Report comment

Notwithstanding that Ms. James and Mr. Naylor had to cope with intolerable working conditions I do struggle to be entirely sympathetic. In the case of all three their dishonesty was protracted and none of them put forward any medical evidence to suggest that they did not appreciate that they were dishonest.

However, what I do strongly take issue with is the fact that we, as a profession, would appear to be incapable of rehabilitation. Of all the professions, we appear to be the only one for which a striking-off for dishonesty means the end of a career. Why should their mistakes preclude any of these people from ever resuming their legal careers?

Some years ago, my father (a pharmacist of excellent standing within the community and his profession) was stupid enough to commit a prescription fraud on the NHS. It was relatively low-value, he paid the money back and he received a suspended sentence. He was prosecuted before his professional tribunal and struck off (from memory for a year or so). At the end of that period he applied for restoration, which was granted, and he resumed his career and has performed as he had before he committed his fraud.

If these people needed to be struck off surely at some point in the future they can be considered safe enough to resume their careers. Conditions could be imposed by the SRA to safeguard the public for a period of time and to protect the good standing of the profession. I can see no good reason why a strike-off should or ought to be a permanent sanction except in the most extreme cases.

The case of Dr. Bawa-Garba provides a striking contrast to this case.