Dutton v Law Society

LORD JUSTICE LAWS: Before us this morning is listed for hearing a statutory appeal brought against an order of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal of 20th February 2003 by which the claimant, Mr Dutton, was struck off the Roll of Solicitors. Mr Dutton has appeared before us in person today and has renewed an application earlier made by him for an adjournment.

The court has before it a letter of 5th October 2004 from the consultant psychiatrist who has the care of Mr Dutton. The psychiatrist, Dr Vaughan, indicates that Mr Dutton suffers from anxiety and depression which affects his concentration and attention, and, as at the date of that letter, the doctor indicated his belief that an adjournment would be appropriate. At an earlier stage Mr Dutton had applied for a like adjournment. Rose LJ adjourned the appeal but indicated that if a further application for an adjournment were made the court would expect to have the oral evidence of a psychiatrist. Having that direction in mind, my Lady and I have made arrangements today to speak to Dr Vaughan over the telephone and we have done that this morning. The upshot is that indeed Mr Dutton suffers from depression. Upon last seeing the doctor on 25th August he was tired, lethargic and had a low mood. The doctor thought it was possible, but there was by no means any guarantee, that if there were an adjournment of perhaps three months or more that might help him to face the need to deal with these proceedings. On the other hand, the doctor accepted that it might be in Mr Dutton's interest if the matter were finalised by judgment today. We indicated in outline to Mr Dutton what the doctor had said and he made some further remarks to support his application for an adjournment.

We have found this application difficult to resolve. The fact is the medical basis for an adjournment is frankly very thin. There seems no doubt that Mr Dutton suffers from depression and that may, from time to time, be quite grave. We have heard him today speaking on his own behalf and we can see that he would have great difficulty, perhaps because of his mood, in gathering himself in a way that would enable him to present his case in person efficiently. We, of course, have read the papers with care and would give such assistance as we could, but we have been frankly struck by the fact that he could not do himself justice today. Mr Goodwin for the Law Society is neutral as to this application for an adjournment.

With very considerable misgivings we propose to grant the adjournment for a period of three months. We acknowledge, indeed we have already made it clear, that the medical basis for such a step is thin. We think, however, that given the gravity of the matter he should have one further opportunity to see whether he might properly present his case with legal assistance, if that can be obtained.

It is important to have in mind that in taking the decision they did the Law Society made two serious findings of dishonesty against Mr Dutton. The decision of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal, therefore, affects his whole future really as gravely as any disciplinary proceedings could do.

As we have said, for all those reasons we think it right that he should have one further opportunity to see whether the case might be properly presented. We propose to adjourn the appeal for a period of three months. It is to be relisted, with a time estimate of one day, on the first open day after the expiry of three months. Although we cannot, of course, bind any future Divisional Court that hears the matter, we would make it plain that it is our own firm view that any further adjournment would simply be wrong in principle, unless wholly new facts emerge that present an entirely different picture.

Mr Dutton should not expect any further adjournment, whether or not he has legal representation, and I have to say even if his medical condition is much as it is today. Proceedings of any kind, but especially legal proceedings of this kind, cannot be allowed to go on an open-ended basis. There must be finality. We have to balance the need for finality with our concerns about Mr Dutton's ability to present his case. The balance we have struck leads to the conclusion there should be one further adjournment, but no more, for three months, as we have said. That is the decision of the court.