Local news for Wapping E1W and Tower Hamlets

Lutfur Rahman referred to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

By on August 17, 2016 in Corruption, Tower Hamlets council

The previous ‘Mayor’ Lutfur Rahman has now been formally notified that he will be prosecuted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for illegal practice, corrupt practice, failing to uphold the rule of law, failing to act with integrity* and pretty much everything else as a result of the Tower Hamlets election petition.

(* Tower Hamlets First Councillors might want to check this definition of integrity as they are no doubt unfamiliar with the term.)

Nice to see that at least one organisation can (a) work out when someone is dodgy and (b) prosecute them. Metropolitan Police Service please note.

You can check out the details of the SRA case against “Rahman, Lutfur – 002787” here.

Some have pointed out that as the previous ‘Mayor’ was elected corruptly he should be more accurately descried as the ‘Mayor Who Never Was’. Seems fair.

The photographs below illustrate this concept for those councillors with an IQ barely above room temperature.

This man has never been Mayor of Tower Hamlets

This man has never been Mayor of Tower Hamlets

And…

Mayor Lutfur Rahman

This man has never been Mayor of Tower Hamlets either.

All clear?

Come to think about it, as all the THF councillors were elected corruptly they should all be known as ‘The Councillors Who Never Were’. Nice.

Formal statement by SRA to prosecute Rahman, Lutfur – 002787

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:
1.1. By a Judgment of an Election Court dated 23 April 2015, he was found personally guilty and guilty by his agents of:
a) an illegal practice, contrary to s.106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“The 1983 Act”);
b) a corrupt practice, contrary to s.113 of The 1983 Act;
c) a corrupt practice, contrary to s.115 of The 1983 Act; and thereby he failed to:
1.1.1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
1.1.2. act with integrity;
1.1.3. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in him and in the provision of legal services.
1.2. By a Judgment of an Election Court dated 23 April 2015, he was found guilty by his agents of:
a) corrupt practices, contrary to s.60 of the 1983 Act;
b) corrupt practices, contrary to s.62A of the 1983 Act;
c) illegal practices, contrary to s.13D(1) of the 1983 Act;
d) illegal practices, contrary to s.61(1)(a) of the 1983 Act;
e) illegal practices, contrary to s.111 of the 1983 Act; and thereby he failed to:
1.2.1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
1.2.2. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in him and the provision of legal services.
1.3. His evidence to the Election Court attracted adverse criticism from the Court and thereby he failed to:
1.3.1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
1.3.2. act with integrity;
1.3.3. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in him and the provision of legal services.

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

A date for the hearing has yet to be fixed.

According to the SRA site the manner in which the SRA takes formal enforcement action depends on

  • the number of clients affected and any impact on them
  • any impact on public confidence
  • patterns of behaviour
  • whether the conduct continued for an unreasonable period taking account of its seriousness
  • the potential to affect on a vulnerable person or child
  • any potential to affect a substantial, high-value or high-profile matter
  • the previous history of the individual or firm, and
  • any evidence of deliberate intent, recklessness or dishonesty

Punishment is probably something along the lines of taking back any guilty solicitors Official Big Solicitors Pen back. Oh and not being a solicitor anymore.

Oh dear

‘Any impact on public confidence?’

‘Whether the conduct continued for an unreasonable period taking account of its seriousness?’

‘Potential to affect a substantial, high-value or high-profile matter [like a £1bn inner London borough for example] ?’

‘Any evidence of deliberate intent, recklessness or dishonesty?’

Doesn’t look good, does it?

In other circumstances borough residents might almost feel sorry for a solicitor who is just about to feel the full wrath of the SRA (if found guilty of course) but in this case they probably don’t give a flying f**k.

LW does not know when the prosecution will take place but when it happens we will let you know.

 

Tags:

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Comments are closed.

Top