Daily Mail: Meetings were just introductory, tribunal finds
One of the solicitors accused by the Daily Mail of offering to help an undercover reporter concoct a false asylum claim has been cleared of misconduct by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Counsel for Rashid Ahmad Khan told the SDT that his career was destroyed, his financial position “severely impacted”, and he suffered severe health problems as a result of the Solicitors Regulation Authority shutting down his firm and refusing to grant him a practising certificate.
After the newspaper’s front page story in July 2023, the SRA – which was under huge political and media pressure – closed the three firms named after receiving the recordings and transcripts from the newspaper. The heads of each were referred to the SDT.
Mr Khan, who qualified in 2009, was the sole manager and compliance officer of Rashid & Rashid in south-west London. Almost all of its work was immigration and in 2022-23 its turnover was £820,000.
He had two visits from undercover reporters – in the first, the journalist, posing as an uncle of an illegal immigrant, met with Mr Rashid. In the second, he returned with a colleague posing as the nephew. They made clear there was no legal basis for claiming asylum.
The SRA accused Mr Rashid of giving advice “which encouraged a false narrative to be put forward in support of an asylum claim”, but the SDT found that the recordings of the meetings did not prove this.
It accepted Mr Rashid’s explanation that they were “merely” introductory meetings and not for taking instructions or giving advice.
The SDT noted that he repeatedly made it clear that he would have to ask a lot of questions of the ‘nephew’ directly before he could advise and also see various documents – the ‘nephew’ stayed largely silent in the second meeting.
Other aspects were inconsistent with the charge too, such as Mr Rashid giving the option for the would-be clients to attend a different office.
The SDT said: “The fact that [he] did not insist on any personal involvement with the case following the initial meetings was inconsistent with the suggestion or inference that he was pursuing either a systematic or singular course of conduct to encourage wrongdoing.”
The section of the recording which troubled the tribunal the most was where the ‘uncle’ asked whether they should “go for political” – in terms of the reasons given for seeking asylum – and Mr Rashid agreeing.
“Whilst this could be taken as an example of [him] encouraging a political narrative it had to be viewed holistically within the context of this being an overall ‘meet and greet’.
“The tribunal found that this part of the exchange did not have the necessary quality of something which could fairly be described as ‘advice’ and the tribunal was not convinced that, absent any other associated remarks, it could be said to been encouraging a false narrative to be put forward.”
Mr Rashid’s evidence also was that he had been suspicious of the ‘uncle’, whom he had never met before and did not know. He had suspected the ‘uncle’ was a human trafficker, or in some way was influencing the ‘nephew’.
The SDT concluded that, whilst there were issues which “may have raised understandable concerns with the regulator”, there was not enough to show that Mr Rashid deliberately gave advice that encouraged a false narrative.
The default costs position is unsuccessful prosecutions is no order against the regulator, unless there is good reason to order otherwise, as it is acting in the exercise of its public interest duties.
Greg Treverton-Jones KC, for Mr Rashid, highlighted the impact the SRA’s action has had on the solicitor and argued that there were good reasons here, as “a proper investigation by the [SRA] at an early stage would have prevented the damage sustained”.
But the SDT did not agree. It found the case had been properly brought; the SRA had “properly discharged its duty to the public and the tribunal”.
Leave a Comment