A high-profile former solicitor’s long-running legal dispute with the Solicitors Regulation Authority reached the Court of Appeal this week.

The three-day hearing, before Lord Justice Newey, Lord Justice Arnold, and Lord Justice Nugee, centres on Soophia Khan’s appeal against a committal order under which she was sentenced last year to 12 months in prison. 

Khan appealed the committal order on four grounds, including capacity, fitness to plead and that the trial was ‘procedurally unfair’ as the judge did not warn her about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn when she chose not to give oral evidence.

The SRA argues that Khan’s appeal should be dismissed.

Philip Ahlquist, for the SRA said: ‘The judge said if he thought the evidence was strong enough he would have adjourned [the sanction hearing] and he did not, for the reasons he set out in his confidential schedule.’

He added: ‘There was clear and compelling evidence, overwhelming evidence in the confidential schedule that Miss Khan fully understood what was going on and engaged in [the case] fully.’

Ahlquist told the court the judge had ‘not found it necessary to rely on any inference’ in Khan not giving oral evidence. He said: ‘And in my submission that is the end of ground four. Even if it is right that the learned judge should have given a warning and failed to do so, there is no serious procedural irregularity that means the order made below is unjust,’ he added.

Lord Justice Arnold said: ‘This is a case of a party who was allowed to have her cake and eat it. She was allowed simultaneously to put affidavit evidence before the court and yet not be cross-examined on it. It is extraordinary.’

James Bogle, for Khan, said: ‘The deficiencies [in the medical reports] called out for further enquiry. [The doctor’s] conclusions were too serious for the court to simply dismiss them and to do so without further enquiry.

‘If a litigant is suffering from mental health [problems] there are going to be problems and inconsistencies…that is simply the point I am making. The judge said he did not draw inference from silence but I must honestly say that is open to question. If one reads the judgment, it is not entirely clear that some inferences were not drawn from the silence of my client and indeed informed the judgment the court made.

‘It is very easy to say I draw no inference from silence and then go on to condemn the person that has been silent in the face or evidence or not.’

The hearing continues.