Farrukh Abbas v Solicitors' Regulatory Authority
[2024] EWHC 2775 (Admin)
Sheikh Asif Salam v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
12 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 547 (Admin)
High Court
A solicitor was caught on tape advising a client on how to commit visa fraud. He tried to claim the tape was fake and the whole thing was a misunderstanding. The court said the tape was real, he was guilty, and he was rightfully struck off.
Key Facts
- •Sheikh Asif Salam (Appellant) appealed a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decision to strike him off the Roll of Solicitors.
- •The SDT found Salam guilty of dishonest conduct in advising an undercover journalist on obtaining fraudulent evidence for a visa application.
- •Salam was recorded advising on and facilitating the creation of false documents.
- •Salam's numerous attempts to delay or prevent disciplinary proceedings were noted by the court.
- •Salam challenged the authenticity of the recordings, but provided no evidence to support his claim.
- •The SDT found Salam's defenses implausible and dishonest.
- •The SDT considered the sanction of striking off to be appropriate given the seriousness of Salam's dishonesty.
Legal Principles
Appeals under s.49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 are by way of review, not rehearing. The court will only allow the appeal if the decision was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity'.
Ali v SRA [2021] EWHC 2709 (Admin) [92]-[94]
The court will only interfere with findings of fact if there is an error of principle or the evaluation was wrong in the sense of falling outside the bounds of what the tribunal could properly and reasonably decide.
Various cases cited in Ali v SRA [2021] EWHC 2709 (Admin) [94]
An appeal court should not interfere with a trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless it is satisfied that he was plainly wrong. The test is whether the decision under appeal is one that no reasonable judge could have reached.
Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 454 at [2]
A finding of dishonesty will almost invariably lead to striking off, save in exceptional circumstances.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharma [2010] EWHC 2022 (Admin)
In considering dishonesty, the tribunal must ascertain the individual's actual state of knowledge or belief. The reasonableness of the belief is a matter of evidence but not an additional requirement; the question is whether it is genuinely held. Then, the conduct is assessed against the objective standards of ordinary decent people.
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 at [74]
An appeal court should only interfere with an SDT's evaluative decision on sanction if there was an error of principle or the evaluation fell outside the bounds of what it could properly and reasonably decide.
Hewson, cited in Bawa-Garba v The General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1879
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the SDT's findings of fact and its decision on sanction to be reasonable and justified. The appellant's challenges to the authenticity of the recordings, his procedural objections, and his arguments regarding mitigation were all rejected as lacking merit.