Ikechi Okologo T/a Collins Law Associates v OISC

are fit and competent to do so;

act in the best interests of their clients;

do not knowingly mislead any court, tribunal, or adjudicator in the UK;

do not seek to abuse any procedure operating in the UK in connection with immigration or asylum (including any appellate or other judicial procedure);

do not advise any person to do something which would amount to such abuse.

Reasons: Collins Law Associates was initially registered with the Respondent from 15^th August 2006 to 17^th August 2009. On the 3^rd August 2009, the Appellant withdrew from the OISC scheme. The Respondent wrote to the Appellant confirming cancellation of his registration on the 17^th August 2009. The Respondent was of the view that from that point the Respondent was aware that he could not continue to act for his clients after August 2009. This Tribunal agrees with this view.

The Respondent received two complaints against the respondent on the 13^th September and 17^th January 2011, both of which related to Section 91 offences in which the respondent had provided immigration services after the 17^th August 2009. This in effect meant that the respondent was acting illegally in the provision of immigration services and advices at a time when he was not registered by the Respondent to do so. The Respondent carried out an inquiry and formal PACE interview with the Appellant after which the Appellant accepted a formal Caution from the Respondent.

The Respondent, in consideration of the more recent application for registration, carried out a pre-registration audit of the Appellant and became aware of other services and advices provided by the Appellant during the period he has not been registered. Accordingly the Respondent refused the application for registration.

The Appellant claims that at all material times, while he was not registered with the Respondent, any immigration advice or services he gave, was under the supervision of a solicitor. The Appellant further contends that he informed the Respondent of this fact at the formal interview before caution. This is verified by the transcript of that interview.

The Respondent concedes that if this were correct then the Appellant would not have been acting outside the scope of the OISC or the law.

The Respondent in evidence through their second witness, Ms. Bamini Mahilrajan (an OISC caseworker) the author of the Decision Notice of the 9^th March 2011 , answered questions from this tribunal and indicated that she had not been provided with the PACE interview record prepared by her colleague when making her decision. She accepted that had she been aware that the Respondent was being supervised by a solicitor the matter would have been different and the Respondent would have been acting outside the scope of the OISC regulation.

However matters are further confused by the content of the Appellants’ Registration Application and Competence Statement wherein at page 121 of the Respondents bundle herein, the document, signed by the Appellant reads; “Q, Have you ever been a Barrister, Solicitor, Advocate or supervised by any one of the above? A. “No”.

The Appellant throughout the hearing maintained at all material times he was supervised by a solicitor whom he intended to call to give evidence. An application to adjourn these proceedings, in order to call this solicitor, was made. The solicitor/witness in question was named and at the close of the first day of hearing the Tribunal invited the parties to make inquiries about the status and availability of the named solicitor to give evidence.

On the second day of the hearing, the Appellant confirmed that they would not be calling the solicitor to give evidence and significantly also confirmed that unknown to the Appellant, the solicitor in question had been struck off the solicitors register at the material times when it is being alleged the Appellant was acting under his supervision.

In a legal debate that ensued the Appellants’ solicitor before the Tribunal conceded that the effect of this, under the legislation, was that his client was NOT thereforeacting under supervision of a solicitor at the material times.

There can be no dispute therefore that the Appellant, prima facie unknowingly, was acting outside the law when giving advice during the period he was unregistered with the Respondent.

In these circumstance the Tribunal unanimously refuses this appeal.

The Respondent failed to recognise the anomaly in the evidence from the Appellant where he had at interview indicated he had been represented by a solicitor yet in his application he had missed this point (his evidence on this was singularly unconvincing). Regrettably also the Respondents advocate was unable to present the Tribunal with authorities on the legal issues raised in the course of this hearing and otherwise acted in an unprofessional manner. It is with reluctance that this tribunal find the need to criticise the Respondents preparation and presentation of this case. It is may be the need for more resources that explains the shortcomings.

Brian Kennedy QC 30^th March 2012.