Mr Syed Muzaher Naqvi v Solicitors Regulation Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Flaux,Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 1394 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2574/2019 |
| Date | 02 June 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 1394 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Flaux
and
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/2574/2019
The Appellant appeared in person
Mr Simon Paul (instructed by Capsticks LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: Tuesday 12 May 2020
Approved Judgment
Introduction
In this appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the appellant, Mr Naqvi, appeals against the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 13 May 2019, pursuant to which Mr Naqvi was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £24,946.50 costs to the respondent, to which I will refer as “the SRA”.
Factual and procedural background
Mr Naqvi was admitted to the Roll on 16 March 2009, having previously qualified and practised as a lawyer in Pakistan. He was a sole practitioner at Naqvi & Co (Solicitors).
The proceedings before the SDT arose out of a television documentary produced by Hardcash Productions and broadcast on ITV in July 2015 called “ ITV Exposure UK: The Sham Marriage Racket”, concerning sham marriages entered into for immigration purposes. That documentary included footage of an undercover reporter Mr Ali posing as a client (“Client A”) seeking advice from Mr Naqvi. Client A visited Mr Naqvi's offices on two occasions. There was an initial meeting or interview (of which an audio recording was made) and a second interview on 27 March 2015, of which an audio and video recording was made.
On 30 June 2015, following correspondence with Hardcash before the broadcast, Mr Naqvi notified the SRA about the documentary. A Mr Page from the SRA subsequently attended at his offices. On 7 January 2016, the SRA wrote to Mr Naqvi saying it was closing the file but that it might seek to re-open the matter at a later stage.
On 24 February 2017 the SRA received an email from the Home Office saying that it was conducting an investigation in which three solicitors had offered to assist in the arrangement of sham marriages which had been caught on camera during the ITV programme. The Home Office was trying to establish whether this had been referred to the SRA. The three were then named and included Mr Naqvi. The email then stated: “They have been arrested and are on bail awaiting CPS advice”. In the case of Mr Naqvi this was not correct, as he had only ever been interviewed under caution, but as set out below, the SRA did not ascertain this until a later stage.
On 28 November 2017, the SRA obtained a Court order requiring production by ITV Plc of all recorded material and copies of transcripts in relation to the documentary. Then, on 8 March 2018, Ms Mandeep Sandhu, the SRA's Investigation Officer, sent Mr Naqvi an “Explanation With Warning” letter, enclosing a USB stick containing the video recording and a transcript of the second meeting. On 4 April 2018, Mr Naqvi responded, denying the allegations, and, amongst other things, relying on entrapment.
On 18 April 2018 Ms Sandhu prepared a memo for the Disciplinary Proceedings Team to consider whether it was appropriate to authorise disciplinary proceedings against Mr Naqvi. The memo enclosed the transcripts and video footage of the second interview. It indicated that an audio recording of the first interview was available. An Authorised Officer considered the memo and on 27 April 2018 made the Decision that Mr Naqvi's conduct should be referred to the SDT and was satisfied that the public interest and evidential tests were met.
On 18 September 2018, Ms Hannah Lane, one of the solicitors at Capsticks LLP with the conduct of this matter on behalf of the SRA made a Statement under Rule 5 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 formally commencing disciplinary proceedings against Mr Naqvi. The allegations made against Mr Naqvi were as follows:
“1. When advising Client A on a possible application for a visa:
1.1 he failed to advise Client A that applying for a visa as a spouse or partner, on the basis of a relationship which was not genuine, was unlawful, and by reason of such failure breached any or all of Principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;
1.2 he advised Client A that, in the event that Client A wished to apply for a visa as a spouse or partner on the basis of a relationship that was not genuine, Client A should not disclose this fact to him, and by reason of such failure breached any or all of Principles 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;
1.3 he indicated that he was willing to advise and/or assist Client A on the process of applying for a visa as a spouse or partner after Client A made clear that he intended or was likely to make the application based on a relationship that was not genuine, and by reason of such failure breached any or all of Principles 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; and
1.4 he advised Client A on steps that could be taken by Client A to increase the prospects of an application for a visa as a spouse or partner being successful when he knew or ought to have known that the relationship on which the purported application would rely was not genuine and by reason of such failure breached any or all of Principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.”
The SRA Principles 2011 applicable at the time of the SDT hearing were as follows:
“Principle 1, to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
Principle 2, to act with integrity;
Principle 3, to not allow your independence to be compromised;
Principle 4, to act in the best interests of each client; and
Principle 6, to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services.”
The Statement enclosed the video footage on a USB stick together with a transcript of the second interview prepared by Hardcash. By this stage, a further transcript of the second interview with translations of the passages in Urdu had been prepared by Ubiqus, official Court reporters. This was also exhibited to the Rule 5 Statement. The exhibits to the Rule 5 Statement included the email dated 24 February 2017 from the Home Office.
On 25 September 2018, the SDT wrote to Mr Naqvi informing him that a Solicitor Member of the SDT had certified the matter as showing a case to answer and enclosing standard directions with listing for a three day hearing on 17–19 April 2019.
On 26 October 2018, Mr Naqvi made an application to vary the standard directions, asking for the hearing before the SDT to proceed on paper. In that application he also drew attention to the inaccuracy in the Home Office email in saying that he had been arrested when he had only been interviewed under caution by the Home Office.
On 31 October 2018 he served a revised version of this application now seeking “quashment” of the proceedings or in the alternative, that the hearing be dealt with on paper. He alleged that the decision that there was a case to answer had been obtained by prejudicing the mind of the SDT “at the outset by misrepresentation, misstatement and fraud” and that Capsticks had “flagrantly disregarded” the SRA Principles by “ Misrepresenting, Misleading and Cheating…Recklessly Relying on False Evidence…to obtain a favourable decision of a case to answer.” The basis for these allegations was the Home Office email.
On 22 November 2018, Mr Naqvi's applications were heard at a Case Management Hearing before the SDT. For that hearing he served written submissions which referred again to the Home Office email and contended that this and the Rule 5 Statement were a “Fake, Fraudulent, Forged, Concocted Document” and that both the decision to refer the complaint to the SDT and the Rule 5 Statement were invalidated.
The SDT determined that it would treat Mr Naqvi's application as an application to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process. In a Memorandum dated 4 December 2018 it dismissed that application and his alternative application for a hearing on paper. The Memorandum recorded that counsel for the SRA clarified that the Home Office email was not material to any of the allegations against Mr Naqvi, but had been exhibited to the Rule 5 Statement as background. However, the SRA offered to redact the Home Office email to remove any reference to Mr Naqvi's arrest, and to ensure that only the redacted version was available to the Tribunal for the substantive hearing. At [43] of the Memorandum, the SDT said that it was satisfied that it had been reasonable for the SRA to accept the Home Office email and exhibit it as an accurate document. It had not been improper conduct for the SRA not to investigate the content of the document further particularly as it had been provided by a government agency.
Mr Naqvi had complained that the SRA had been selective in its reference to the video footage in the Rule 5 Statement, but the SDT held that there was no impropriety by the SRA and it was possible for Mr Naqvi to have a fair trial. The unedited video footage could be seen and heard by the Tribunal at the final hearing, which would remedy any unfairness.
On 21 December 2018, Capsticks wrote to Mr Naqvi asking him to agree the contents of the Ubiqus transcript of the second interview, and, if not, to indicate with which parts he disagreed, and why. In his response on 27 December 2018, Mr Naqvi said:
“I accept the contents of the Ubaiq [sic] Translation pages 11–31, subject to the reservation, that the contents of the same, presumed to be objectionable erroneously by the Applicant and quoted in the Rule 5 Statement out of the Transcript, may also be “Redacted” in line with the out of way provision provided to the Applicant. Otherwise there will be material irregularity in this case.”
He also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zulfiqar Ali v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
...solicitors involved — Mr Syed Naqvi-culminating in the judgment of the Divisional Court in Naqvi v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 1394 (Admin) (the “ Naqvi 5 The charges were first considered, and found proved, by the Tribunal in February and March 2019 (“the First Tribunal”).......
-
Sheikh Asif Salam v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
...62 The Divisional Court (Flaux LJ and Fordham J) endorsed a similar approach to that of the SDT in the present case in Naqvi v SRA [2020] EWHC 1394 (Admin) (also a case involving an immigration solicitor recorded by an undercover journalist, this time giving advice about sham marriages ent......
-
Roger Allanson v Solicitors Regulation Authority
...Council for the Regulation of the Healthcare Professionals v. GMC and Saluja [2006] EWHC 2784 at paras.44 and 45 and Naqvi v. SRA [2020] EWHC 1394 (Admin.); (3) this jurisdiction is an important safeguard against serious Executive misconduct and examples of prosecutorial or executive misco......