Report comment

Why does the article refer to the SRA "prosecuting" . The SRA doesn't bring criminal prosecutions; it takes solicitors to the SDT. If there has been perversion of the course of justice or conspiracy to do so then it seems to me that all the parties involved should be prosecuted by the CPS, including both solicitors and the two parties to the NDA. Of course, there would be no chance of a criminal conviction if no one has lied to the criminal authorities or destroyed evidence or threatened witnesses; they seem just to have come to an arrangement to sort out their differences by the payment of money. The Zelda Perkins could have taken the money and told the police, which it seems she has, so where is the criminality? Equally, she could have refused the money and gone to the police but she chose not to do so after being legally advised. Of course, there is always the possibility that she was actually threatened by Miramax /or its lawyers but that seems unlikely given that she had lawyers acting for her. Unfortunately, "morality" is not relevant in this context; the question is whether the law has been broken. I suppose that the SRA thinks that it will have more chance of proving that the A & O solicitor acted in a way which was likely to diminish the public's faith in solicitors than the CPS would have in securing a criminal conviction; but if that is the case then surely Zelda Perkins' solicitor is equally (if not more) culpable?