Key Facts
- •Victor Nwosu (appellant) appealed an Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) order finding him guilty of misconduct (sexual misconduct) for inappropriate comments during a job interview with Person A.
- •The SDT imposed a £20,000 fine and £23,550 in costs.
- •The SRA cross-appealed on the issue of sanction.
- •The interview involved comments about Person A's appearance, questions about her relationships, and a statement about the firm's dress code.
- •The SDT found most allegations proved but not all.
- •The appellant's appeal raised issues of standard of proof, consideration of good character, procedural irregularities, and the appropriateness of the sanction.
- •The SRA's cross-appeal challenged the leniency of the sanction.
Legal Principles
Standard of proof in SDT proceedings after 25 November 2019 is the civil standard.
Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019
Disciplinary tribunals must consider good character evidence in assessing credibility and propensity, but aren't required to formally state they did so if it's inferable from the decision.
Khan v GMC [2021] EWHC 374 (Admin), Vitalis v NMC [2017] EWHC 3281 (Admin), Shaw v Logue [2014] EWHC 5 (Admin)
Appellate courts should show deference to expert tribunals' factual findings but can intervene if the decision is 'clearly' wrong.
CPR 52.11(3)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the SDT correctly applied the civil standard of proof, considered the appellant's good character, and that any procedural irregularities didn't affect the fairness of the hearing.
Cross-appeal dismissed.
While acknowledging the sanction might have been lenient, the court found the SDT's decision on sanction wasn't 'clearly' wrong given its consideration of all relevant factors.