Report comment

He said things that should not have been said. All of us might do that in the heat of the moment. He had a finding against him in the employment case.

The SRA becomes involved. He admits the finding. But the SRA issue proceedings for Dishonesty. He was unaware that dishonesty was alleged, thus had no opportunity to challenge the SDT before they issued proceedings. He rightly defends this allegation which they then drop. Leaving the employment mater which he had admitted.

Interestingly in claiming their costs SRA say costs should follow the event. Whenever a successful defence is raised they argue against that costs point. They also argue that because the respondent had defended the case there were not capable of dealing with it in house, hence the costs escalate.

The SDT find that the case could have been dealt with in house, indeed the SRA could have issued a penalty without going to the SDT.

The issue of proceedings for dishonesty was a travesty. It was ill conceived and a shambles. The SDT should have grasped that point and awarded costs against the SRA.

There is also a wider point that the SRA have wasted the professions money on bringing an allegation that was unfounded. Those making that decision seemed not to have complied with the relevant outcomes. Perhaps they should be referred to the SDT.