Muhammad Nazar Hayat

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

The SRA alleged that the Respondent, an immigration solicitor, advised a person he believed to be a prospective client (in reality an undercover Daily Mail journalist) to provide a false narrative in support of an asylum claim, breaching Paragraph 1.4 of the Code and Principles 1, 2, 4 and 5. The case relied on covert recordings and competing translations of a meeting conducted partly in English and partly in Punjabi. The Tribunal found the Respondent conducted an exploratory meeting, rehearsing potential arguments at their highest, and that terms like 'create/make evidence' referred to collating evidence rather than fabrication. It found no dishonesty and dismissed the allegation as not proved. No order for costs was made against the SRA, the Tribunal finding the case properly brought.