Report comment

The defendant was clearly a vulnerable client by virture of having no recollection of the events giving rise to the proceedings (34.9). In that context, giving him a range of options and not protecting his interests specifically in the absence of CCTV footage can hardly be considered, in my view, to be acting in accordance with SRA Principles 4 and 5.

Whether Mr Mardon should have been prosecuted by the SRA for his actions is a different question, and not one which is answered by the tribunal's decision. They found the case not proved on the basis of how it was pleaded by the SRA, and the tribunal's reasoning is somewhat illogical in any event because 'pleading guilty' must have been one of the options the defendant was advised of as part of the "comprehensive" advice he received from Mr Mardon (34.28).

Re Anon at 14:37 - the tribunal frequently orders the SRA to obtain evidence on behalf of a respondent if the respondent is unable to get if for themselves and it would or might aid their defence.