Report comment

Everyone regulated by the SRA should take the time to read this judgement it is only 32 pages long and gives you an insight into how you are regulated. Like Marshall Hall I am left chilled.

Mr Beach comes across as being a decent person in the judgement. He had his daughter working with him in the business. Maybe he had plans to pass on the business to her in due course. But all that is now academic.

Once again the decision makers at the SRA are protected. We know the name of the forensic investigator (who does not come out of this badly) but we do not know the name of the supervisor or who chaired the panel that decided to intervene. For the sake of transparency and accountability we should be given this information. Until individuals at the SRA own their decisions and actually think about what they are doing, instead of regulating based on labels then things will not improve.

The SDT should stop protecting these people in its judgements because that too contributes to the lack of accountability and improvement. The profession deserves much better.