The claim, which has been filed in the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles, and is said to be worth at least $50 million in punitive damages alone, alleges racketeering, negligence, racial discrimination, defamation and the suborning of witnesses by two SRA investigators who were sent to Los Angeles, California and Hawaii by the UK regulator on three separate occasions to try and obtain evidence against Mr. Mireskandari in 2008.  In December 2008, the SRA intervened in Mr. Mireskandari’s successful London-based law firm, Dean & Dean – a practice that he joined in 1999, becoming a partner in 2005 and which had a turnover of several million – closing down his firm and placing more than 40 ethnic minority employees out of work.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Mireskandari, who is a US citizen of Iranian origin, alleges that SRA investigators Barrington Mayne and Malcolm Lees, deliberately lied to people that they interviewed in the United States, including a senior Deputy District Attorney and an employee of the California Bar, elicited false witness statements and effectively fabricated evidence that were later relied upon by the SRA and presented to the High Court as documents of truth to justify the intervention.  Mr. Mireskandari believes that the intervention was retribution for the legal representation that his firm provided to Mr. Ghaffur, who was the UK’s highest ranking Asian Muslim police officer at the time.  It is also understood that Sir Iain Blair’s solicitor, Ed Solomons, was a member of the SRA’s Board at the time that the intervention took place.

Mr. Mireskandari’s US attorney, Milton Grimes who is a member of the Society of Black Lawyers (SBL), commented:

“Having worked with Mr. Mireskandari and the Society of Black Lawyers on this case, I am astounded by the arrogance and audacity of the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  That the SRA came to California and abused the goodwill, not only of our legal community but also our prosecuting authorities in order to racially profile and target minority solicitors in the UK is something that cannot go unchallenged.”

Mr. Mireskandari’s US claim joins that of another civil action, brought by Paul Baxendale-Walker, a former tax solicitor of Asian origin, whose successful law practice was closed down by the SRA in 2005.  Mr. Baxendale-Walker alleges that the SRA used similar tactics to intervene and then strike him off the roll of solicitors.

Mireskandari and Baxendale-Walker are members of a growing number of ethnic minority solicitors who are now taking the fight to the SRA, alleging racial discrimination, wrongdoing and disproportionality in the way that ethnic minority solicitors are treated by the regulator.

SBL Co-Chair, Peter Herbert OBE commented:

“These are serious allegations of wrongdoing and Civil Rights abuses.  Acting under the direction and control of senior executives at the SRA, Barrington Mayne and Malcolm Lees appear to have violated both the civil and criminal codes of the State of California.  This total disregard for the rights of a US citizen will now be brought before the US courts where the judiciary cannot be assumed to be as sympathetic to the SRA as they appear to be in England and Wales.  The SBL has become increasingly concerned that some High Court and Circuit judges in England are treating the SRA as an institution that needs to be protected at all costs – even when they are presented with clear evidence of unequal treatment and wrongdoing.  These US claims are therefore extremely important in shining a light on the injustices being experienced by ethnic minority solicitors in the UK.”

 

• Mr. Mireskandari’s civil claim was lodged on Friday 17 February 2012 and can be downloaded at: Mireskandari v. The Law Society of England & Wales

• Lord Herman Ouseley’s ‘Independent Review into Disproportionate Regulatory Outcomes for Black and Minority Ethnic Solicitors’ (July 2008) can be found at:  http://www.sra.org.uk/ouseley/

• The Pearn Kandola report into issues of disproportionality at the SRA can be found at: http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/equality-diversity/reports/research-disproportionality.page

 

Joyce Agim is the latest ethnic minority solicitor who believes that institutional racism at the SRA has led to a white solicitor receiving only a reprimand from the SRA, even though the Authority found that the solicitor in question had committed clear breaches of the Solicitors Accounting Rules and anti-money laundering rules.  Mrs Agim claims that ethnic minority solicitors have been struck off for much lesser charges and she is now suing the regulatory body for discrimination.  The SRA are seeking, not only to have Mrs Agim’s claim struck out at a hearing on Thursday 26 January 2012 at the Central London County Court, but also to prevent Mrs Agim from using the SRA’s forensic investigation report into the conduct of the white solicitor as evidence in her case against them.

The SRA has been subject to external monitoring since 2007 as a result of its disproportionate targeting of African, Caribbean and Asian solicitors. An internal report, published in 2006 could not explain why ethnic minority solicitors were five times more likely to be investigated, suspended or struck off than their white counterparts.  In July 2008, an independent investigation conducted by Lord Herman Ouseley into allegations of racism, discrimination and victimisation within the SRA found extensive evidence of institutional racism within the regulatory body.  Mrs Agim and others believe that despite these reports and efforts within the SRA to implement Lord Ouseley’s recommendations, the Authority continues to engage in practices and decision making which amount to ‘racial profiling’.

Peter Herbert OBE, National Co-Chair of the Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) commented:

“We do not condone dishonest or incompetent solicitors but we do demand equal treatment.  There appears to be a worrying lack of transparency about how decisions are made at the SRA.  These allegations are serious and the SRA should address them instead of trying to sweep these issues under the carpet.”

The case of Joyce Agim v. The Law Society/ SRA will be heard on Thursday 26 January 2012 at Central London County Court.  The hearing will commence at 10.30am.  A demonstration will be held outside Central London County Court from 9.30am to 10.30am to highlight the plight of ethnic minority solicitors.

Norris was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years and three months and Dobson received 15 years and two months.  Both were sentenced under old guidelines as if they were juveniles because they were under the age of 18 when the crime was committed.  Dobson had previously been acquitted in 1996 following a private prosecution brought by the Lawrence family.  It was only due to a change in the law on double jeopardy in 2005 that he was able to be tried again.

SENTENCES

Jide Lanlehin, criminal barrister commented:

‘We welcome the sentences that have been passed and recognise that the judge’s hands were tied in that respect.  The sentences could have been much longer if judicial discretion, based on exceptional circumstances had been possible. Such a crime, if it had been committed by juveniles today, would have attracted a far longer sentence. Sadly, neither the sentencing guidelines nor legislation allowed for such discretion to be exercised.’

JOINT ENTERPRISE: JAMIE ACOURT, NEIL ACOURT & LUKE KNIGHT

SBL Co-Chair, Peter Herbert OBE commented:

‘The SBL is calling on the Crown Prosecution Service to undertake an immediate
review of this case, with a view to bringing prosecutions against the three remaining suspects.  Our view is that the convictions of Norris and Dobson represent substantial new evidence of a joint enterprise in relation to all five men.  Luke Knight and the Acourt brothers should be re-interviewed.  They should not think that they are safe from the continuing call for justice.’

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Rosemary Emodi, Vice Chair of the SBL commented:

‘SBL made written and oral submissions to the Macpherson Inquiry in 1998, arguing that the law on double jeopardy should be reviewed.  It was the one recommendation that specifically addressed the particular circumstances of the Lawrence family following the failed private prosecution in 1996.  The
wide-ranging impact of the Stephen Lawrence case is well documented.  But it was the dignified and unwavering fight for justice, led by Doreen and Neville Lawrence that has been so compelling.

As lawyers, the SBL believes that our role is not just to practice the law.  We must shape it, influence it and where necessary, change it.  Dobson’s conviction stands as an enduring testament to that belief.’

The Society of Black Lawyers (SBL), has condemned as indefensible, the stance of Chelsea and Liverpool Football Clubs for appearing to endorse the alleged acts of racism perpetuated by John Terry and Luis Suarez respectively.

Chelsea F.C. issued a statement, expressing their unconditional support after captain John Terry was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence relating to alleged remarks to Queens Park Rangers (QPR) defender Anton Ferdinand.  Meanwhile, Liverpool F.C. has continued to defend the behaviour of Luis Suarez following the eight-match ban given to the Uruguayan who was found guilty of racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrice Evra.

The SBL was one of the main organisations that successfully campaigned for racism to be criminalised and recognised as a hate crime in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.  The organisation intends to make a formal complaint to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about the racist and offensive language used by Luis Suarez and will urge the CPS to treat the matter as a racist incident requiring a full and proper investigation. The SBL will also urge the CPS to prosecute Mr Suarez if the outcome of the investigation evinces a reasonable prospect of a conviction according to the public interest test contained within the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

The SBL contends that there should be no difference in the treatment of the two players and as both football clubs are the players’ respective employers, such instances of racism ought to have been treated as allegations of gross misconduct by the clubs and not simply denied as being completely unfounded.

SBL Co-Chair, Peter Herbert OBE commented:

“To our knowledge, neither club has bothered to conduct its own independent investigation or hold a disciplinary hearing. If such serious allegations of racism had been made in the workplace, any reasonable employer would consider itself to be under a strict duty to conduct a full, detailed and impartial investigation into the allegations, and not simply to state that they stand behind the denials of the player concerned.

The punitive effects of racism are felt by thousands of people in Britain each day.  The response of the Footbaall Association (FA) and the CPS must be robust to protect others from the humiliation, pain and suffering that this type of hate crime inflicts.  There is no reason why Suarez should not face criminal charges.  When individual football clubs and fellow players – both black and white – endorse this kind of behaviour, they themselves become part of the problem because they stand in the way of the total eradication of racism from the sport.  Their denial and appeasement reflects an abdication of their role as responsible players or employers.”

The statistical analysis covers deaths in:

• Prisons
• Young Offender Institutes (YOIs)
• Police custody
• Immigration Removal Centres
• Approved Premises
• Secure Children’s Homes
• Secure Training Centres
• Whilst not specifically a custodial sector, the report also contains data on the deaths of patients who died in hospital whilst detained under the Mental Health Act.

The report found that:

• In total, there were 5,998 deaths recorded for the 11 years from 2000 to 2010. This is an average of 545 deaths per year.  Of these deaths, 72% (N=4,291) were of males and 28% (N=1,676) were of females.
• A total of 607 deaths were reported in 2000 compared to 512 in 2010 (this represents a 16% reduction between the beginning and the end of the reporting period).
• Deaths of those detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and those in prison custody, account for 92% (N=5,511) of all deaths in state custody, at 61% (N=3,628) and 31% (N=1,883) respectively.
• 66% (N=3,974) of deaths were recorded as natural causes.  Of these, 71% (N=2,814) of deaths were of patients detained under the MHA.
• 9% (N=553) of the 5,998 deaths were of individuals from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups, with 5% (N=305) classified as Black, 3% (N=184) as Asian, 1% (N=52) as Mixed Ethnicity and 0.2% (N=12) as Chinese.  87% (N=5,192) were classified as White.  Ethnicity was either not known, or not stated in 3% (N=180) of cases, 1% (N=76) were classified as ‘Other’.  These figures need further analysis to understand whether there is any disproportion between race and ethnic identity and types of death.
• In 0.3% (N=19) of deaths, the application of restraint by custodial staff was attributed to the cause of death during the Coroner’s inquest.

Downloads

1. Statistical Analysis of all Deaths in Custody 2000-10
2. Appendix 1 – Police Deaths in Custody 2000-10
3. Appendix 2 – Deaths in Secure Mental Health Units (2000-10)
4. Appendix 3 – Deaths in Immigration Removal Centres (2000-10)
5. Appendix 4 – Prison Deaths (2000-10)
6. Appendix 5 – Deaths of Young People in STCs and STHs (2000-10)

The purpose of the survey is to:

• Revisit and carry out a stock take of the impact of the regulatory process on BAME solicitors and their experience of dealing with the SRA.

• Identify areas of continuing concern among BAME solicitors, with a view to devising strategies and services to address these; and

• Explore how the SBL can develop and provide a robust representation service if this is required.

Peter Herbert OBE, SBL’s National Chair, commented:

“This survey is very timely and is being undertaken three years after the publication of Lord Herman Ouseley’s 2008 independent review into the disproportionate regulatory outcomes for black and minority ethnic solicitors.  We would encourage as many solicitors as possible to take part in the survey”

The online survey can be accessed here: SRA Survey

The closing date for completion of the survey is Friday 28 October 2011.

The report highlights the following trends which:

• External complaints (complaints raised by members of the public, solicitors, other professionals or organisations) closed: BME barristers were over-represented in 2010 in relation to the proportion (13% {9}) of complaints upheld. This was mostly caused by a high number of complaints proved against barristers of African origin (5 proved out of 11 barristers across 2009 and 2010). While analysis of the individual complaints shows that this was caused by the individual circumstances of the complaints, this is generally an area which requires monitoring to establish if it is sustained.

• Internal complaints (complaints raised by the Bar Standards Board) opened: BME barristers were over-represented in 2010 in relation to the proportion of internal complaints (32% {36}) opened against them. While analysis of the individual complaints highlighted some areas where the statistics were distorted, this is again an area that needs to be monitored.

• There was no evidence of significant and sustained disproportions in the diversity statistics that would give serious cause for concern in terms of inequality of treatment either in relation to the BSB’s decision making processes or in relation to the findings made by independent panels.

The report concludes that further independent research will be carried out in conjunction with the Equality and Diversity department, analysing the data collected over a five year period; the aims of which should be:

• To ascertain whether there is any statistical evidence that the disproportions seen in external complaints closed and internal complaints opened over 2009/10 (or in any other area not identified by this report) are significant and should be cause for concern;

• To identify the sources of any disproportions identified; and

• To give guidance to the BSB on future reporting on the protected characteristics.

An executive summary and full copy of the report can be downloaded below:

BSB Professional Conduct Department: Diversity Report 2009/10

• Executive Summary
• Full Report

Organised in partnership with the NUS Black Students Campaign, LEGAL FUTURES is the national law careers conference for ethnic minority students who wish to pursue a career in law. This year’s conference is taking place with the support of the City Law School, City University. Confirmed speakers include the renowned journalist, broadcaster and legal commentator, Joshua Rosenberg, solicitor and Chief Executive of the International Federation of Netball Associations, Urvasi Naidoo; Jo Sidhu, Vice Chair of the Equality and Diversity Committee at the Bar Council and Jide Lanlehin, Head of Chambers at Middle Temple Lane Chambers.

Register

The experience she gained working in Arusha, Tanzania where the ICTR is based was invaluable and provided a unique insight  into the workings of the International Criminal Courts and Tribunals system, together with the complexities of international relations and foreign policy.

Noel’s interest in the politics of conflict and her observations at the Tribunal motivated her to write a paper on the provision and practicability of due process at the ICTR.

Having reviewed countless past judgements and witnessing questionable judicial conduct in the Ngirabatware trial, Noel began to wonder if the only useful purpose that the defense team could serve was as a reminder to the Tribunal that the accused is just that and not ‘the convicted’ and that the right to a fair and public hearing must be granted.

Considering the role of the international community,  the essay looks at the emergence and relevance of the ICTR, its effectiveness and method of functioning, alleged complicity in the genocide factoring the bureaucratic and political complexities that effect trials, importance and adherence of due process and the potential miscarriages of justice to which Tribunals such as the ICTR seem particularly susceptible.

Fair Trials at the ICTR

The Committee has made the following recommendations to redress the violations:

• That Kenya take all necessary legislative, administrative, and other measures in order to ensure that children of Nubian decent in Kenya, that are otherwise stateless, can acquire a Kenyan nationality and the proof of such a nationality at birth.
• that Kenya take measures to ensure that existing children of Nubian descent whose Kenyan nationality is not recognised are systematically afforded the benefit of these new measures as a matter of priority.
• that Kenya implement its birth registration system in a non-discriminatory manner, and take all necessary legislative, administrative, and other measures to ensure that children of Nubian descent are registered immediately after birth.
• that Kenya to adopt a short term, medium term and long term plan, including legislative, administrative, and other measures to ensure the fulfilment of the right to the highest attainable standard of health and of the right to education, preferably in consultation with the affected beneficiary communities.
• That Kenya report on the implementation of these recommendations within six months from the date of notification of this decision.

The Committee also decided to appoint one of its members to follow up on the implementation of the decision.

This historic decision, the first one ever by the Committee, makes it the first time that a State has been found in violation of children’s rights treaty by an international body. The Committee is the only child rights treaty monitoring body with the power to determine cases.

The full decision can be downloaded here:  Nubian Children v. Kenya ACERWC Decision 002/2009