Sophia Cannon v Bar Standards Board
[2023] EWCA Civ 278
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Soophia Khan & Ors
23 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 531
Court of Appeal
A former solicitor was found guilty of ignoring court orders. She and her companies appealed, arguing she was too unwell to understand the case. The court disagreed, saying she understood and there was no need for a new hearing. A later appeal from the companies was rejected because it was too late.
Key Facts
- •Soophia Khan, a former solicitor, was found in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders to produce documents.
- •The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) brought two committal applications against Ms. Khan and two companies.
- •Ms. Khan appealed the second committal order, raising issues of capacity to defend proceedings, fairness of trial, and adverse inferences from silence.
- •Two companies, Sophie Khan & Co Ltd and Just for Public Ltd, also appealed the order.
- •Ms. Khan also sought to appeal the first committal order, but this was dismissed due to lateness.
Legal Principles
Test for fitness to plead in criminal cases does not directly apply to civil contempt proceedings. The test for capacity to conduct proceedings is that in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Mental Capacity Act 2005, CPR Part 21, CPR Part 81
Court's discretion to adjourn for further medical evidence depends on whether proceeding without adjournment would be fair and whether there's a real prospect of further evidence changing the court's view.
Bilta (UK) Ltd v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 21, Teinaz v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1040, Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 101
Court is not obliged to accept medical evidence uncritically; it can weigh medical evidence against other available material.
Levy v Carr-Ellis [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch), Forrester Ketley v Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 324, Maitland-Hudson v SRA [2019] EWHC 67 (Admin)
In committal proceedings, adverse inference may be drawn from a defendant’s silence only if there are matters needing explanation and none is provided.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm), Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWCA Civ 1264
Court must ensure the accused is aware of the right to remain silent and warned of potential adverse inferences from exercising that right; however, a warning from counsel might suffice if sufficiently clear.
Moutreuil v Andreewitch [2020] EWCA Civ 382, Inplayer Ltd v Thorogood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511
A defendant’s affidavits cannot be used against them unless they have been ‘deployed’ by the defendant.
Coates v Turner [2023] EWCA Civ 1487, In re B (Contempt of Court: Affidavit Evidence) [1996] 1 WLR 627, Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2020] EWHC 3536 (Comm)
Outcomes
Ms. Khan's appeal against the second committal order dismissed.
The court found that the judge did not err in his assessment of Ms. Khan's capacity and that further evidence would not have changed the outcome. The court also found that there was no procedural irregularity in the failure to warn Ms. Khan about adverse inferences from silence.
The companies' appeal dismissed.
The court refused permission to amend the grounds of appeal. On the existing grounds, the appeal would not succeed.
Ms. Khan's application to set aside Newey LJ's order refusing an extension of time for appealing the first committal order dismissed.
The court found that there was no jurisdiction to entertain a second reconsideration of the decision to refuse the extension of time.