The statement reads, rather strangely in my view, as though solicitors might well have harmed certain people (sub-postmasters and mistresses), but they will not be regarded as (part of) ‘the public’. On this logic, then, there is no further or ongoing risk to ‘the public’. Less than convincing. It might have been better simply to say that no action will be taken until the public inquiry has concluded (a reasonable stance that waits for all the evidence) rather than that no ‘urgent’ action is needed based on the suspect current assessment of no harm to the public (a judgement based on partial evidence).
Without more information, it is difficult to assess whether the SRA stance is the right one. The Post Office has ceased acting as prosecutor so there is no possibility of repeat conduct from within the PO. Nonetheless, the evidence so far emerging does point to serious professional failings, in particular the withholding of information which the interests of justice required disclosing to the court. There have undoubtedly been multiple miscarriages of justice.
In many, if not most professions, such serious allegations would result in suspension pending the outcome of investigation. in this case, it is more than mere suspicion - the published evidence is already quite cogent. Who would want to be treated by a doctor, have their burglary investigated by a police officer or their child taught by teacher with such serious serious concerns about their professional ethics, honesty and integrity under investigation.
So the question is: what are those lawyers who have moved on from the Post Office doing now? Are they offering services to the public or dealing with the public on behalf of an employer? If so, steps need to be taken (through restrictions and conditions if not suspension) to ensure that the public are protected. As I say, it all depends on the role but in my experience those who lack scruples do not suddenly gain scruples when thery move to a new position.
I agree with both Stephen Mayson and Stephen Wooler.
The statement reads, rather strangely in my view, as though solicitors might well have harmed certain people (sub-postmasters and mistresses), but they will not be regarded as (part of) ‘the public’. On this logic, then, there is no further or ongoing risk to ‘the public’. Less than convincing. It might have been better simply to say that no action will be taken until the public inquiry has concluded (a reasonable stance that waits for all the evidence) rather than that no ‘urgent’ action is needed based on the suspect current assessment of no harm to the public (a judgement based on partial evidence).
Without more information, it is difficult to assess whether the SRA stance is the right one. The Post Office has ceased acting as prosecutor so there is no possibility of repeat conduct from within the PO. Nonetheless, the evidence so far emerging does point to serious professional failings, in particular the withholding of information which the interests of justice required disclosing to the court. There have undoubtedly been multiple miscarriages of justice.
In many, if not most professions, such serious allegations would result in suspension pending the outcome of investigation. in this case, it is more than mere suspicion - the published evidence is already quite cogent. Who would want to be treated by a doctor, have their burglary investigated by a police officer or their child taught by teacher with such serious serious concerns about their professional ethics, honesty and integrity under investigation.
So the question is: what are those lawyers who have moved on from the Post Office doing now? Are they offering services to the public or dealing with the public on behalf of an employer? If so, steps need to be taken (through restrictions and conditions if not suspension) to ensure that the public are protected. As I say, it all depends on the role but in my experience those who lack scruples do not suddenly gain scruples when thery move to a new position.