Aurangzeb, R (on the application of) v The Law Society of England and Wales

Judicial review of a disciplinary referral is legally available before the disciplinary tribunal has determined the allegations, but intervention at that stage is generally undesirable. The court should intervene only in exceptional circumstances, such as likely irreparable harm, serious unfairness, or a situation in which justice can be achieved only by immediate intervention. Where the tribunal provides a fair process, satisfies Article 6 requirements, and can cure earlier procedural defects, the claimant should ordinarily pursue the matter before the tribunal. The tribunal’s decision can then be subject to judicial review.

The claimant sought renewed permission to challenge two Law Society Panel decisions referring allegations to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The allegations concerned practising in breach of conditions imposed on his right to practise and failing to notify the Law Society of his bankruptcy.

He alleged procedural irregularities, including that material capable of answering the first allegation had not been before the Panel and that facts concerning his affairs raised concerns about improper influence in relation to the bankruptcy allegation. A single judge had refused permission on the papers. The issue was whether the Administrative Court should intervene before the Tribunal had determined the allegations.

1. The renewed application was dismissed. The court declined to grant permission for judicial review of the referrals.
2. Judicial review was not legally excluded merely because the Panel had referred the allegations to the Tribunal. However, the court should have considerable reservations about intervening at that stage of a disciplinary process.
3. Intervention would ordinarily be justified only in exceptional circumstances, including likely irreparable harm or unfairness, or where justice could be achieved only by immediate intervention.
4. The Tribunal satisfied the requirements of fairness and Article 6. It had the same relevant powers of sanction as the Panel, including the power to absolve the claimant where appropriate. The Tribunal therefore had ample opportunity to cure procedural failures said to have occurred before referral.
5. The court could not properly determine the appropriate outcome of the allegations. If the referral were quashed, a fresh Panel could reach the same conclusion, creating scope for repeated judicial review applications and undermining the disciplinary process.
6. The court expressed no view on the merits. The claimant could ventilate his grievances before the Tribunal, whose eventual decision would itself be open to review.

The judgment records that a single judge had previously refused permission on the papers. The renewed application was dismissed by the Administrative Court.