• Application 11768-2017
  • Admitted 2002
  • Hearing 15 February 2018
  • Reasons 6 March 2018

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for four months from 15 February 2018.

By virtue of his conviction of a charge of assault on a person thereby occasioning actual bodily harm, the respondent had breached principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The circumstances which had led to the respondent’s conviction were unique to the unhealthy relationship he had with his mother, whose behaviour had been irrational, obsessive and repeated. There was a negligible risk of the respondent being involved in any similar behaviour.

The fact that the respondent had committed a criminal offence was an aggravating factor in the case.

However, the assault had occurred in circumstances where the respondent had been provoked; he had not committed any similar offences and there was no risk of any repetition. The respondent had notified the applicant and made prompt admissions. He had shown proper insight.

There was a need to protect the reputation of the legal profession by removing the respondent from practice for a period, but it was not a case in which the public needed to be protected from him. Public confidence in the profession demanded no lesser sanction than a suspension.

The appropriate period of suspension was four months from the date of the order. While that should give the public and profession an appropriate message about how criminal conduct would be regarded by the SDT, it was not intended to be unduly punitive.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,890.