Report comment

I have never read a previous judgement of the SDT in which a dissenting view has been given. Why have they done so in this case? As a fact finding tribunal it should be a majority decision that is published. What next? 2 magistrates saying “we found the defendant Not Guilty but the third decided you are dishonest and not credible.”

Page 194, and in particular para 151.26 onwards are interesting as to what transpired between the SRA and those that they had had instructed to bring the case. One wonders what action will be taken against someone who has accepted that contrary to what was said in his witness statement, he had not downloaded the penal code, someone else had done so and it had “been brought to my notice by someone at the solicitors for the applicant”.