Masrur (A Solicitor), Re

Convictions for dishonesty create a strong starting point against enrolment as a student member of the Law Society. The applicant bears the burden of showing that the case is rare. Youth, rehabilitation, candour, references and the passage of time are relevant, but their weight depends on the circumstances.

The assessment concerns risk to the public and damage to the profession’s reputation, rather than punishment, reward or redemption. The regulator and appellate court have no power to grant student membership subject to conditions. Serious dishonesty committed at a very young age need not prevent admission indefinitely if complete rehabilitation is later established.

Raghib Masrur applied for student membership of the Law Society after disclosing four convictions, incurred at the age of 16, for handling stolen goods and obtaining a money transfer by deception. The SRA refused the application on character and suitability grounds. An SRA Review Panel unanimously rejected his appeal.

He appealed to the Master of the Rolls under Regulation 6(4) of the Training Regulations 1990. He argued that he should be enrolled subject to conditions and that his youth, rehabilitation, candour and subsequent conduct justified enrolment. The central issues were the applicable character and suitability test, the power to impose conditions, and whether the Review Panel had been entitled to refuse enrolment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was brought under Regulation 6(4) of the Training Regulations 1990. Regulation 32(3)(ii) concerned cancellation of student membership after it had been granted and did not govern refusal of student membership.
2. The SRA had no power to grant student membership subject to conditions, and the Master of the Rolls had no power to impose conditions on appeal. Conditions could, in appropriate circumstances, relate to a solicitor’s practising certificate, but not to student membership.
3. The applicable principles were those stated in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, as applied pre-admission in Jideofo v The Law Society & Ors [2007] EW Misc 3 (EWLS). The test is high. It concerns risk to the public and possible damage to the profession’s reputation, not punishment, reward or redemption. The applicant bears the burden because admission is not a right.
4. Following Ndjoli v The Law Society [2008] EWCA Civ 585, dishonesty convictions place an applicant in a category where it will be rare for the SRA to find suitable character. Ali & Naeem [2008] EWCA Civ 769 confirmed that, subject to the facts, enrolment may be difficult if not impossible. Personal mitigation remains relevant, but ordinarily carries limited weight.
5. Mr Masrur’s youth, the passage of time, evidence of later honesty, employment, references, co-operation with the police, guilty pleas and acceptance of wrongdoing were strong points in his favour. They did not make the case rare at the date of the Review Panel’s decision. The Review Panel was entitled to consider the seriousness and organised nature of the offending and the need for genuine acceptance of its wrongfulness and impact.
6. It would be too extreme to conclude that dishonesty committed at the age of 15 could prevent admission for ever. A future application might properly succeed after sufficient time and evidence of complete rehabilitation. The appeal was nevertheless dismissed, with no order for costs sought.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Master of the Rolls dismissed the appeal from the unanimous decision of the SRA Review Panel. The refusal was treated as notified no later than 4 March 2009, so the period for a further application ran from that date.