Report comment

I fail to understand what value the musings of the SDT in decision held to be "unjust and is wrong" has to do with anything.
We should be promoting the Rule of Law, not the Law of the Jungle.
The High Court summed up his defence like this:
"The appellant, however, continues resolutely to deny that he acted in any way dishonestly. That was his pleaded position in these proceedings in which he categorically denied any dishonestly. Broadly, the account given in his pleading, now at bundle Tab 3, page 21, is that a company owned by him did provide services to which the payments related; that he was acting generally with the approval and authority of Mr Lindsay, by whom he was employed and who was the long-established solicitor and senior partner of the firm; and, accordingly, that he himself did not act dishonestly."