldiers were in that case cleared of serious allegations of unlawful killing following a firefight during the Iraq war in 2004. The case was centred on the firm’s alleged failure to verify claims made by Iraqi clients against British troops during the Battle of Danny Boy near Basra in 2004.
In 2017, the firm and three of its lawyers — partners Martyn Day and Sapna Malik, and junior solicitor Anna Crowther — were cleared of 19 charges of professional misconduct. The SRA appealed to the High Court and lost. The loss was a huge embarrassment to the SRA, who eventually last Friday, revealed a bill of “around” £3.1 million (including VAT). The SRA revealed that its bill comprised of £2.1 million for the seven-week-long Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) hearing, in addition to almost £1 million for the High Court appeal
MISTREATMENT
The inquiry which cleared the British soldiers also found that some detainees had been mistreated. The revelation has caused displeasure among a number of people in the legal profession who feel it amounts to mismanagement of funds.
The revelation comes about 2 weeks after The Eye Of Media.Com began its own probe as to whether the SRA and the Bar Council were affording solicitors and barristers unfair protection from public shame and identification in the face of proven misconduct. A careful investigation by this publication into some undisclosed practices of the SRA(nothing fraudulent, but issues relating to transparency) have led to the Information Commission’s Office being involved for purposes of clarity, despite the SRA not being subject to Freedom Of Information Requests like public bodies are. Th information disclosed by the SRA has been quite staggering in many respects.
The SRA revealed it spent £222,000 on its initial investigation, £1.9m on the prosecution before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), and a further £972,000 on the High Court appeal. The SRA also used City Law firm Simmons & Simmons and Tim Dutton QC.
The SRA said in a statement: “Our costs – primarily made up of legal fees – reflect the complexity and size of the investigation. The work on this case was completed within our usual budget provision for our disciplinary work.”
The Solicitors Regulation Authority presentation of correspondence excluded case evidence and case correspondence with the MoD as the complainant, “in line with usual practice”. However, it revealed 125 pages of detailed information, much of which revealed the interest taken by ministers in the case and its development.
The MoJ cited its role in maintaining trust and confidence in the legal regulatory regime as one of the reasons for its interest.
One communication from an MoJ official requested information about the extent of the investigation, and whether it was looking at how the firms found their clients and investigated the authenticity of their cases.
SRA executive director Crispin Passmore replied that in general there was nothing wrong with firms advertising or seeking clients proactively. He then proceeded to confirm that investigation was a wide one.
The official replied: “I think ministers want to know that you are looking at everything from start to finish!”
Mr Passmore responded: “We are! The challenge (as ever I suspect) is that the more we look at it widely and from start to finish the longer it takes and the harder we get challenged by the firms. That is inevitable but it is also incompatible with us doing it to a timescale that public and minister [sic] might prefer!
“Ministers can rest assured we know how important it is that we do a very good job on this and that public has to have confidence in our investigation and outcome of it. That doesn’t lead to any particular answer but it does mean that we know how important it is.”
The SRA documents also revealed its overall pursuit of full independence from the Law Society and changes in the way the SDT operates. It is also revealed a desire to obtain an increase in its own fining power beyond £2,000 , thereby enabling more cases to be handled without a referral to the tribunal. A letter to Mr Mercer, Mr Philip wrote: “It is perhaps unsurprising that, taken together, the status of the SRA as part of the trade association and the perception that the tribunal operates in a way that could potentially work in the solicitor’s interest, risks undermining public protection and confidence in the system.”
Frances Swaine, managing partner of Leigh Day, said: “We welcome this transparency from the SRA with regard to the costs incurred by the regulator in prosecuting us.
“The partial disclosure of correspondence between the SRA and government points to the need for the regulator to be not only truly independent of government, but also to be seen to be truly independent to ensure the trust of the public as well as the profession.”