A solicitor who did not succeed to dismiss a notification order relating to a wealthy businessman’s sexual offence conviction had only ‘limited’ options in the matter, a court heard today.
London firm Kingsley Napley is suing Simon Halabi, an original developer of London’s Shard skyscraper, for unpaid fees totalling around £14,000 - £16,000 of the £59,000 total bill.
Halabi is counter-suing the firm for alleged negligence, which Kingsley Napley denies.
Halabi, now 64, was convicted of a sexual offence in France in 1998 under a different name. In 2017, the Metropolitan Police applied for a notification order after learning of the businessman’s conviction.
The order would mean certain restrictions would be imposed on Halabi, including a requirement to notify police when he travelled.
Sandra Paul, of Kingsley Napley, was instructed to argue that the order should not be imposed. The court heard that Paul was told to ‘think outside of the box’ for ways to approach the case.
The notification order was eventually granted by magistrates and then again at Southwark Crown Court following an appeal. A subsequent judicial review also failed.
The court previously heard that Kingsley Napley did not give Halabi the option of pursuing his case through JR. Paul, giving evidence in cross examination, said once more evidence came to light, she felt the option was ‘non-existent’.
She said: ‘That was not the view I held at the time [to apply for a stay at magistrates’ and then apply for JR] so it is not advice I would have given Mr Halabi.
‘It is necessary to give the client advice. You need to be in a position to say why you are giving that advice. If at any point a judicial review appeared to be a reasonable alternative for Mr Halabi bearing in mind the facts…his priorities as I understood them, yes, I would have told him [about JR].’
Paul added: ‘When we have got the facts of the conviction and circumstances of it and the possibility of being able to present to admin court that the police are wrong to have made this application is all but non-existent.
‘I could have [given my thoughts on judicial review] but I’m not sure that would have been the most helpful way to approach it. It is like I had already told Mr Halabi, his opportunity for resisting this were very limited. He knew that going into it.’
Halabi told Paul that to have a criminal conviction in the UK would ‘totally destroy’ his life and work, the court heard.
Paul said in fighting against the notification order, she understood Halabi had ‘twin aims’ to defeat the notification and to keep matters as private as possible.
Christopher Edwards, for Halabi, questioned Paul on the difference between her impressions of Halabi’s aims and his express instructions.
During cross-examination, His Honour Judge Roberts told Edwards: ‘You’re dancing on a needle of a pin between an impression and an instruction.’
Edwards replied: ‘I would say that there is a difference.’
Paul said: ‘I understood it to be his instructions, him saying “this is what I want to achieve”.’ She added that the magistrates court ‘looked like a really good option’ for Halabi ‘given he had nothing to start with'.
She added: ‘I think threshold for success is harder in [the administrative] court, they are going to require some discipline as to what factors can be brought to bear, what evidence, whereas magistrate courts, and I do not mean to be disparaging, are more flexible.
‘For instance, magistrates might be more likely to accept…a statement that says A, B, C in respect of Mr Halabi’s character whereas admin would ask ‘where is your expert?’
Speaking about a letter sent by the firm questioning the application order, Paul said: ‘It did not really matter if it achieved the desired outcome [of having the order dropped]. Making representations to the police is standard, or to the Crown Prosecution Service, to say review this, exercise your discretion, this is the way that I see it.'
The hearing continues.
