Zulfiqar Ali v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Morris
Judgment Date11 October 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] EWHC 2709 (Admin)
Docket NumberCase No: CO/3442/2020
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Between:
Zulfiqar Ali
Appellant
and
Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited
Respondent

[2021] EWHC 2709 (Admin)

Before:

THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Morris

Case No: CO/3442/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

The Appellant appeared in person

Ms Louise Culleton (instructed by Capsticks Solicitors LLP) for the Respondent

Hearing dates: 14, 15 July and 2 August 2021

Further evidence submitted 9 September 2021

Approved Judgment

Mr Justice Morris

Introduction

1

This is an appeal by Zulfiqar Ali (“the Appellant”) pursuant to section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (“the 1974 Act”) against an order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 10 September 2020 (“the Order”). By the Order the Appellant was struck off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered to pay the costs of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“the SRA”) in the sum of £26,500. The reasons for the Tribunal's decision are set out in its judgment dated 10 September 2020 (“the Judgment”). The appeal is brought in respect, principally, of the Tribunal's findings of professional misconduct. The SRA is the respondent to the appeal.

2

The decision to strike the Appellant off the Roll was made following a substantive hearing which took place between 6 and 8 July 2020. At that hearing the Appellant was represented by counsel and gave detailed oral evidence.

Background to the Allegations

3

The Appellant was admitted as a solicitor on 1 November 2010. From then he was employed as an associate at the firm of Denning Solicitors. On 8 June 2015 he was authorised as a sole practitioner and thereafter practised as ZA Solicitors Limited (“ZA Solicitors”).

4

The charges of professional misconduct arose out of two distinct matters: first the involvement of the Appellant in 2016 and 2017, acting as solicitor for the property developer, in conveyancing transactions, involving the purchase of flats which were under construction, which “bore the hallmarks of fraud” (“the Property Matter”); and secondly, matters arising out of a television documentary produced by Hardcash Productions (“Hardcash”) and broadcast on ITV in July 2015 called “ITV exposure UK The Sham Marriage Racket” (“the TV programme”). The TV programme concerned sham marriages entered into for immigration purposes and involved the Appellant and other solicitors being surreptitiously recorded allegedly discussing sham marriages with purported clients. It included footage of an undercover reporter posing as a client and seeking advice from the Appellant at two meetings in relation to sham marriages for the purpose of circumventing UK immigration control. I refer to this as “the Immigration Matter”. The TV programme also gave rise to disciplinary proceedings against one of the other 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 Judgment”).

5

The charges were first considered, and found proved, by the Tribunal in February and March 2019 (“the First Tribunal”). The Appellant appealed against that decision and on 16 October 2019 the SRA consented to an order quashing the First Tribunal decision on the basis that the transcript/tape of the first meeting had not been provided to the Appellant. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal. In the following paragraphs I set out the factual background in more detail. In course of this appeal, the parties, and in particular, the SRA have provided some additional factual material relating in particular to events in 2014 to 2016 concerning the Immigration Matter. This has been provided, as a result of the Appellant's case, now made, that the Immigration Matter had been resolved earlier and it was an abuse of process for the SRA to investigate it a second time from February 2017 onwards. Whilst much of this material was not before the Tribunal, I have been assisted by the provision of further evidence from both parties, including in particular a witness statement from Mr Robin Horton, a senior legal adviser at the SRA and a further witness statement from Mr Carruthers (see paragraph 48 below). In addition, since the hearing before this Court, the SRA has written to the Tribunal and, on the Appellant's application dated 9 September 2021, I have admitted that letter into evidence (see paragraph 34 below).

The Immigration Matter

6

In September 2014, the Appellant was charged with an offence of conspiracy to seek or obtain leave to enter or remain in the UK by deceptive means between 18 October 2013 and 10 December 2013. He maintains that this prosecution arose out of a Home Office investigation following a complaint from the husband of a former client.

7

It appears (from the SRA's recent letter dated 26 February 2021) that in 2014 after being charged with that offence, the Appellant self-reported to the SRA. In that letter the SRA explained that at that time the Home Office was investigating but did not make a finding. The SRA stated that it did not then progress the matter because they did not have sufficient evidence to do so. On 26 November 2014 the CPS sent to the Appellant formal notice that the prosecution was being discontinued.

The Meetings with Person A

8

On or about 30 January 2015, and then again on or about 1 April 2015, there were meetings (respectively “Meeting One” and “Meeting Two”) between an undercover reporter (referred to as “Person A”) and the Appellant, in which Person A posed as a student requiring advice about obtaining a UK visa. At that time the Appellant was working as an associate at Denning Solicitors. Those meetings were secretly recorded by Person A. There is an audio recording of Meeting One and a video recording of Meeting Two. These two recordings are referred to as “the footage”. There is an also agreed transcript of each meeting.

9

The TV programme was broadcast on 2 July 2015. Shortly before, on 30 June 2015, Mr Naqvi had referred himself to the SRA in relation to the TV programme. On 31 July 2015 the SRA wrote to Hardcash asking for copies of the recordings of Mr Naqvi's meetings with the undercover reporter. By that time, the SRA had access to a copy of the TV programme itself.

10

In the course of August 2015 the SRA started its investigatory process in relation to two related matters involving the Appellant: a case file in relation to Denning Solicitors and concerning the Appellant's involvement in the TV programme (and following on from the case file in relation to Mr Naqvi) (“the Denning file”); and a case file in relation to ZA Solicitors and evidence that the Appellant had been a sole director of another firm, SZ Ali Solicitors Limited (“SZA”), of which the SRA had no record (“the ZA file”). On 10 August 2015 the Denning file was passed to the SRA's Supervision department. On the same date, the SRA sought to obtain the footage from Hardcash. On 11 August 2015, the Appellant was interviewed under caution by the Home Office at Eaton House in Staines. He maintains that that interview concerned the TV programme.

11

On 18 August 2015 Hardcash informed the SRA that ITV was happy for it to provide the SRA with the footage. On 28 August 2015 the ZA file was passed to the SRA's Supervision department. Whilst on 2 September 2015 Hardcash informed the SRA that it would be providing the Home Office with all footage and that the Home Office would then coordinate with the SRA, there is no evidence that in fact this footage was provided at that time.

12

On or around 6 October 2015 the SRA formally approved the investigation plan for both the Denning file and the ZA file. Whilst noting that there was no evidence of the Appellant's involved in sham marriages, it was decided to commission forensic investigations at both firms and to review a sample of files “in relation to immigration matters” and “in particular in relation to those where one or more of the firm's clients is marrying a British Citizen”. At this stage, therefore, the ZA file covered not only the concern about SZA, but also about immigration matters, the catalyst for which was the Appellant's involvement in the TV programme. At the same time, further efforts were to be made to obtain copies of the recordings of the Meetings and of the TV programme. The forensic investigation officer was to review generally immigration matters undertaken by both firms.

13

The SRA's investigation into the TV programme under the Denning file was on hold in October until the SRA could get documents from the Home Office or Hardcash. On 9 November 2015, in relation to the Naqvi case, the SRA was informed that the Home Office would not release the footage, but would let the SRA view it. It is not known whether the SRA did view the footage at that time. However there is no evidence that it did so.

14

On 7 January 2016, the SRA wrote to Mr Naqvi informing him that it had closed its investigation for the time being (as explained at paragraph 4 of the Naqvi Judgment). On the same date, and in line with that decision, the SRA decided to close the matter in relation to Denning and to withdraw the forensic investigation commission. Accordingly at the point the Denning file was closed, or at least put a hold.

The ZA file: SRA notifies ZA Solicitors Limited; first investigation into the Appellant

15

By letter dated 20 January 2016 the SRA notified the Appellant of an investigation into him and his firm. There was to be an inspection visit on 26 January 2016. This notification was made in respect of the ZA file. The letter stated, inter alia, as follows:

Investigation of ZA Solicitors Limited

I write to give you notice that in order to enable the preparation of a report upon your firm's compliance with the principles, codes and rules, this letter is notice under rule 31 of the SRA Accounts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Farid EL Diwany v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 15 November 2022
    ...the SRA, referred me to the summary of the relevant principles set out by Morris J in Ali v Solicitors Regulatory Authority Limited [2021] EWHC 2709 (Admin) at [91]–[94]. I have borne those principles in mind. Key points for present purposes include the following: i) this appeal proceeds b......
  • Linda Lu v Solicitors Regulation Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 6 July 2022
    ...v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 3478 (Admin), at [3]–[15]; and of Morris J in Ali v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2021] EWHC 2709 (Admin), at 64 In my judgment, these submissions are not well founded. Obi was not an appeal under section 49 at all, but under section 41. Re......
  • Raj Rajan Mariaddan v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 3 February 2023
    ...under appeal is one that no reasonable judge would have reached. As it was put by Morris J in Ali v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2021] EWHC 2709 (Admin), having referred to similar authority: “ 94. … that is a high threshold. That means it must either be possible to identify a critical......
  • Tony Norman Guise v Solicitors Regulation Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 21 January 2022
    ...could have reached against the relevant background. 13 The SRA referred me to the recent summary of the law by Morris J in Ali v SRA [2021] EWHC 2709 at [94] emphasising the restraint which is appropriate in cases of this kind: “(1) A decision is wrong where there is an error of law, error ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT