Decisions 17 September 2026

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.  

In March 2016, while a consultant employed at Buss Murton Law LLP, the respondent had facilitated the preparation and execution of a backdated document, being a facility agreement between Leisure and Tourism Developments PLC and London Capital & Finance PLC, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. 

In August 2017, while acting as an independent consultant, the respondent had facilitated the preparation, execution and circulation of a backdated document purporting to be an assignment of a loan between London Oil & Gas Limited (LOG) and Atlantic Petroleum Support Limited, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

In the period January to March 2019, while acting as an independent consultant, the respondent had facilitated the preparation, execution, and circulation of backdated documents, being a call option agreement between LOG and TW Private LLP and a facility agreement between LOG and LPE Enterprises Limited, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. 

In the period 30 December 2015 to 31 March 2018, the respondent had owned, controlled and been sole director of Global Security Trustees Limited (GST), whose role was to act as security trustee protecting the interests of bondholders, notwithstanding an obvious conflict in doing so (or significant risk thereof) given his previous and ongoing instructions (as consultant employed by the firm and thereafter as an independent consultant) for borrowers and/or persons with an interest in those borrowers, thereby failing to achieve outcome 3.4 of the Code of Conduct 2011 and breaching principles 2 and 6. 

The respondent’s actions had resulted from his complete failure to have regard to his regulatory obligations and his obligations as the security trustee. By acting as the security trustee, he lent the repute of the profession to GST.

The deliberate and repeated continuation of the misconduct was an aggravating feature. Even more serious was the fact that the respondent had acted when there was a significant, clear and obvious risk of an own interest conflict. 

In all the circumstances, the seriousness of the misconduct was such that the protection of the public and reputation of the profession required that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

It was ordered that there should be no order as to costs.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

Between 24 January 2024 and 28 January 2024, when he was employed by the Crown Prosecution Service as a prosecutor, the respondent had ill-treated a child under the age of 16, resulting in his conviction of an offence contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, by virtue of which he had breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

On 27 January 2024, the respondent had assaulted a child under the age of 16 by beating, resulting in his conviction on 11 July 2024 of an offence contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, by virtue of which he had breached principles 2 and 5. 

He had been sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment for child cruelty, and three months’ imprisonment for assault by beating, to run concurrently.

The respondent’s conduct had caused significant harm to the reputation of the profession. He had committed serious criminal misconduct at a time when he was responsible for prosecuting such misconduct. The respondent had self-reported matters to the applicant and had cooperated with the investigation.

The SDT was satisfied that the nature of the underlying misconduct, while not involving dishonesty, was at the highest level. The respondent had committed serious criminal acts necessitating an immediate custodial sentence. Those acts had included violence towards a vulnerable person, while he was a CPS prosecutor, making decisions in relation to the prosecution of others while committing criminal offences himself. 

His conduct had caused significant harm not only to the victim, but also to the reputation of the profession. The seriousness of the misconduct was such that the protection of the public and the reputation of the profession required that the respondent be struck off the roll.

There was no order as to costs.