Slater v Solicitors Regulation Authority

A professional disciplinary tribunal may take account of evidence given at a Newton hearing when that evidence is directly relevant to the appellant’s own conduct and to the appropriate sanction. The tribunal must assess relevance in context. Evidence arising from another person’s plea should not automatically be used adversely against the appellant, but that concern does not prevent consideration of evidence which bears on the appellant’s own mitigation or responsibility. The High Court must give considerable respect to the tribunal’s informed sentencing decision, but must intervene where, despite that respect, the sanction is clearly inappropriate.

The appellant, a solicitor, admitted breaching his practising-certificate condition and failing to ensure that clients’ money was paid into the client account. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck him off the Roll. He appealed against the severity of the sanction.

A Newton hearing had examined disputed evidence concerning whether the appellant’s employer knew of the payments. The appellant argued that the tribunal had unfairly aggravated the sanction by treating him as an evasive and unreliable witness, although the hearing had arisen from his employer’s basis of plea. The central issue was whether the tribunal was entitled to consider that evidence when determining the appellant’s sanction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal had not erred in law by taking account of its assessment of the appellant’s evidence at the Newton hearing.
2. The obligation on solicitors to comply with client-account rules is strict. Consistently with Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, disciplinary sanctions primarily protect public confidence in the integrity of the profession rather than punish the solicitor. Mitigation therefore has less significance than it might in criminal proceedings.
3. The proper appellate approach was that stated in Salsbury v the Law Society [2008] EWCA Civ 1285; [2009] 2 All ER 487. The tribunal is expert and informed and is particularly well placed to assess the measures required to protect the public interest. The High Court must pay considerable respect to its decision, but must intervene if the sanction is clearly inappropriate.
4. The caution concerning Newton hearings in Underwood [2005] 1 Cr App R 13; [2004] EWCA Crim 2256 did not require the tribunal to disregard the appellant’s evidence. The disputed issue directly concerned the appellant’s own conduct and was potentially relevant to his attempt to mitigate the seriousness of the breaches by asserting that his employer knew what was happening.
5. Although different considerations might arise where a Newton hearing concerning one defendant had no relevance to another defendant’s position, that was not this case. The court did not need to determine whether striking off would inevitably have been the only appropriate sanction absent the alleged error. The appeal was dismissed, with costs assessed at £12,448.10.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s order striking the appellant off the Roll of Solicitors dismissed.