Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trial judge was entitled to make finding of dishonesty in the conduct of solicitor
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal, in solicitors disciplinary proceedings, having allowed further submissions in light of recent case law, finds no basis to interfere with the finding in its Principal Judgment of dishonest conduct, on the grounds that: (a) the appellant admitted certain facts, the knowledge of which met the subjective element of the legal test established in case law; (b) the facts admitted were in terms of allegations that the appellant accepted connoted dishonesty; (c) the trial judge did not conclude that the appellant was guilty of dishonest conduct on the basis of a test of strict liability; and (d) there was no question of a retrospective application of a new test of dishonesty.
Court of Appeal – disciplinary proceedings - whether the High Court may make a finding of dishonesty in the conduct of a solicitor where the allegations made by the Law Society in the course of disciplinary proceedings against a solicitor do not expressly allege dishonesty – separate finding of Court of Appeal in a different appeal had addressed the question as to whether or not the test for establishing dishonesty in the context of disciplinary proceedings is one based on a subjective or objective assessment of the conduct involved – issues were of direct relevance to certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in the proceedings – argument rejected that the trial judge had erred in failing to find that the admissions made by the appellant to the Tribunal were in any way tainted by a procedural unfairness as the appellant had claimed – trial judge was correct in concluding that the Tribunal was entitled to rely on the appellant’s admissions in arriving at its decision on misconduct – the use of the language in the allegations made against the appellant was sufficient to put him on notice that he was being accused of conduct that involved dishonesty – no doubt that the appellant had knowledge of the facts before the Tribunal, the High Court and the Court of Appeal considered to be misconduct – the conclusion of the Trial Judge on the issue of dishonesty was correct – no question of retrospective application of a new test of dishonesty
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
