JRT

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

In SRA v JRT, the Respondent solicitor applied to dismiss disciplinary proceedings (originally brought in February 2017) on the ground that continuation posed a real and immediate risk to his life, engaging the Tribunal's positive operational duty under Article 2 ECHR. Relying on cogent psychiatric evidence from Dr Bickerton (including reports from July and November 2020) showing marked deterioration and that the SRA proceedings were a very significant aggravating factor that could only be addressed by their cessation, the Tribunal found Article 2 was engaged. It rejected the SRA's proposed 'middle ground' (determining allegations but imposing no sanction) and a stay as insufficient to reduce the risk. Although the allegations were serious (notably not involving dishonesty) and the public interest carried weight, this was overwhelmed by the Respondent's Article 2 rights. The allegations were dismissed and no order as to costs was made (the Respondent's successful application costs of £7,592 were not awarded, applying CMA v Flynn Pharma principles). Parts of the hearing and the memorandum were heard/redacted in private under Rule 12(4) to avoid exceptional hardship.