Sheikh Asif Salam v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd

An appeal under Solicitors Act 1974 s.49 is by way of review. The appellate court may intervene where the tribunal was wrong in law, fact or discretion, or where serious procedural irregularity caused injustice. Particular restraint is required when reviewing factual findings, evaluative judgments and findings of dishonesty by a specialist tribunal. A different conclusion is insufficient; the decision must be irrational, unsupported by evidence, or affected by a demonstrable error. A finding that recordings are authentic may be based on the recordings themselves, corroborating evidence and the absence of a credible contrary case. Proven solicitor dishonesty will ordinarily justify striking-off, unless exceptional circumstances relating to the dishonesty warrant a lesser sanction.

The appellant, an immigration solicitor, appealed under s.49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s finding that he had dishonestly advised an undercover journalist, posing as a client, about obtaining false employment and financial evidence for a spousal visa application. He had also introduced her to an accountant.

The SDT found breaches of Principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and struck him from the Roll. It rejected challenges to the authenticity of the recordings, fairness of the hearing, the dishonesty finding and the sanction. The central issue was whether the SDT’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity.

1. Outcome. The appeal was dismissed and certified as totally without merit.
2. Appellate approach. Under s.49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, read with CPR 52.10, 52.11 and 52.21(3), the appeal was by way of review rather than rehearing. Intervention required an error of law, fact or discretion, or serious procedural irregularity causing injustice. The court had to exercise particular restraint before interfering with findings of fact or evaluative judgments by the specialist tribunal. The relevant threshold was whether no reasonable tribunal could have reached the decision, or whether the conclusion was rationally insupportable (paras 30-33).
3. Recordings and expert evidence. The SDT was entitled to conclude that the recordings and transcripts were reliable. It had the recordings, the evidence of the BBC journalist, and no supported contrary case. Under rule 30(3) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, expert evidence was discretionary and was not necessary where the allegation of tampering lacked specificity or evidential support (paras 39-56).
4. Fairness. The absence of evidence from the undercover journalist or accountant did not make the hearing unfair. The recordings and corroborating evidence enabled the SDT to determine the issues, and the appellant could have called the accountant or sought a witness summons. The approach was consistent with Naqvi v SRA (paras 58-68).
5. Dishonesty. Applying the approach in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords, the SDT was entitled to find that the appellant knew the relevant facts and that his conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. Its rejection of the play-acting and research defences was rational and supported by the evidence (paras 78-80).
6. Sanction. The SDT’s decision to strike the appellant from the Roll was not clearly inappropriate. The misconduct was grave, involved repeated advice to facilitate illegality and was aggravated by the appellant’s lack of insight and continued attempts to blame others. Dishonesty ordinarily warrants striking-off, subject to exceptional circumstances relating to its nature, extent and culpability (paras 81-93).

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the SDT was dismissed on 12 March 2024 and certified as totally without merit.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: on 9 February 2023 the appellant was found guilty of dishonest conduct and struck from the Roll of Solicitors; reasons were promulgated on 9 March 2023.