Solicitors Regulation Authority v Soophia Khan & ors [2022] EWHC 45 (Ch)

Mr Justice Leech carefully considered whether a fine would be a sufficient penalty having taken into account that a custodial sentence should only be passed as a last resort.

But in his judgment Ms Khan’s conduct amounted to “serious, contumacious flouting of orders of the court” and merited an immediate custodial sentence of a significant length.

Concurrent sentences of three months’ imprisonment were passed for the breach of each order plus three months to secure compliance with the orders in question.

Three months of the sentence was suspended conditional upon compliance by Ms Khan with both orders within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment. If Ms Khan failed to comply with either order during that period, she would serve the second three months of the sentence.

Ms Khan’s contempt of court was serious. She had committed breaches of two court orders for three months and fourteen weeks respectively.

Both orders were clear on their face, she knew she was acting in breach of both of them and understood the consequences of the failure to comply.

Moreover, it was necessary for the SRA to obtain those Orders to compel Ms Khan to comply with her obligations to her regulator. Her failure to comply with the orders involved not only an attack on the administration of justice – as described by Miles J in Law House Ltd (In Administration) v Adams – but also a defiance of her regulator.

The powers of the SRA to intervene in a solicitors practice were intended to protect both members of the public and public confidence in the profession, and there was a strong public interest in ensuring that solicitors co-operated promptly with the SRA.

Finally, Ms Khan was a solicitor and should be held to a higher standard than an unqualified defendant.

However, Ms Khan did not admit that she was in contempt. Nor did she express any remorse or put forward any reasonable excuse for her conduct. No discount would be given for the limited admissions made on her behalf because they led to no saving in time or costs. Indeed, having made the admission that she was in breach of the second order, Ms Khan immediately applied to set it aside.

The judge took into account Ms Khan’s serious hand injury which impeded her and contributed to her fragile mental state, as well as to the medical report filed on her behalf.

He also took account of the litigation on Ms Khan’s personal and professional life. Intervention was a last resort but it was very intrusive and could effectively destroy a solicitor’s practice. Ms Khan had no current source of income and was living with family who had to provide personal assistance.

The Court rejected a further application by the SRA that this was an exceptional case in which the court should exercise its jurisdiction to strike a solicitor off the roll.

In particular, it was not satisfied that justice required the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to adopt a summary procedure on the hearing of a committal application. It was more appropriate for the SRA to take proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in the normal way if it wished to secure an order that Ms Khan should be struck off.

There were three reasons for that decision:

(1) Ms Khan’s application to set aside the intervention had not yet been heard. The Court could not determine that her application was bound to fail and the SRA did not ask the Court to do so.

(2) There may be other, wider grounds of mitigation bearing on the conduct of her practice which Ms Khan may be able to put before the SDT but which would have no bearing on the applications presently before the Court

(3) The case of Penna was exceptional and clearly distinguishable from the present case. In Penna the Law Society did not ask the court to impose a prison sentence or other sanction for contempt, and the solicitor accepted that he should be removed from the Roll. In the present case, Ms Khan had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment on the basis that this was the appropriate sanction for her contempt of court.