SDT decision – Anonymity

The allegations made were:

On 30 June 2022 he engaged in conduct towards Person A which was unwanted and/or inappropriate and/or sexualised and/or sexually motivated, in that:

• He said words to the effect of “I want to dominate you sexually” or “I want you to dominate me sexually”;
• When Person A due to her shock asked him “what are you saying to me?”, he said, “I want to dominate you sexually” and “yeah you’d like it” one or more times;
• When Person A told him to stop and indicated that he should stop he said “I want to dominate you sexually” one or more times;
• He said words to the effect of “yer you’d like it yer you’d want it; I want to do it”.

Although the SDT was invited to deal with the allegations by way of an Agreed Outcome, the SDT was first asked to determine a joint application for the hearing to be conducted in private, and for the Respondent and others to be anonymised, to avoid ‘jigsaw identification’.

The joint application was made on the basis that publication would cause the Respondent exceptional hardship and exceptional prejudice. Anonymisation was applied for on the basis of Rules 35(9) and 35(10) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 (SDPR):

Public or private hearings

• (9) The Tribunal may make a direction prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead to the identification of any person whom the Tribunal considers should not be identified.
• (10) The Tribunal may give a direction prohibiting the disclosure of a document or information to a person if it is satisfied that:
  • (a) the disclosure would be likely to cause any person serious harm; and
  • (b) it is in the interests of justice to make such a direction.

In support of the application, the parties provided a joint medical report from an expert psychiatrist, which is purported to have set out the impact on the Respondent’s health were he not to be anonymised / the hearing to be conducted in public.

In making the application, the parties acknowledged the long-standing disinclination of courts and tribunals towards anonymising responses on the basis of open justice principles, as well as the public interest in identifying those subject to disciplinary proceedings.

The SDT made a majority decision on the application, with the Lay Member of the panel dissenting.

The majority Tribunal determined, based on the joint expert medical evidence, that publication of the Judgment in an un-anonymised form would be likely to cause the Respondent serious harm. It considered that publication would significantly violate the Respondent’s Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to a private and family life) under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In its decision, the majority Tribunal scrutinised the medical evidence which discussed specific examples of potential serious harm to the Respondent, and referenced ‘one particularly serious incident which had occurred a short time before this hearing.’ The evidence also indicated that publication would act as a trigger to worsen still further the ‘serious medical position’ described in the report.

The majority Tribunal determined that the proper interest of the public in knowing the sanction imposed in relation to the admitted allegations would be met by publication of its full unredacted but anonymised findings, as well as the sanction appearing against the Respondent’s name on the Roll of Solicitors. The majority Tribunal was of the view that to do so struck the correct balance between the principles of open justice and the Respondent’s rights.

On this basis, the joint application was granted, and it was ordered that the Judgment be anonymised.

The dissenting Tribunal member considered that the application should have been refused as they were unable to discern, based on the available evidence, that it was in the interests of justice to grant it. They noted that the Respondent’s decision-making was not impaired, and he had made an informed decision to make a full admission to the allegations. Given the nature of those allegations, the dissenting member was of the view that there was a necessity for the public to be fully informed about the Respondent’s name / professional details in order that any other complainants who may have been impacted by the Respondent’s conduct could report their concerns to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The dissenting Tribunal member considered that the medical evidence indicated that the Respondent had not, of his own volition, availed himself of the extent of the treatment available to him, and that if he had done so, the joint expert may have reached different conclusions. They concluded that despite the risk to life outlined in the medical evidence, the balance of the competing demands was such that the principle of open justice outweighed the Respondent’s rights.

The substantive matter was concluded on 27 May 2025 by way of an agreed outcome of 24 months’ suspension.