England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		3 February 2012

1. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: In this matter the appellant, in person, applied to the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("the SRA") for student enrolment with a view to future admission as a solicitor. He enrolled for the Legal Practice Course at Liverpool John Moores University on 2 September 2009.
2. Regulation 4 of the Solicitors' Training Regulations 2009 requires the holding of a current certificate of enrolment before a person can, amongst other things, attend a legal practice course. The SRA shall only issue such a certificate if satisfied in accordance with the Solicitors' Training Regulations 2009, Regulation 5(1), as to (a) the appellant's character and suitability to become a solicitor; and (b) that the applicant has a good knowledge of spoken and written English. I will return to these regulations in due course.
3. When applying for a certificate of enrolment the appellant disclosed the existence of a driving offence. It subsequently transpired that he had in fact, firstly, two convictions for speeding in 2006 and 2008, and, secondly, a caution for possession of a class C drug whilst on bail, issued by the Greater Manchester Police in 2007, and, thirdly, a conviction for driving without due care and attention in 2008.
4. On 12 November 2009 a senior assessment officer refused his application for enrolment as she was not satisfied as to his character and suitability. He appealed to a panel of adjudicators. On 19 March 2010 the panel refused his appeal. On 9 June 2010 the Head of Adjudication directed that the matter be reconsidered. On 24 August 2010, a fresh panel concluded that the appellant had been dishonest and refused his appeal. He now challenges that decision under Regulation 5(5) of the Solicitors' Training Regulations 2009. I shall return to some of those aspects in due course. In short, the applicant says that the decision of the panel of 24 August was illegal, irrational and procedurally improper or unfair.
5. The appellant has written to the court in a letter dated 24 January 2012, received on 27 January 2012, in which he has indicated that he did not intend to attend the hearing, but would rely upon the skeletons which he had submitted and his grounds of appeal. He said in the letter that he felt that he had been treated "very unfairly" by the SRA, and strongly believed that he would "finally receive justice through this court hearing".

Preliminary issue

6. There is a preliminary issue which I must deal with first. This goes to the question of whether or not the appellant's appeal was lodged in time. Under rule 5 of the Solicitors' Training Regulations, sub-paragraph (5), an applicant whose application for enrolment has been refused has the right under Regulation 4 of the Solicitors Admission Regulations to appeal to the High Court "within three months of receiving notification from the SRA of its decision on a review under paragraph (iv)".
7. In Blackett v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2004] EWHC 1494, the Court of Appeal had to consider similar provisions under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, where nurses who had been suspended or removed were entitled "within three months" to appeal to an appropriate court. The Court of Appeal held that there was no power in the High Court to extend time for any appeal in the absence of any express wording in that statute (see paragraph 12), and similarly in this legislation there is no express provision for an extension of time.
8. In paragraph 17 Moses LJ indicated that the nature of an "appeal" was that under rule 52 which contemplated "the filing of the appellant's notice".
9. The chronology is that the decision of the reviewing panel was, as I say, on 24 August 2010, and it was received by the appellant on 2 September 2010. The appellant sent his appellant's notice by special delivery, and it was stamped received by the courier at the Administrative Court office at 12.56 GMT on 2 December 2010. However, the appellant's notice has stamped on it "3 December 2010". It appears that what then happened was that, because the appellant's notice was regarded as out of time, it was sent by the Administrative Court Office back to the appellant, who only re-filed it some five months later on 3 February 2011. This raises a hard-edged question: was notice of appeal filed within time by the appellant, ie by 2 December 2010? The time limit being three months, three months from 2 September and would include 2 December 2010. If it was not filed by that date, then the High Court simply has no jurisdiction and that is the end of the matter. The court has no power to extend time even if it so wished, see Blackett (supra).
10. The question of filing is defined in the White Book, CPR 2.3, as follows:

"'Filing' in relation to a document means delivering it by post or otherwise to the court office."

11. In Deborah Van Aken v London Borough of Camden [2002] EWCA Civ 1724, the Court of Appeal had to consider the question of whether or not a document which was posted through the letterbox of the court at 6.30pm was filed within the meaning of CPR 2.3. The Court of Appeal held that it was, and as Ward LJ said at paragraph 58: "... delivery seems to me to involve a unilateral, not a transactional, act".
12. In the present case, it appears that the applicant therefore was in time in terms of filing the appellant's notice within three months (but only just). In my view, the fact that the Administrative Court Office, no doubt because of the number of cases that it was processing, did not stamp it until the next day, and then took the view that it was out of time, should not deprive the appellant of his rights as regards a proper and timely filing of his application.
13. In my judgment, therefore, I do have jurisdiction to consider this matter on the merits.

Merits

14. The appellant was born on 3 July 1987 and is 24 years old. He was cautioned for possession of cannabis whilst on bail on 25 October 2007. On 2 June 2006 and on 15 January 2008 the appellant was fined and issued with penalty points for speeding. On 24 April 2008 the appellant was fined and given penalty points for driving without due care and attention.
15. The appellant was awarded a qualifying law degree by Huddersfield University in July 2009 and wished to undertake the Legal Practice Course ("LPC") at Liverpool John Moores University.
16. On 12 May 2009 the appellant applied to the SRA for a certificate of enrolment under the Solicitors' Training Regulations 2009, which was the necessary precursor to undertaking the LPC.
17. Regulation 4 provides:

"No person may:

...

(ii) attend a Legal Practice Course ...

without holding a current certificate of enrolment."

18. As part of the application for the Certificate of Enrolment the appellant completed the SRA's Form EN1. It is necessary to examine the form that he filled out and how he filled it out in some detail.
19. The form is carefully structured and detailed. It is entitled, "Application for student enrolment and completion of the academic stage of training". In the introduction it reads:

"You need to enrol and have confirmation that you have completed the academic stage of training:

* before you start the Legal Practice Course (LPC); and

* before you enter into a training contract.

Please note that there are two deadlines for returning this form:

* 1 April 2009 - for any application where issues are disclosed which call into question your character and suitability.

* 1 August 2009 for all other applications."

20. The form is then broken into various parts. Part A deals with personal details. Part B deals with student enrolment. Part B begins with the following statement:

"This section must be completed in full if you wish to enrol as a student.

The SRA has a responsibility under the Solicitors Act 1974 to ensure that there are no issues, which could call into question your character or suitability as a solicitor.

Before being admitted to the roll of solicitors, you will be asked to confirm that you have disclosed any issues that relate to your character and suitability.

APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (please tick where appropriate). Please note convictions which are "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 must be disclosed by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions Order) 1975.

1. Have you ever been convicted of an offence in any court or received a caution, reprimand or warning in the UK or overseas? (If "Yes", see notes below)."

There are then two boxes to the side with "yes" or "no". The appellant ticked the "yes" box.

21. Further down the form reads:

"7. Are there any other factors which may call into question your character and suitability to become a solicitor? (If "Yes", see notes below)"

There is on the right-hand side again two boxes, "yes" and "no", and the box "no" is ticked. There are notes at the bottom which read:

"Notes: If you have answered "Yes" to any of the questions 1 to 5 or 7 you must provide:

For Q1 An original Police National Computer (PNC) check (no older than 21 days) and your FULL STATEMENT OF EVENTS and if you were fined, evidence of payment of fine(s)."

Then further down:

"And

Supply details of 2 further referees who have knowledge of the above and have given their consent to be contacted on your behalf. Applicants are requested to advise their additional referees to attach a written statement referring to the above issues to the questionnaire that will be sent to the SRA."

22. In the middle of the page is a box which reads, "Please give details in the space provided below". The applicant's signature appears under question 7 under the heading, "Please sign and date here", and the applicant has dated it 29 March 2009.
23. Under Part C there are details of referees given, and the name of the applicant's referee, a Miss Kelly, a lecturer in law at the University of Huddersfield, who has given her details, and then a declaration section to be completed by the referee is set out. Question 2 under that declaration reads as follows:

"Have you any reason to believe or knowledge of the applicant ever having been convicted by a court of any offence or received a caution, reprimand or warning?"

The referee, Miss Kelly, has ticked the "no" box, and has dated it 24 April 2009.

24. Over the page are sections for second referees to complete "if you answered "Yes" to questions 1-5 or to question 7 in Part B", and then a question for a third referee to complete "if you answered "Yes" to questions 1-5 or to question 7 in Part B". The details of the applicant's second referee are set out. He is a Dr Kamal.
25. Under Part G, "Declaration", the form reads:

"I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information given on this form is true and correct.

I understand that during my period of training I have an ongoing obligation to notify the SRA if I am convicted of any offence in any court in the United Kingdom or overseas, or if I receive a caution, reprimand or warning."

The signature of the applicant is then attached, dated 29 March 20009.

26. Part H has an application checklist, which reads:

"To help us process your application quickly please check the following:

* If you have answered "Yes" to questions 1-5 or to question 7 in Part B, have you included all the relevant documentation?

There is nothing in the box attached.

27. The appellant's application for student enrolment based on Form EN1 was refused by the SRA on 12 November 2009. The refusal is contained in a decision dated 12 November 2009 by a Senior Assessment Officer, Patricia Fearn. It is relevant, however, to consider the correspondence that took place between the signing of the form on 29 March 2009 and that first decision.
28. The Form EN1 was not received by the SRA within the relevant deadline of 1 April 2009. There was no explanation for its lateness. In an e-mail of 3 June 2009, however, a caseworker informed the appellant that it had been decided that there were extenuating circumstances and that his application would be processed.
29. On 23 June 2009 the SRA wrote to the appellant and informed him that his application had been referred to the caseworker in the Operations Policy Team because he disclosed information which might affect his suitability to be a solicitor, and informed him that the matter would shortly be allocated to a caseworker who would contact him regarding the progression of his application.
30. The letter said:

"Please note, you should not commence the Legal Practice Course (LPC) until you have been granted completion of the academic stage of training and student membership of the Law Society. If you do attend the LPC without student membership, you do so at your own risk and may be liable for court fees should your application for student membership be refused."

31. On 23 June 2009 the SRA wrote to both his referees, Miss Kelly and Dr Kamal, asking them to fill out questionnaires regarding the appellant. Those questionnaires are known as SR1 forms, and the heading of these forms was: "The SRA student referee". The second question in the form for the referees read:

"Are you aware of any occasion where the applicant has been convicted by a court of any offence or received a caution?"

In the form which Miss Kelly signed she ticked the "no" box because no doubt she was completely unaware of the caution which the appellant had received. The last question in the form reads:

"Do you know of any other issue which may call into question this applicant's character and suitability to become a solicitor?"

Again, she had ticked the "no" box.

32. In the form which Dr Kamal signed, he ticked in relation to the first quoted question the "yes" box, and wrote underneath it, "careless driving", and ticked "no" in relation to the second quoted question.
33. On 24 June 2009, the SRA wrote again to the appellant, thanking him for his application for student enrolment (Form EN1) and informing him that any concerns regarding an individual's character and suitability in relation to student membership were considered thoroughly and it might be necessary for him to be interviewed. The letter continued that, in order for the SRA to consider his application, the following information was required: (1) an original extract from the Police National Computer (PNC) - this was available from any police station; (2) the applicant's statement of events leading to the offence, detailing the surrounding circumstances which he might feel were relevant; (3) confirmation that he had no further character and suitability issues other than those disclosed on the application form. The letter said, "If you have any further issues you must provide such details". The letter said that any information he supplied would be taken into account when considering his application. The letter also asked for the names and addresses of one more referee. It was said that this was so that the standard reference questionnaires could be forwarded to them. The letter said:

"Please note that your referee should be aware of the above matter (ie the question of any conviction) and they must provide confirmation of this when replying."

34. On 25 August the appellant e-mailed the caseworker at the SRA, saying:

"Please could you possibly e-mail me a copy of the letter confirming that I have been enrolled as a member of the law society? I received a copy in the post but unfortunately I now require a copy as a matter of urgency so please could you e-mail it to me please."

35. This was an odd e-mail to receive because the appellant had not been enrolled as a member of the Law Society, indeed quite the opposite. As was quite apparent from the SRA's letter of 24 June, there was a host of further information which he was required to deliver first in order for his application even to be considered.
36. Within a few minutes the caseworker, Mr Paul Harrison, e-mailed the appellant back, saying he had checked the records and noted that he had not been granted student enrolment, and on reviewing the file he noted that the SRA were awaiting a response to their letter of 24 June, "requesting details with regard to your criminal conviction, in order that a full assessment of your character and suitability can be undertaken".
37. Undeterred, the appellant e-mailed back saying:

"I received a letter about a month back confirming that I had been enrolled onto the Law Society. I am very worried, please can you advise me on what to do as a matter of urgency."

38. Mr Harrison e-mailed the appellant back pretty immediately to say that there were no details in relation to his conviction currently on the file, that the SRA would receive the references from Mr Kelly and Dr Kamal, and he had not been granted student enrolment. Mr Harrison scanned a further copy of the SRA's letter of 24 June to the appellant, explaining that it detailed information required in order for a full assessment of his character and suitability to be undertaken.
39. On 25 August 2009 the appellant e-mailed the Longsight Police stating that he just completed his law degree and he had now been accepted onto the Legal Practitioners Courts on order to train as a solicitor. He said he now required to become enrolled as a member of the Law Society. He explained that he had to declare any criminal convictions, and said that he had received points for careless driving. He said that he had declared this to the Law Society, however they required an original extract from the PNC about this conviction, and said he mislaid the paperwork and asked for an original extract from the PNC.
40. The police e-mailed back on 26 August, saying it would take 40 days for the PNC record to be produced. On 1 September the appellant e-mailed Mr Harrison again, saying that he had not seem to have received the letter he had sent asking for evidence relating to his driving offence. He therefore attached the police notice of prosecution and his driving licence counterpart showing penalty points received on 23 July 2008 (offence code CD10). He said:

"I pleaded guilty and the court imposed a fixed penalty of £100 and 3 points. I am afraid I no longer have the summons notice which was sent by the court for this hearing."

41. On 7 September 2009, Patricia Fearn of the SRA e-mailed the appellant and explained that she was a Senior Assessment Officer within the Casework and Operations Policy Team, who was looking at processing his enrolment application and had considered the correspondence between himself and Mr Harrison. She explained that, in order to process his application further, he needed to provide without delay a Police National Computer extract and a statement of events with details of the three driving offences of 2006 and 2008 (two in 2008). She reminded him that he should not enrol in the LPC until he had been granted student enrolment, and that if he did enrol in the LPC and his application for student enrolment was refused, he would be asked to leave the LPC with immediate effect.
42. On 8 September the appellant wrote back to Miss Fearn saying that he would try to provide the evidence which she needed, however he had difficulty in certain respects:

"First, I am not clear what is meant by 'Police National Computer Extract', and how and where from I can obtain that. Please advise me of this at your earliest convenience".

43. I pause to comment that this was a strange and disingenuous request, given that it must have been plainly apparent to him from previous correspondence precisely what a PNC extract was. He then went on in the letter to give some details about the three driving offences, but no other details.
44. Miss Fearn e-mailed back on 8 September, explaining that the PNC extract could be obtained from the local police station, subject to a payment, and that it might take 40 days to progress.
45. On 10 November 2009, the appellant wrote to Miss Fearn, saying that he had now received the PNC extract, and that, as could be seen from the report, he had no "conviction" record for any kind of offence. He went on:

"However there is just one "caution" in respect of which [I] should like to explain why this was not mentioned in my application form for enrolment."

He then set out an explanation as to why he had not mentioned this caution when he had filled out Form EN1. The thrust of what he said in this letter was that his firm belief was that he had only been given a warning, and he felt that the form did not require him to mention this, and that he hoped that this would not affect his application.

46. On 18 November 2009 Mr Paul Harrison, the manager of the Casework and Operations Policy Team in the Education and Training Unit of the SRA, wrote to the appellant informing him that he had considered his application and had decided that his request for student enrolment should not be granted. He said in the letter:

"When character and suitability issues are assessed the criteria looked at includes the risk that an individual may pose to clients, to the public's confidence in the profession, the legal profession and to the profession itself.

The objective is to ensure that those seeking admission to the Roll of Solicitors of England and Wales have a level of honesty, integrity and professionalism expected by the public and fellow members of the profession."

The letter warned him that he must not commence or continue with the LPC and enclosed a notice of the decision notice.

47. The appellant appealed against that decision, and after an interview before a panel on 19 March 2010, the appeal was refused on 23 March 2010. The decision to refuse was, as I have said, subject to a reconsideration by the SRA's Head of Adjudication, who directed on 9 June 2010 that the appeal should be reconsidered by a differently constituted panel of adjudicators. The Head of Adjudication felt that the reasons given by the panel for its decision were not sufficient and did not make clear what part or parts of the guidelines on the assessment of character and suitability were relied on to come to the conclusions that it did. In particular, the panel did not specifically address the issue of whether Mr Chaudery's failure to disclose a caution when he submitted his application for enrolment amounted to dishonesty.
48. On 19 August 2010 the appellant was invited to an interview by the fresh panel comprising three people, Sue Webb, Dozie Azubike and Grahame Owen. At that interview, the appellant was questioned carefully about a number of matters, including in particular why he had not disclosed the fact of his caution when he filled out Form EN1. In the course of the questions, there were a number of exchanges, including the following:

"[Question]: But you know it was a warning?

[Answer]: Yes it was a verbal warning.

[Question]: You said you should have disclosed the verbal warning but did not read the small print. Do you agree you should have disclosed this verbal warning?

[Answer]: Yes.

[Question]: So, it's a matter of haste not that you disagree with having to disclose it?

[Answer]: Yes."

And then later in the interview:

[Question]: The mandatory questions ask if you have been convicted, cautioned and warned and you have ticked yes.

[Answer]: Yes, that was for the driving offence.

[Question]: It states if you have ticked yes you need to provide a PNC check and further information. Why didn't you do that?

[Answer]: I assumed the SRA would ask me if they needed more information.

[Question]: Why, when the form states what is needed?

[Answer]: As soon as I knew about my situation upon contacting Mr Harrison who said he had e-mailed me about getting a PNC check and I said I did not receive that so it is not dishonest.

[Question]: But the form asks you for a PNC check.

[Answer]: I thought there would be another letter from the SRA.

[Question]: Why did you think that?

[Answer]: It's a self assessment form and I thought another letter would be coming.

[Question]: You alluded to your history but did not give any information.

[Answer]: If I had anything to hide I would not have ticked yes. There was a few careless mistakes on the form and that was it. No dishonesty. I had a lot of things going on in my head with my family so full due care and attention may not have been given in completing the form. I have never been dishonest. As soon as I was asked for information I gave it. I didn't read the form correctly."

49. The matter was considered by the new panel of adjudicators, who gave their decision on 24 August 2010 following that interview. The panel considered the question of whether, pursuant to Regulation 5 of the Solicitors' Training Regulations 2009, it was satisfied as to the appellant's character and suitability to become a solicitor, and concluded that it was not satisfied that the appellant had discharged the burden of proof that he was a suitable person to be admitted as a solicitor.
50. The gravamen of the panel's decision is apparent from the following paragraphs:

"3.16 The Panel found that Mr Chaudery had been dishonest, for the following reasons:

3.17 - his non-disclosure of the warning/caution he had received on 25 October 2010 in response to question 1 on form EN1

- his failure to have provided full details of the admitted matter on Form EN1

- his failure to have applied for a PNC at the time he sought enrolment

- his failure to have volunteered information about the warning/caution in response to question 7 on form EN1

- his reliance on a reference that was patently misinformed, and which Mr Chaudery knew, or must have known, was incorrect, that gave a misleading impression about Mr Chaudery's character and suitability, since it made no mention of a material matter which Mr Chaudery had not disclosed and about which the reference was unaware.

3.18 The Panel also considered that Mr Chaudery had not demonstrated any willingness to comply with illegal and regulatory requirements, by reason of the following:

3.19 - his failure to have correctly completed the form EN1

- his failure to have supplied timely supporting information as required by form EN1

- his omission of the PNC until chased up by the Solicitors Regulation Authority

- his record of offending, including the fact that he was on bail for a driving offence when the drug offence occurred

- his failure adequately to explain 'his possession' of a substance that cannot be legitimately obtained, handled or used

- the fact that he had registered on the Legal Practice Course on 1 September 2009 before he satisfied the entry requirements

- his decision to continue with the LPC against the explicit instructions not to do so in Patrica Fearn's e-mail dated 7 September 2009, and the student enrolment refusal decision of 12 November 2009 by Patricia Fearn confirmed to him in writing on 18 November 2009 by Paul Harrison. Indeed, Mr Chaudery said at interview that he expects to complete his LPC exams in September 2010.

3.20. The Panel also considered that in view of the dishonest behaviour that the Panel had identified, there was a risk that granting Mr Chaudery student enrolment would diminish public confidence in the profession."

The panel did not consider there were any exceptional circumstances which might mitigate that picture.

In assessing Mr Chaudery's conduct, the panel expressly (in paragraph 3.15) had regard to the well-known test in Twinsectra v Yardley and others [2002] UKHL 12, and the need to be satisfied to a high standard of proof. The panel also had regard to the other relevant authorities in this area, particularly Jideofo v the Law Society (No 6 of 2006); Evans v Solicitors Regulation Authority (No 1 of 2007) and Begum v Solicitors Regulation Authority (No 11 of 2007) regarding the approach that the panel was required to adopt.

Appellant's grounds

51. In the appellant's lengthy skeleton and grounds, a number of points are taken, although these documents are not entirely easy to follow. But, very helpfully, Mr Iain Miller, the advocate for the Law Society, has identified five points which the appellant appears to take: (1) that the interview was unfair because only two questions related to the question of the caution; (2) that the SRA panel were not entitled to make a finding of dishonesty themselves; (3) that because he was not found dishonest by the first panel, he could not be found dishonest by the second panel; (4) that he could not be found to have been dishonest given his explanations for what he had done; and (5) there was procedural impropriety because, as he put it, the interview process was "pejorative", and the panel were not endeavouring to elicit the true facts or give him a fair opportunity to state his case.
52. I can deal with each of these points briefly. As to the first point, the appellant is wrong to say that only two questions in the interview related to the question of the caution. As set out above, quite significant parts of the interview was directed by the panel to understanding why it was that the appellant had failed to reveal the police caution which he received for possession of a class C drug.
53. As to the second point, the appellant is wrong to assert that the SRA panel were not entitled themselves to make a finding of dishonesty. Indeed the position is that such a panel were bound to look at all the facts and, in particular, whether or not the appellant's character was suitable for consideration for enrolment.
54. The SRA guidelines, headed "Guidelines on the assessment of character and suitability", provide expressly under paragraph 2.2:

"Before admitting an individual to the Roll, or allowing him or her to proceed towards admission, it should be established that, taking into account past and current behaviours, there is confidence that an individual is:

• honest and trustworthy;

• willing to comply with regulatory requirements."

55. Under paragraph 3 of the Guidelines, "Is there confidence that the applicant is trustworthy and honest", the guidelines provide:

"3.1. Unless there are exceptional circumstances there will not be confidence if the applicant has:

• convictions for offences involving dishonesty..."

56. In Re A Solicitor (No 4 of 2009), Z Afsar, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Clarke, made it quite clear that the question of dishonesty was an important matter to be investigated and determined by the SRA. Further, as Jideofo made clear, the same approach applied to those seeking admission as to those who had already been admitted (see also the Court of Appeal in Bultitude v Law Society [2004] EWCA Civ 1853). Lord Clarke added:

"... it is incumbent on the SRA in properly discharging its regulatory function to ensure that it adopts as rigorous and fair approach as the court does to the matter."

57. In Jideofo (supra) at paragraph 17, the Master of the Rolls, then Sir Anthony Clarke MR, said as follows:

"Thus offences of dishonesty have been correctly regarded as of the greatest importance. The reputation of the profession relies upon the honesty and good faith of its members. As Sir Thomas Bingham MR put it in Bolton, in cases of proven dishonesty the solicitor will almost always be struck off, however strong the personal mitigation."

58. I turn to the appellant's third point, which was that if the first panel had not found him dishonest, then the second panel could not have either. That is simply wrong as a matter of analysis, not least because the matter was referred to the second panel to consider the matter afresh. In any event, a close reading of the decision of the first panel showed that the first panel were extremely concerned about the central issue of the appellant's failure to disclose the caution. The first panel said in paragraph 3.6:

"The Panel concluded that Mr Chaudery had demonstrated a complete failure to understand, firstly, the high standards required of him and secondly, what his profession expected of him before being allowed to enrol as a student."

59. As to the appellant's final point of procedural impropriety, I have considered all the materials that were before the first panel and the transcript and can find no procedural impropriety of any sort. Indeed, the approach of the panel seems to me to have been impeccably fair and measured.

The thrust of the panel's decision was (a) that the appellant had acted dishonestly when filling out his EN1 form, and (b) that his other actions demonstrated a failure to comply with the regulatory requirements, and therefore his unsuitability to be enrolled.

Mr Iain Miller, for the SRA, submits that none of the appellant's grounds disclose any reasons for disturbing the decision of the panel of 24 August 2010. I agree. In my judgment, the decision of the SRA panel dated 24 August 2010 refusing the appellant's application for enrolment was manifestly justified and cannot be faulted either to its findings, reasoning or approach.

For these reasons, I dismiss the appellant's application.

60. MR MILLER: My Lord, I am grateful. Can I just deal with two points, and I apologise in advance, I have lured your Lordship into a mistake in relation to the judgment in that at tab 9 is both the previous guidance on character and suitability which applied to this case and the new guidance on character and suitability.
61. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: Was I reading from the wrong one?
62. MR MILLER: You started with the right one. It is where your Lordship refers to the disclosure at page 115, failure to disclose as prima facie evidence of -- that is the new guidance, so that section onwards --
63. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: So the first guidance --
64. MR MILLER: The first guidance starts at page 100 and ends at page 106, and then the new guidance --
65. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: So which one should I be referring to?
66. MR MILLER: The first one, which your Lordship did, but I think you then went on --
67. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: I see, I added the disclosure which was referred to in the skeleton. So one can ignore the second reference to the disclosure. Thank you for that.
68. MR MILLER: Entirely my fault, I apologise, and can I finally deal with the question of costs? Should I pass up a costs schedule.
69. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: Yes, please.
70. MR MILLER: In the light of the outcome, not surprisingly I seek the SRA's costs in relation to the application. You will see the headline figure on the second page of the schedule is £5,922.24, and I am essentially in your Lordship's hands as to --
71. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: Give me a moment. (Pause)
72. Those costs seem reasonable to me. So I order (1) that the appellant's application filed on 2 December 2010 is dismissed; (2) the appellant shall pay the respondent's costs of the appeal in the sum of £5,922.24 within 28 days.
73. MR MILLER: I am grateful.
74. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: Anything else?
75. MR MILLER: That is it.
76. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE: Thank you, Mr Miller, and your team.