Campbell v Hamlet (as executrix of Simon Alexander): PC 25 Apr 2005

(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until 1996, when the findings were produced. He was found guilty of professional misconduct. His appeal failed. He now appealed saying again that the misconduct if any was not professional misconduct and that the delay was unreasonable, and that the Court of Appeal had applied the wrong civil standard of proof.
Held: The criminal standard of proof is the correct standard to be applied in all disciplinary proceedings concerning the legal profession. That is the standard which had been applied both by the disciplinary committee and by the Court of Appeal. The evidence established the offence to either standard. The only injustice caused by the deplorable delay was the failure to repay the money to the estate of the deceased. Unlike in Goose the committee had full transcripts of the evidence, and therefore the quality of the decision was not undermined by the delay. The appeal failed.
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Sir Swinton Thomas
[2005] UKPC 19, [2005] 3 All ER 1116
Bailii, PC, PC
England and Wales
CitedBhandari v Advocates Committee PC 1956
Complaints of professional misconduct against a member of a legal profession are to be proved to the criminal standard. Lord Tucker said: ‘With regard to the onus of proof the Court of Appeal [for East Africa] said: ‘We agree that in every . .
CitedIn Re A Solicitor QBD 13-May-1992
In disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, allegations must be proved to the criminal standard, and certainly so where the allegations are serious and may result in suspension or disqualification. Hearsay evidence . .
CitedClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
CitedB v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary QBD 5-Apr-2000
The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section . .
CitedGough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire CA 20-Mar-2002
The appellants challenged the legality under European law of orders under the Act restricting their freedom of movement, after suspicion of involvement in football violence.
Held: Although the proceedings under which orders were made were . .
CitedAaron v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged an order suspending him from practice as a solicitor for two years. He had previous findings of professional misconduct in failing to pay counsels’ fees. In the course of later disciplinary proceedings he was found to have . .
CitedGoose v Wilson Sandford and Co and Mainon CA 13-Feb-1998
A judge was properly criticised for failing to write up a judgment when the witness’ evidence was still fresh in his mind. A two year delay required a re-trial.
Peter Gibson LJ explained the potential effect of delay on the formulation and . .
CitedBoodhoo, Jagram, (suing on behalf of themselves and the Sanatan Dharma Sudhar Sadha) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 1-Apr-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The complainant said that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the court’s delay. Proceedings had begun in 1987 for redress with regard to a land dispute. There was substantial . .

Cited by:
CitedAN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
CitedIn re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL 11-Jun-2008
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . .
CitedHarris v The Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 28-Jun-2011
The solicitor appealed against findings and orders regarding allegations of having failed to disclose to clients referral fees paid by him to third parties, and of having given misleading fees information.
Held: The appellant had admitted . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.224734