Pybus v Law Society

An appeal from a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is appellate and proceeds by way of rehearing. The High Court may substitute its own decision, including on penalty, while giving appropriate weight to the Tribunal’s expertise and assessment of the evidence. A Tribunal may announce its order at the hearing and file fuller written findings later. The statutory appeal period runs from filing those findings. Adequate reasons need only explain, in broad outline, the facts found, why the allegations were established and why the penalty was imposed. Matters relevant to mitigation do not constitute a defence to proved professional misconduct. Previous disciplinary appearances may be relevant to sentence, and striking off may fall within the Tribunal’s discretion where public protection requires it.

Mr Pybus appealed to the High Court against his conviction and striking off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. His notice of appeal was filed outside the 14-day period calculated from the filing of the Tribunal’s written findings. The court considered whether time should be extended and, if so, whether the appeal had merit.

The allegations concerned non-compliance with the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules and failure to comply with a resolution of an adjudicator. The appellant also challenged the adequacy of the Tribunal’s written reasons, the treatment of mitigation and previous disciplinary appearances, and the proportionality of the penalty.

1. Time for appealing. The statutory scheme under the Solicitors Act 1974 contemplated that the Tribunal could announce its order at the conclusion of the hearing and file fuller findings later. The 14-day period under Order 106, rule 12(3), therefore ran from the filing of the statement of findings, rather than from the order itself. Time was extended, if necessary, so that the substantive appeal could be considered.
2. Appellate function. The High Court’s jurisdiction was appellate, not supervisory, and operated by way of rehearing. It could substitute its own decision for that of the Tribunal, including on sanction, while according appropriate weight to the Tribunal’s expertise and its opportunity to hear the evidence. It was not required to defer more than the circumstances warranted.
3. Adequacy of reasons. Section 48 of the Solicitors Act 1974 required adequate reasons, meaning that the solicitor should know, at least in broad outline, what facts were found, why the allegations were established and why the penalty was imposed. A brief oral indication of reasons could properly be supplemented by detailed written findings filed later. There was no material inconsistency between the Chairman’s oral observations and the written findings.
4. Conviction. The Tribunal was entitled to accept the investigating officer’s evidence and conclude that the accounts were non-compliant and that the adjudicator’s resolution had not been obeyed. The appellant’s explanations went to mitigation rather than providing a defence to the allegations.
5. Penalty. The Tribunal was entitled to consider the appellant’s previous appearances, the seriousness of the present misconduct, his response to it and the need for public protection. Striking off was within the ambit of its sentencing discretion and was not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed, and the Law Society was awarded its costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): time extended, if necessary, and the appeal against conviction and striking off dismissed. Costs awarded to the Law Society.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: the appellant was convicted of conduct unbefitting a solicitor and struck off the Roll.