Report comment

I have seen it written elsewhere that the SDT was bound by the ruling in the Sovani James case so I know that the writer’s view is not isolated but in my view that doesn’t seem to hold water.

The facts of James were that she had made an error, was too scared to own up and so chose to backdate her own letters to hide her error. Whilst under excessive workplace pressure, she herself made the decisions and did so in order to avoid internal disciplinary procedures. There is no suggestion that anyone at the firm instructed her to do this.

The Defendant Scott found herself in a wholly different position, as a trainee, with a direct instruction from a supervising solicitor and COLP to backdate correspondence and to falsely sign a bill. She did it for his benefit rather than her own.

On the facts the two Defendants were very distinguishable. The SDT has chosen to ignore these distinctions and cannot now hide behind a largely irrelevant precedent.

Even if you (wrongly) conclude that the two acts were the same, Scott was a whistleblower and James was not. This is a massive factor in mitigation but has carried no weight.

Whether the decision is right or not depends on your viewpoint, but it is clear that the SDT has chosen the ruling they have given, they have not been bound by precedent from the James case.