Report comment

Anon 17.09 (perhaps too robustly) has hit the nail on the head.

This case throws up the tensions between the offence(s) and their nature on the one hand and the situation of the defendant, including circumstance and motive on the other, and achieving a just result by balancing each.

As one who is not a soft touch, I welcomed this decision which was very carefully reasoned.

It followed what many of us have suggested for some time, namely that if dishonesty of any sort is not automatically fatal, the "exceptions" - for which I would substitute "mitigation" - should be more be more nuanced than appeal decisions (also turning on their own facts), sometimes decades old, might seem to allow. None says "fatal".

As should the review of the actual facts and consequences of the offence. I'm sorry but there are levels of dishonesty. The criminal sanctions run from a caution to time to be served depending in substantial part on what the perp did.

Every case will turn on its own facts. No principle is at stake. Dishonesty will always be the worst professional sin.