Solicitors Regulation Authority v Martyn Jeremy Day
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Davis,Mr Justice Foskett,Mr Justice Holgate |
| Judgment Date | 19 October 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/146/2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 19 October 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin)
Lord Justice Davis
Mr Justice Foskett
and
Mr Justice Holgate
Case No: CO/146/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Timothy Dutton CBE QC, Andrew TabachnikQC, Heather Emmerson and Nick Daly (instructed by Russell Cooke) for the Appellant
Patricia Robertson QC and Paul GottQC (instructed by Clyde & Co) for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 17 – 20, 23 – 24 July 2018
Judgment Approved
Lord Justice Davis, Mr Justice Foskettand
Introduction
After a very hard fought hearing, extending over some 6 weeks, before an experienced panel of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (Mr S. Tinkler, Chair, Mr R. Hegarty and Mrs L. Barnett), the Tribunal on 22 September 2017 dismissed all allegations of breach of professional conduct rules variously brought against the respondents. In respect of some, though not all, of the allegations which were dismissed one of the solicitor members (Mr Hegarty) dissented.
By a subsequent decision on costs, the Tribunal directed that there be no order as to costs. This again was a majority decision. The chair on this occasion dissented, taking the view that the applicant Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had in some respects pursued allegations unreasonably and should pay 40% of the costs.
The SRA now appeals against the dismissal of certain of the allegations (allegations 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15 and 1.19). It does not appeal against the dismissal of the remaining allegations. For their part, the respondents do not cross-appeal against the decision on costs.
The appeal hearing before this court itself extended over six days (quite apart from pre-reading): a very long time indeed compared to the norm for Divisional Court cases. The case was meticulously and elaborately argued, with the closest attention to detail. Notwithstanding efforts by the parties to prune the documentation from the vast quantity presented to the Tribunal, this court was nevertheless confronted with many folders of documents and transcripts; extremely lengthy “skeleton arguments” (so called); and bundles of authorities comprising in excess of a hundred authorities, notwithstanding that the disputed matters were primarily ones of fact and of evaluative judgment. The hearing itself, however, was greatly assisted by a relatively concise list of issues directed by the court and agreed by the parties, by reference to which the arguments were mainly directed.
All this doubtless reflects the very great importance both sides have understandably attached to these proceedings and to their outcome. But it has also been an inevitable further consequence that, quite apart from the time expended in the investigations and proceedings, the costs thus far have become simply enormous – deep into seven figures, on the figures presented to us.
Before us, the appellant SRA was represented by Mr Dutton QC, Mr Tabachnik QC, Ms Emmerson and Mr Daly. The respondents were represented by Ms Robertson QC and Mr Gott QC. All counsel had also appeared below. We would like to place on record the immense care and thoroughness evidenced in the submissions made to us.
We have sought to bear in mind all points made before us. Nevertheless, we make clear at the outset that in this judgment (to which all members of the court have contributed) we have absolutely no intention of specifically traversing every individual point raised. To do so would be neither a necessary nor an appropriate part of the appellate judicial process in a case of this kind.
The respondents
The first three respondents are all solicitors. The first respondent, Martyn Day (MD), was admitted in 1981. At all material times he was senior partner in the well-known firm of Leigh Day, the fourth respondent, whose principal place of business is in London. He was also head of its International and Group Claims Department.
The second respondent, Sapna Malik (SM), was admitted in 1998. She was at all material times a solicitor in the International and Group Claims Department, becoming a partner in 2005.
The third respondent, Anna Crowther (AC), was a trainee solicitor with Leigh Day before qualifying as a solicitor in 2008, when she remained with the firm working in the International and Group Claims Department.
Leigh Day itself has a high profile, with one particular area of expertise (among others) being reflected in the work undertaken by its International and Group Claims Department. It has over the years frequently been involved, as solicitors, in class and group actions against large corporations or governments or executive branches of government.
Very many character references were deployed before the Tribunal – as before us – from individuals such as retired High Court Judges, QCs, junior barristers, fellow solicitors, academics and others attesting in the highest terms to the integrity, professionalism and commitment of each of the individual respondents. In addition, many references were also provided with regard to the firm itself.
For example, so far as MD is concerned references variously refer to him as a “forceful and pioneering litigator”: one whose motivation “is to see that justice is done, championing the underdog and ensuring access to the law for people who are powerless and at the bottom of society”. With regard to Leigh Day, one academic referee says that the firm “has significantly advanced the law on human rights and corporate accountability” and in doing so has “materially improved the position of some of the most vulnerable members of society in the United Kingdom and overseas.”
It appears, however, that there may also be other perceptions of the firm, not least on the part of those on the receiving end of litigation claims brought by Leigh Day – that perception being of a trawl for cases, some of them highly controversial, involving relentless attacks on governments and corporations, in circumstances of self-sought publicity and with large legal fees potentially accruing to the firm.
These viewpoints are irreconcilable. As Ms Robertson frankly put it, Leigh Day can be said to be a “Marmite” firm. But it may perhaps at least to some extent explain the storm of criticism – by no means all of it well informed – which ensued in the light of the firm's involvement in grave claims made by a number of Iraqi individuals of murder and torture and mistreatment on the part of elements of the British army in Iraq: claims which were ultimately demolished as a result of an exhaustive inquiry known as the Al-Sweady Inquiry (ASI), chaired by Sir Thayne Forbes, a former High Court Judge.
Background
We turn then to the background. That is very fully set out in the decision of the Tribunal (Case Number 11502–2016), which we gather is publicly accessible, and so we will only provide a relatively short summary here.
On 14 May 2004 British army forces were attacked near Majar in South Iraq by members of an insurgent militia group styled as the Mahdi Army. The engagement came to be known as “the Battle of Danny Boy”. A number of Iraqis were killed in the engagement. After it was over, the soldiers were, in spite of protests, ordered to collect the Iraqi dead (which was not normal procedure) and take them to the British army camp at Camp Abu Naji (CAN). The following day the bodies so taken, twenty in number, were handed over to the Iraqi civilian authorities. It seems that a number of other bodies had not been located at the time and had been left on the battle-field.
In addition, nine Iraqis who had been present at the scene of the engagement — whether as combatants or as innocent participants was fiercely disputed — had been detained and taken, initially to CAN, by the army. Those individuals were subsequently released into the custody of the Iraqi civilian authorities in September 2004.
Very soon after the return of the dead to the Iraqi civilian authorities, rumours began to circulate that, after capture, a number of live Iraqis had been taken and then had been murdered. In part, this may have been based on the appearance of some of the bodies which showed injuries thought to be inconsistent with battle wounds but consistent with mutilation or torture. That may well have been the view sincerely taken by some family members of the deceased; but, of course, it would also suit the aims of those hostile to the presence of the British Army in Iraq to foster such rumours. In addition, however, various photographs had been taken; and death certificates had also been signed by Iraqi doctors which (if reliable) were supportive of the deaths and injuries not occurring on the battle-field.
The claims received an amount of publicity in the British media at the time.
A firm of solicitors, based in Birmingham, called Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) already had an interest in potential claims arising out of the conflict in Iraq. Its senior partner was Phil Shiner (PS). In March 2004 MD and PS had in fact had some inconclusive discussions about the two firms working together on Iraqi cases.
In June 2004 an article had been published in the Sunday Telegraph about the Battle of Danny Boy and its alleged aftermath. It was written by Lee Gordon (LG). On 9 August 2004 SM attended a meeting of an association called Lawyers for Justice in Iraq. LG was present. Following that, MD and SM met LG on 25 August 2004. At that meeting LG provided them with various documents in Arabic. These included death certificates and other materials. In addition he provided to them a one page document, in Arabic,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Law Society of Ireland v Coleman
...the context of an appeal against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Day [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin) at [64]-[68], this court recently reviewed many of the relevant authorities, culminating in the citation of the following passages in Hende......
-
Alexis Maitland-Hudson v Solicitors Regulation Authority
...against findings of fact are uncontroversial (and set out in the recent case of Solicitors Regulation Authority v Day and others [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin) at [61] to [79]). The Administrative Court's task is to assess whether the Tribunal's decision was wrong within the meaning of CPR 52.21......
-
Mr Syed Muzaher Naqvi v Solicitors Regulation Authority
...in the case of the SDT by the Divisional Court (Davis LJ and Foskett and Holgate JJ) in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Day [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin), where many of the authorities are usefully cited at [64] to [68] of the judgment, culminating in citation of what was said by Lord Reed in......
-
Robert John Metcalfe v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
...with specific reference to appeals from the SDT, is considered and set out in more detail in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Day [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin) [61]–[78] and Martin v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3525 (Admin) [27]–[33], each of which is a decision of the Divisio......