A barred bookkeeper found to have misappropriated £80,000 from a law firm has been refused in his bid to have the restriction lifted.
Craig Garrett said he had no intention of ever working in the legal profession again but wanted to quash the barring order for his own peace of mind. But the application was contested by the Solicitors Regulation Authority on the grounds that the original decision was correct.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal upheld the order following a one-day hearing, ruling there was no reason to interfere with the original decision. His application was refused and Garrett was order to pay £19,500.
Garrett had worked for south Wales practice Louise Stephens & Co for 14 years when he allegedly told the firm he had misappropriated the money from the office account.
The matter was reported to the police and to the SRA, and in 2016 an adjudicator of the SRA made a section 43 order restricting him from working for any law firm.
In 2021, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence in relation to charges brought against Garrett and formal not guilty verdicts were recorded at Cardiff Crown Court.
Seeking to then overturn the SRA’s order, his application was refused by an adjudication panel on the basis that the original decision was not materially flawed.
Garrett pursued his challenge in the tribunal, where he argued that the SRA had compromised his human rights by barring him from the profession before he was able to substantively respond to allegations made against him.
He submitted that too much weight was place on sources and material that were ‘entirely incredible’ and said he had been unable to make substantive representations at the time the order was being considered. The validity of his alleged confession had never been tested, he added, and his acquittal of criminal charges not properly taken into account.
The SRA pointed out that Garrett had brought no fresh evidence and no proof that he had been rehabilitated.
The tribunal determined that the SRA adjudicator was justified in making its findings about Garrett. ‘The inferences drawn by the adjudicator were reasonable and were inferences that were entitled to be drawn,’ added the tribunal. ‘There was no flaw in the adjudicator’s reasoning, the conclusions of which were reasonable and sound.’
