Muhammad Azfar Ahmad

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

The SRA alleged that the Respondent, an immigration solicitor, had during a covertly-recorded preliminary meeting on 27 June 2023 (arranged by undercover Daily Mail journalists) suggested a false asylum narrative and a sham marriage to regularise the fake client's immigration status. The Tribunal found both allegations not proved on the balance of probabilities. It held that the pleaded 'should' threshold required proof of a prescriptive direction, that the operatives had led/prompted the discussion contrary to their brief, that the Respondent gave repeated caveats (asylum for Indian nationals 'very weak' and 'not in his hands'), and that the multi-stage Punjabi-Urdu-English translations were unreliable and given limited weight. No dishonesty was found; some conduct was described as 'ill-judged' (failing to correct the Khalistan reference and blurring professional boundaries in the marriage discussion). Allegations dismissed. The Respondent's application for costs against the SRA was refused as there was no good reason to depart from the established position that regulators acting in good faith do not face adverse costs orders; no order as to costs.