Report comment

Two things stand out:

1. The SRA's deep reluctance to tell us how much it spent on SRA v Day.

2. The SRA's deep reluctance to show us its correspondence with the MOJ and MOD.

The idea that the correspondence referred to in point 2 is "confidential" (as Mr Philip asserts) is risible. That correspondence was disclosed and deployed during a trial (SRA v Day) which took place in public, with no reporting restrictions. Any confidentiality in it evaporated long ago. It had nothing to do with "policy discussions" and disclosing it would in no way hamper the SRA's dealings with government departments in the future.

Where Mr Philip makes assertions which are demonstrably unsustainable, why doesn't the Gazette pick him up on it? Why did no journalist point out to him that, if SRA v Day had been just another case, he wouldn't have been making presentations to the SRA Board about it?

Here's another extract from SRA Board minutes (this time for 31 May 2017):

"5.2 Paul Philip noted that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was expected to report on the outcome of the hearing into the firm Leigh Day which stemmed from the Al-Sweady
Inquiry on the week commencing 5 June 2017. The correspondence between us and the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Defence which we had been asked to disclose did not appear to have detracted from our case."

Great. So stop being obstructive and disclose it. Oh, and:

(a) Whether Mr Philip likes it or not, the SDT does not "report" to the SRA on the "outcome" of prosecutions. It produces judgments.

(b) The SRA was not "asked" to disclose the correspondence with the MOJ and MOD. It was directed to disclose it after a contested hearing.