A solicitor who featured in the Daily Mail undercover sting targeting immigration lawyers has been cleared of any wrongdoing.
Rashid Ahmad Khan, admitted in March 2009, was alleged to have given advice which encouraged a false narrative to be put forward in support of an asylum claim within the United Kingdom.
Khan, who denied the allegation against him, was working as a solicitor at Rashid and Rashid Law Firm at the time of the sting, in which one reporter posed as a man seeking entry in the UK, and another his uncle.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority alleged Khan had advised and encouraged the men over fabricating a false narrative upon which to claim asylum. The regulator relied on transcripts of covert recordings of Khan’s meeting with the reporters.
Khan said the interactions with the pair consisted of two meet-and-greet sessions outside any retainer and during which he provided no advice. He disputed the accuracy of the SRA’s translation of the conversations, which had taken place in a mixture of Punjabi and English, neither of which was Khan’s mother tongue.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said the case ‘rested heavily on the interpretation of [Khan’s] words, actions and his intentions during the initial consultations with the “uncle” and then the “uncle” and the “nephew”, the potential client’.
The judgment said it was ‘not persuaded that the applicant had proved its case to the requisite standard, namely on the balance of probabilities’.
It added: ‘The tribunal accepted the respondent’s explanation for the two meetings as “meet & greet” rather than specific sessions for the taking of instructions and giving advice. They were merely introductory.’
In the second interview, Khan ‘remained consistent in his approach not to get involved or to give advice until the potential client had collected and furnished him with documents he required’, the SDT said.
Dismissing the allegation, the tribunal said: ‘When taken individually or viewed in its totality there was nothing within the material seen and read by the tribunal which would permit it to make an adverse finding against the respondent. Whilst there were issues which may have raised understandable concerns with the regulator, the matters did not, on the balance of probabilities, convince the tribunal that the respondent deliberately gave advice that encouraged a false narrative.’
An application for costs by Gregory Treverton-Jones KC, for Khan, was refused. No order for costs was made and ‘each party would therefore bear its own costs’.
