Onwuka, Re Solicitor's Act 1974 No 3 of 2002

On an appeal from a professional regulator’s character-and-suitability decision, the court asks whether the procedure was unfair and whether the decision could not be justified on the evidence. The court does not reopen underlying criminal convictions. A regulator need not resolve every disputed collateral fact or obtain evidence from a witness where the decision does not depend on that witness’s account and the remaining evidence is sufficient. Criminal convictions, participation in threatening correspondence and failure to disclose a conviction may together justify a finding that a trainee lacks the character and suitability required for practice.

Mr Benjamin Onwuka, a trainee solicitor, appealed against the Law Society’s cancellation of his student membership under regulation 32 of the Training Regulations 1990, following a finding that he lacked the character and suitability required to become a solicitor. He had convictions for criminal damage, and later for harassment, unlawful eviction and common assault. He had not disclosed the earlier conviction.

Following interviews and a review, the Law Society maintained the cancellation. Mr Onwuka alleged that the procedure was unfair because the Society had not obtained evidence from his former principal solicitor and had not resolved the circumstances surrounding correspondence sent to a tenant. He also maintained that the convictions resulted from a miscarriage of justice. The central issues were whether the Law Society’s procedure was unfair and whether its decision was unjustified on the evidence.

Lord Phillips MR gave the sole judgment and dismissed the appeal.

1. The appeal concerned the Law Society’s decision under regulation 32 of the Training Regulations 1990. The Court of Appeal was not sitting as an appellate court to review the underlying criminal convictions. Those convictions remained on Mr Onwuka’s record.
2. The court’s task was to determine whether there was evidence of procedural unfairness and whether the decision could not be justified on the evidence before the adjudicators.
3. Mr Onwuka’s principal complaint was misconceived. The Law Society’s decision was not based on evidence from Ann Thomas. The adjudicators proceeded on the basis that Mr Onwuka’s account of how the threatening letter came to be written was true. It was therefore unnecessary for the Society to determine precisely what had occurred in the solicitor’s office.
4. The evidence nevertheless showed that Mr Onwuka had been party to writing an aggressive letter to his tenant, had twice been convicted, and had failed to disclose the earlier conviction. The adjudicators also found a lack of insight into the seriousness of his conduct and little or no remorse. These matters provided a proper evidential basis for concluding that he lacked the character and suitability required for a career as a solicitor.
5. There were no valid grounds for attacking the procedure, and the decision could not be said to be unjustified on the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) In [2002] EWCA Civ 994, Lord Phillips MR dismissed the appeal.
2. Law Society The Society cancelled Mr Onwuka’s student membership under regulation 32 of the Training Regulations 1990. A review adjudicator dismissed his challenge.