I am innocent!!

LoadsaMoney · 4 Apr 2019 at 16:26

LabR@t said:
Stupid women had just spent 6 weeks in jail for lying about a sp30 spending offense.

She should have spent her money slower then.

Chris Wilson · 6 Aug 2019 at 15:33

And now the solicitor's regulatory authority (SRA) have struck her off, not that she has practised law in recent times, but a good and neccessary move. I am surprised it has taken this long for them to come to this decision however.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-49251372

Dirk Diggler · 7 Aug 2019 at 07:05

Chris Wilson said:
I am surprised it has taken this long for them to come to this decision however.

She was only sentenced in January, so it's been dealt with in a few months.

Dis86 · 7 Aug 2019 at 09:14

String said:
She was only sentenced in January, so it's been dealt with in a few months.

Over half a year isn't a few months.

Pudney · 7 Aug 2019 at 09:56

Dis86 said:
Over half a year isn't a few months.

In fairness the decision to pursue a disciplinary hearing was taken in February. Given it is heard by an independent tribunal it is inevitable there will be a delay of a few months, particularly to enable the parties to finalise their cases. It also looks like she tried to delay the hearing on the basis she was challenging her conviction (which normally adds some delays to this type of thing).

Unfortunately if you want a fair justice system you can't normally also have a quick one!

Dis86 · 7 Aug 2019 at 10:07

Pudney said:
In fairness the decision to pursue a disciplinary hearing was taken in February. Given it is heard by an independent tribunal it is inevitable there will be a delay of a few months, particularly to enable the parties to finalise their cases. It also looks like she tried to delay the hearing on the basis she was challenging her conviction (which normally adds some delays to this type of thing).

Unfortunately if you want a fair justice system you can't normally also have a quick one!

She was found guilty in a court of law. The decision to strip her of her ability to practice should have been tied to that. It didn't have to take another 7 months. It's not a justice system, it's a regulatory one.

Pudney · 7 Aug 2019 at 10:24

Dis86 said:
She was found guilty in a court of law. The decision to strip her of her ability to practice should have been tied to that. It didn't have to take another 7 months. It's not a justice system, it's a regulatory one.

The decision was tied to the fact she was found guilty in a court of law :confused:

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/391606.article?Decision=2019-02-28

This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:

On 19 December 2018 at the Central Criminal Court she was convicted on indictment of a single count of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice and thereby failed to:

uphold the proper administration of justice

act with integrity

behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in her and the provision of legal services.

The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

Further, the SDT is a statutory body and is a creature of said statute. It has an obligation to process hearings at its requisite standard of proof and with its own requisite standards of fairness.

https://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/about-us

The Tribunal is constituted as a Statutory Tribunal under Section 46 of The Solicitors Act 1974.

The Tribunal adjudicates upon alleged breaches of the rules and regulations applicable to solicitors and their firms, including The Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007, the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and the SRA Principles 2011 . The rules and regulations are specifically designed to protect the public, including consumers of legal services, and to maintain the public's confidence in the reputation of the solicitors' profession for honesty, probity, trustworthiness, independence and integrity.

The Tribunal adjudicates upon the alleged misconduct of registered foreign lawyers and persons employed by solicitors. It also decides applications by former solicitors for restoration to the Roll and by indefinitely suspended solicitors for determination of suspension.

The Tribunal's decisions are subject to a right of appeal to the High Court.

It is, in actuality, part of the Civil courts structure and has to follow similar, if not entirely identical, practices.

TJM · 7 Aug 2019 at 10:30

The SDT is quasi-judicial and unfair or rushed decisions would be quashed by the High Court. Striking her off as soon as she was convicted would have required the SRA to apply in advance of the verdict and for the SDT to act without hearing from her.

This case was also an obvious low priority since there was no chance of her providing legal services to anyone.

wolfie138 · 7 Aug 2019 at 10:45

should have been fined extra for wearing those sunglasses.

Dirk Diggler · 7 Aug 2019 at 12:25

Dis86 said:
Over half a year isn't a few months.

Changing the unit of measurement doesn't make any difference; she was rightly struck off after a hearing that was reasonable and fair.

You'd be the first to complain if she were to be reinstated on a technicality.

Dis86 · 7 Aug 2019 at 12:27

String said:
Changing the unit of measurement doesn't make any difference; she was rightly struck of after a hearing that was reasonable and fair.

You'd be the first to complain is she were reinstated on a technicality.

Or I'd look to simplify the process. It's dead easy. Are you a lawyer? Yes? Ok. Found guilty in a court of law of crime x? Yes? Ok. No longer allowed to practice.

See how quick that was! It's robust because they were found guilty in a criminal court which already has a higher burden of proof than civil.

NVP · 7 Aug 2019 at 13:48

Mason- said:
"The media didn't report my side of the story."

Proceeds to not tell her side of the story.

A jury of her peers heard her side of the story though, and they decided she was guilty. She should resign, she's an absolute disgrace of an MP and even more so as a so called 'legal professional'.

Was going to say exactly this. Who does she think she is fooling?

VincentHanna · 7 Aug 2019 at 14:00

NVP said:
Was going to say exactly this. Who does she think she is fooling?

You are quoting an old post.

Since then her constituency recalled her, so she ceased to be an independent MP and Labour won the bi-election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Peterborough_by-election

NVP · 7 Aug 2019 at 14:12

VincentHanna said:
You are quoting an old post.

Since then her constituency recalled her, so she ceased to be an independent MP and Labour won the bi-election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Peterborough_by-election

Yeh I've been catching up.

Damn I missed another OCUK race war! Those are my favourite!

Werewolf · 7 Aug 2019 at 14:19

Dis86 said:
Or I'd look to simplify the process. It's dead easy. Are you a lawyer? Yes? Ok. Found guilty in a court of law of crime x? Yes? Ok. No longer allowed to practice.

See how quick that was! It's robust because they were found guilty in a criminal court which already has a higher burden of proof than civil.

Given she apparently said she was going to challenge the conviction, the tribunal couldn't do anything until either the challenge/appeal had failed or the time in which she had to file for it had run out.

6 months is probably about the fastest it could be done* as unfortunately doing things so they are legally airtight (or as good as can be) tends not to be "dead easy", and one of the key aspects of UK law in the majority of offences is that you take into account the specifics of the offence as there are things that make the offence more or less serious.

Personally I'm quite happy she's been kicked out of the profession, but I'm also quite happy it's been done properly and in accordance with the principles of justice that are a mainstay of the UK legal system (if just because it means she's less likely to be able to appeal anything).

*Tribunals can take 6+ months to convene once everythihng has been put in place and the process started.

Dis86 · 7 Aug 2019 at 14:56

Werewolf said:
Given she apparently said she was going to challenge the conviction, the tribunal couldn't do anything until either the challenge/appeal had failed or the time in which she had to file for it had run out.

6 months is probably about the fastest it could be done* as unfortunately doing things so they are legally airtight (or as good as can be) tends not to be "dead easy", and one of the key aspects of UK law in the majority of offences is that you take into account the specifics of the offence as there are things that make the offence more or less serious.

Personally I'm quite happy she's been kicked out of the profession, but I'm also quite happy it's been done properly and in accordance with the principles of justice that are a mainstay of the UK legal system (if just because it means she's less likely to be able to appeal anything).

*Tribunals can take 6+ months to convene once everythihng has been put in place and the process started.

I find it to be irrelevant whether she was going to appeal or not. The judgement was passed and that should be sufficient. If she did appeal and was somehow successful then the ban can be overturned.
I don't think it matters whether the offence was more or less serious given the specifics. She committed a crime. Someone in the legal profession will have been aware of that. An MP should have been aware of that. She should, given both of those positions, be utterly above reproach.

Chris Wilson · 7 Aug 2019 at 15:01

I am surprised she didn't do a Keith Vaz and declare herself medically unfit for attending any tribunals, it's about the only stunt I think she hasn't pulled.

StriderX · 7 Aug 2019 at 15:14

Dis86 said:
I find it to be irrelevant whether she was going to appeal or not. The judgement was passed and that should be sufficient. If she did appeal and was somehow successful then the ban can be overturned.
I don't think it matters whether the offence was more or less serious given the specifics. She committed a crime. Someone in the legal profession will have been aware of that. An MP should have been aware of that. She should, given both of those positions, be utterly above reproach.

It's not really about committing a crime, it's about lying about it, an act that has never been looked well upon.

Dis86 · 7 Aug 2019 at 15:22

StriderX said:
It's not really about committing a crime, it's about lying about it, an act that has never been looked well upon.

To be honest - to my mind it's both! The nature of the crime, and the lie.

Werewolf · 7 Aug 2019 at 15:34

Dis86 said:
I find it to be irrelevant whether she was going to appeal or not. The judgement was passed and that should be sufficient. If she did appeal and was somehow successful then the ban can be overturned.
I don't think it matters whether the offence was more or less serious given the specifics. She committed a crime. Someone in the legal profession will have been aware of that. An MP should have been aware of that. She should, given both of those positions, be utterly above reproach.

Except that method would be more costly to the tax payer and unfair to someone whose conviction was found to be unsound and result in delays for other cases (you really don't want to have things like tribunals having to be done two or three times because the first one was done in haste, it tends to cause a backlog).