Report comment

This is my case. The SDT have now removed the judgement in order to consider factual errors. They did not respond to my email which requested they seek the withdrawal of extracts of the judgement in the meantime requiring me to address some of the comments left on this site some of which contain abusive comments far in excess of those the SRA the accused me of.

The SRA came at me with 18 allegations, not 10 as the judgement states, it withdrew 15 after I submitted 300 pages of irrefutable documentary evidence in my Response in July 2015, evidence which the SDT state that there was no doubt this evidence was credible. The withdrawn allegations were incredibly serious, including dishonesty and misleading the court. The irrefutable evidence was that the source of allegations, the same source in all, had lied to the SRA and produced ‘unreliable’ documentation, including documentation that purported me as being the author where expert evidence confirmed I was not and other documents where authenticity was in issue. When the matters are deemed "low level" the SRA deal with them internally, you have no right to disclosure, no opportunity to call witnesses, no opportunity to challenge evidence and no rules of evidence.

The remaining 4 allegations, all but one from the same source, went to the Adjudicator (the fifth being added without an opportunity for me to comment). The SRA had sent me hard copies of documentation throughout with one exception, the bundle of papers they “selected” as being “relevant” to go before the Adjudicator, those documents, 100s of pages, they scanned and sent to me attached to a series of emails. I immediately informed the SRA the scans were “illegible”. As a sole practitioner I had limited time and resources. I therefore looked at the index for the papers and printed off only the documents that originated from them, I did not print off the documents that originated from me as I had the originals. The index stated the bundle contained “Ms Cannon’s Response of July 2015". It remains to be seen what amendments, if any, the SDT will make to the Judgement but there can be no doubt that the evidence they describe as credible that led them to find the source unreliable in respect of 15 extremely serious allegations would be relevant to whether the source was credible in respect of the remaining allegations. On receipt of the Adjudicator’s findings I was astounded she made no reference to the evidence at all and I appealed on that basis. On receipt of my appeal I was then sent the actual bundle that when before the Adjudicator. It was only then that I realised that NONE of the 300 pages of my evidence had been before the Adjudicator. What had been before the Adjudicator was more than 300 pages of documents from the SRA of which only TWELVE related to the remaining allegations, all of the others relayed the other allegations which the SRA had already determined was wholly unreliable.

This meant that I had to seek leave to amend my appeal based on the non-disclosure of relevant material and the disclosure on non-relevant material that was extremely prejudicial with no probative value whatsoever.

The SDT found the evidence was inadmissible under Ladd v Marshall as I must have known my evidence was not before the Adjudicator as it was “wholly unbelievable” that I relied on the description of a document being “Ms Cannon’s Response of July 2015” as being just that as I would have been alerted to the page numbers being consistent with it being only my covering letter had been included.

For those that do not know, as I learned the hard way, this is not a bundle in the normal sense the the word. There is no hearing, there is no solicitor participation, the SRA have full discretion on what they include and what they consider to be relevant. As such there was no reason whatsoever for me to construct a bundle or reference the page numbers in the usual way a solicitor would.
Why on earth would I print off what I thought would be 300 pages of illegibly scanned documents when I had the originals having had to print off more than 300 pages of the SRA's evidence which was so poorly scanned it was illegible?

Why would the SRA describe the covering letter to my Response of July 2015 as the Response itself?

Why would I not want the documents before the Adjudicator, the “credible” documents that had “led to the SRA withdrawing the majority, and the most serious allegations, the documents that evidenced that the source had a propensity to mislead the SRA?

Why would the SRA tell me in writing, on 3 separate occasions, that I only had an internal right of appeal which would never have resulted in me receiving a hard copy of the bundle?

Why would I draft the grounds of appeal on the basis the documents had been included risking the SDT refusing leave to amend the grounds to procedural unfairness?

The SDT, who infer my defence of this matter was relentless, do not state what they consider my motive might have been for not wanting to put in any defence evidence whatsoever.

Anyone that has been through this process will understand why I overlooked page numbering was inconsistent with the title of the document. The SRA had accused me of serious allegations without cause and without cogent evidence. They did so after failing to take protective action when the police put them on notice, something which they did not deny they stated they in "hindsight" they should have done. This led to me making a formal complaint about them following which they informed me I was under investigation. Following which they proactively sought evidence to support them including resurrecting a 2 year old complaint which they had previously deemed a "non-complaint", approaching opponents I was currently litigating against and 2 solicitors who they threatened would take action against them in the event they did not assist them. This was only disclosed to me when the 2 solicitors made an out of court settlement to me. They even looked at a personal insurance claim I had made in the hope there was something they could use.

Most recently they drafted a statement and sent a barrister to sign it claiming it simply recorded questions they had put to him and his responses. The statement was untrue and the barrister refused. On disclosing it to me, finally, they admitted it was inaccurate stating by email that the author had "incorrectly recalled both asking the questions and receiving the responses". When the barrister provided the correct information, that undermined their case they considered he was of no longer of interest.

This process went on for over a year. They delayed my authorisation, left me unemployed for nearly a year and placed me in a financial position where I lost my home had no choice but to be “the fool that represented myself” I then developed depression, an immunity disorder, lost my hair, suffered blackouts and self-harmed whilst I tried to defend merit less allegations that would have ended my career with no access to any historic client papers because of the SRA’s delay in putting the allegations to me. By the time of the hearing I could barely stand unaided. What is “wholly unbelievable” is that overlooking the page numbers in the index is the only error I made.

The only reason the SDT could think of for the SRA not providing a hard copy of the bundle, which would have remedied any misunderstanding, was that I “had moved to Wales” so they didn’t know where to send it. That was something that was not in evidence EVER, and it wouldn’t be, I didn’t “move to Wales” until 9 months later they failed to send the bundle.

The SDT then claimed they had reviewed the documents in any event to see if it would have made a difference and they disclosed not as they implied I lied to another solicitor about “moving to a larger firm” and not “having access to client papers”. They did this without putting the question to me, had they done so, as was clear in the documents they claimed to have “reviewed” they were looking at the size of a later firm I moved to and I could not retrieve any document retained or created electronically on the practice management system.

In respect of the prejudicial papers before the Adjudicator they simply state “this was unfortunate” and they could have been “redacted”. That these prejudicial, irrelevant papers were before the SDT as well was unavoidable.

I also made it clear to the SDT, which is barely mentioned in the judgement, that when you are a sole practitioner you have no choice but to appeal any finding of lack of integrity or risk intervention and bankruptcy and it is that finding that I succeeded on.

In response to some of the comments below that I brought myself to the attention of the SRA by reporting my ex-partner, I was the firm's COLP, I was unlawfully obstructed form the office and my files so I could not carry out my obligations as COLP and was informed by the SRA I was obliged to make a formal report of concern.

In respect of costs, as confirmed in the Judgement, I was unable to hear anything during the hearing by telephone, I informed the SDT of this repeatedly. Despite this they did not reset the conference call, they continued and made costs in the absence of any outline of their reasons and in the absence of me being able to effectively participate. In part, their costs seem to be based on the number of documents that it was “unfortunate” the SRA included.

Nothing within the Judgement relating to the evidence of DI Wood is reported correctly in the judgement. Where the SDT state that DI Wood could not confirm one of the emails was fabricated his actual evidence was that he had received complete disclosure of the documents via a PACE Order, it would have included the document, it did not include the document and if it had of done he would have remembered as the information within it was false and contrary to the witness statement of the purported author.

He also stated that the SRA had disclosed confidential information to the source of the allegations about the the timing and nature of her pending arrest which hampered the police investigation and as a result he had to insist the SRA signed the Official Secrets Act before he would share any information with them thereafter.

He also stated that the SRA were on notice that my and client funds were at risk, they failed to “monitor” the firm as they had represented and caused my funds to be lost. He said the source of the allegations had lied to the police and the SRA about me to try and justify her unlawful obstruction of my from my own firm, he said the SRA knew that.

A few weeks after the SDT hearing an order was made by the Central London County Court that at the time the SRA stood back and permitted my obstruction from the management and finances of my firm I had every right to both. As such the COLP was unauthorised, the firm was unauthorised and therefore uninsured and all of my clients suffered harm. These are vulnerable clients that formally complained to the SRA time and again that they had lost money, their confidentiality had been breached, they felt threatened and harassed. who were they complaining about, the source. The SRA ignored their complaints. What solicitor who did not care about their profession and more importantly their clients wold not be “impassioned” about the SRA’s conduct.

They have 1 objective, to protect clients. They have 3 statutory principals, to carry out their duties in a way that is:
Proportionate
Transparent
Consistent

What was the deal they struck with the source for them to provide information on other solicitors where they knew there was a conflict of interest, they knew had no merit and led to so many clients suffering harm. We will never know as the SRA’s position, confirmed by the SDT is that there is no requirement for their actions to be proportionate, transparent or consistent.

For the avoidance of doubt, the reason that the SDT, who did not believe it was possible for me to make an error when reading the index and it was not possible for the SRA would overlook a request to send a hard copy of the bundle, have temporarily removed the judgement, is that they sent the judgement to the wrong address which is why they published it before I had a chance to comment on the facts as recorded hence they have subsequently withdrawn it to consider any errors