• Application 11663-2017
• Hearing 20 October 2017
• Reasons 15 November 2017
The SDT ordered that the applicant’s application for the determination of the indefinite suspension imposed on him on 19 July 2005 should be refused.
There was evidence that the applicant had undertaken a considerable amount of training during the summer of 2017, but that did not satisfy the SDT that he had properly understood the content of those courses: there was little evidence that the applicant had the capacity to be trained.
The work undertaken by the applicant in Nigeria since 2005 had been taken into account but there was no proper evidence of the relevance of that work to what he now proposed to do.
Further, there was a lack of evidence to show how he would be supervised, and what safeguards would be in place in his prospective employer’s firm.
On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, the SDT was not satisfied that the applicant was no longer a risk to the public.
The SDT was not shutting the door on a further application, but if such an application were to be made the applicant would need better evidence of relevant experience, and evidence to demonstrate that he had the qualities needed to conduct himself properly as a solicitor. The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £3,000.