Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

I thought Flaux LJ’s judgment in SRA v James was the most inhumane I would ever read.

I was wrong.

This was a trainee who, on the Tribunal’s own findings, was bullied, manipulated and deceived: by individuals with power over her career.

She revealed this wrongdoing herself, once free of their influence, thereby demonstrating the clear factual duress they had over her conduct.

Yet all the SDT can do is say:

“The fact that the Third Respondent was under pressure and working in a horrendous environment could not excuse dishonesty.”

This paltry reasoning so spectacularly fails to address the true horror of Ms Scott’s position that it is almost comical in its absurdity.

The judiciary need to get a grip and reign the SRA/SDT in. Yes, dishonesty should prima facie mean a strike-off, but here the circumstances could hardly be more obviously exceptional.

Your details

Cancel