• Application 11672-2017
  • Hearing 19 December 2017
  • Reasons 12 January 2018

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

By a judgment of an election court dated 23 April 2015, the respondent had been found personally guilty of (a) an illegal practice, contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and (b) a corrupt practice, contrary to section 113 of the act, in breach of principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

His evidence to the election court attracted adverse criticism from the court and he had thereby breached principles 1, 2 and 6.

In contesting the allegations before the SDT, the respondent had neither demonstrated a shred of insight into nor remorse for his actions. He had unnecessarily lengthened the regulatory proceedings. He had obfuscated and prevaricated. The fact that the misconduct had arisen in the context of the respondent’s political career rather than his practice as a solicitor was irrelevant.

His actions were reprehensible, orchestrated, deliberate and dishonest. His misconduct struck at the heart of the democratic system of elected governance, and could best be described as grievous wrongdoing.

There were no exceptional circumstances and the appropriate sanction was for the respondent’s name to be struck off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £86,400.