Farrukh Abbas v Solicitors' Regulatory Authority

An appellate court should defer to a specialist disciplinary tribunal’s multifactorial assessment of seriousness, credibility and sanction. It may intervene only where the decision is wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. Proven dishonesty by a solicitor will almost invariably justify striking off. The phrase almost invariably does not make striking off automatic, but a lesser sanction requires exceptional circumstances. Mitigating matters such as another person’s involvement, difficult family circumstances, admissions, remorse and an unblemished record do not ordinarily displace responsibility for sustained, active dishonesty or reduce it below the level requiring removal from the Roll.

The appellant appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 3 January 2023. The Tribunal found three allegations of dishonesty and breaches of Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 proved. The appellant had participated over about nine months in a fabricated personal injury claim, signed a false witness statement, supported false medical evidence and sought financial benefit. He was struck off the Roll.

On appeal, the central issue was whether the Tribunal had erred in finding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a sanction short of striking off, including by failing to account properly for another participant’s influence, the appellant’s personal circumstances, mitigation, credibility and the alleged harm caused.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision was not wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. The court was required to respect the Tribunal’s specialist expertise and its advantage in assessing evidence and credibility. Its multifactorial evaluation could not be displaced merely because the appellate court might have reached a different view.
2. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant’s conduct was dishonest. He knowingly participated in a false insurance claim, signed a declaration of truth, attended a medical examination and physiotherapy sessions, and remained actively involved for about nine months in pursuit of personal financial gain. Personal injury expertise was unnecessary to understand that claiming for an accident in which he was not involved was dishonest.
3. The involvement of another person, and the fact that the appellant had not originated the scheme, could mitigate but did not absolve him or materially reduce his culpability. The appellant’s personal and family circumstances were considered. There was no medical evidence that they impaired his ability to choose between honesty and dishonesty or affected his capacity as a witness.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to regard the harm to the other driver and the damage to public confidence in the profession as serious. The misconduct was persistent and systematic rather than momentary or spontaneous.
5. Following Bolton v the Law Society, proven dishonesty will almost invariably lead to striking off, although the formulation is not automatic. This was not within the small residual category where striking off would be disproportionate. Removal from the Roll was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, to be agreed or dealt with on paper.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: On 3 January 2023, found three allegations of dishonesty and breaches of Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 proved and struck the appellant off the Roll.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 was dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings and sanction were upheld.