A barrister’s prison sentence for contempt was unfair because the proper procedures were not followed, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Sharaz Ahmed was committed for six weeks in November after makig what sentencing judge Her Honour Judge George described as an ‘entirely half-hearted’ apology for breaching an undertaking.
But Ahmed successfully challenged the ruling after claiming he did not know committal proceedings had been issued against him personally, and arguing that he was not given an opportunity to take legal advice, seek representation or present any proper defence.
Giving the lead judgment in Ahmed v Rehman, Lord Justice Baker said that, however egregiously Ahmed was alleged to have acted, he was entitled to the procedural protection afforded by the rules. ‘It is neither necessary nor appropriate to consider the substantive allegations of contempt against [Ahmed] nor the sentence that was imposed,’ he said. ‘As the application against him was not brought in accordance with the rules, this court cannot be confident that there has been full and fair evaluation of the extent of his responsibility for the breach of undertaking.’
Ahmed was a designated member of London firm Landmark Legal LLP, working in a branch office where it traded as 12 Bridge Solicitors. In a possession claim where Landmark represented the defendant, the firm had undertaken to hold in its client account any payments made, pending an order of the court. Ahmed told the court that he had authority to give the undertaking but did not tell the judge he was a designated member of Landmark.
Following conclusion of the claim, Landmark Legal was authorised to release £57,600 to the claimant’s solicitors, but the firm transferred the sum to the defendant without notifying the court or seeking an order varying the undertaking. Lawyers for the claimant said the breach of the undertaking was ‘self-evidently deliberate and intentional’.
In her committal judgment, delivered ex tempore, the judge said she had given Ahmed the chance to give evidence and had warned him he might be fined or sent to prison. His position, the judge said, was ‘frankly untenable’ and he had been fully aware of the undertaking and deliberately breached it.
On appeal, Ahmed submitted that he should have been given an opportunity to take advice and seek representation, and was allowed only a few minutes in court to think about his position.
Lord Justice Baker concluded that at no point was Ahmed told, as he should have been, that he had the right to be represented, or that he was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation and apply for legal aid.
Lord Justice Warby agreed, stressing that Landmark and not Ahmed himself was party to the contempt proceedings and that the application notice did not set out a case against the barrister.
It remains open to the claimant to bring contempt proceedings against Ahmed personally, although the judges made no comment on the merits of any such action.
