A veteran duty solicitor who made inappropriate comments towards two female police officers did not commit misconduct, a tribunal has found. Anthony David Davis, admitted in 1980, said the comments were ‘asinine and flippant’ and that the public would not be bothered by the nature of what he said.
Davis had admitted making jokes during a visit to Coventry Police Station in 2023, although he did not accept they were inappropriate.
Following a hearing last month, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that some of the comments went beyond ‘banter’ but were not sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct.
The tribunal rejected charges that Davis had acted in a way that undermined trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession, and had not demonstrated a lack of integrity. All allegations of misconduct were dismissed.
The tribunal heard that Davis, 83, had responded to an officer spilling a drink on the floor by talking about when a waitress had spilt soup on his crotch and rubbed it off. The officer, who was young in service at the time, said she felt uncomfortable and shocked.
Before the client interview began, both officers said Davis spoke about eating human flesh, then at the end of the interview, he looked directly at one and said words to the effect that if her boyfriend ever became a violent alcoholic, he would ‘snap [her] up’.
Both officers submitted contemporaneous internal reports to the supervising police sergeant. They both considered that the comments were directed at them as female officers.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority, prosecuting, submitted that given Davis’s attendance to represent his client, the comments made were all inappropriate, were made without justification and were not reciprocated. Even if the comments were a succession of jokes, banter, or ribaldry in order to reduce tension, it was clear that the officers did not view them in this light.
Davis, representing himself, said police officers were not noted for their hypersensitivity and were not ‘shrinking violets’.
He said he did not intend to cause any offence and his comments were the ‘expression of his eccentric humour’. He submitted that members of the public would be far more concerned about solicitors acting dishonestly or committing criminal offences.
Having dismissed the allegations, Davis applied to the tribunal for costs of £10,000 to cover the loss of income due to the police banning him from attending the police station, and to cover £1,000 spent on legal advice over this ban. The tribunal made no order for costs, effectively asking both Davis and the SRA to pay their own.
