Divisional Court to consider initiation of proceedings for contempt of court in dispute with council where submissions were filed citing authorities that do not exist
The President of the King's Bench Division has ordered a hearing of the Divisional Court this week (23 May) to consider what further steps, if any, should be taken in relation to Haringey Law Centre, one of its members of staff and its barrister after fake cases were cited in a judicial review claim against the London Borough of Haringey.
Dame Victoria Sharp’s order concerns barrister Sarah Forey of 3 Bolt Court, Haringey Law Centre staff member Sunnelah Hussain, the law centre itself “and any other person involved in the conduct of the claim, or in supervising Ms Hussain, on behalf of Haringey Law Centre”.
At the same hearing the Divisional Court will also consider what steps should be taken in relation to a separate court case (“Hamid”) where Mrs Justice Dias said correspondence was sent to the court, and witness statements were filed, citing authorities that do not exist and claiming that other authorities contained passages that they do not contain.
Dame Victoria said that the steps which the Divisional Court will consider taking “include the initiation of proceedings for contempt of court pursuant to CPR 81.6”.
At the High Court earlier this month, Mr Justice Ritchie said the legal team behind the claim against Haringey Council had "demonstrated appalling professional misbehaviour" after citing caselaw in their submissions that turned out to be imaginary.
His criticism of barrister Sarah Forey and Haringey Law Centre followed a judicial review case in which a man had applied to Haringey as homeless.
The claimant was initially denied accommodation and he sought a review and submitted additional medical evidence. Haringey upheld its original decision, but this was later quashed by HHJ Hellman, who ordered Haringey to pay costs.
The professional behaviour the judge complained about arose when he examined the grounds advanced for the claimant.
Case law cited by the legal team included R (El Gendi) v Camden, but Ritchie J said it "turns out that the cited case does not exist".
The claimant’s second ground was failure to consider relevant evidence, where another non-existent case was cited as R (Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest [2019] EWHC 1873.
A third ground involved Wednesbury irrationality but the fourth claimed unfairness based partly on R (KN) v the London Borough of Lambeth on the application of Balogun, and R (on the application of KN) v Barnet, both of which also turned out to be imaginary.
Haringey applied for a wasted costs order because of the five fake cases, the law centre's failure to produce copies of these when asked and that the claimant’s lawyers wrongly asserted that section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 was a 'must' provision instead of a discretionary 'may' provision.
When Ritchie J questioned Ms Forey about the non-existent cases, she said she kept a paper and digital list of cases and took the purported case of El Gendi from that.
However, Mr Justice Ritchie said he "did not understand that explanation", later adding that one explanation for the fake cases could be – as Haringey's barrister suggested – the use of artificial intelligence.
Ritchie J said he could make no finding on this idea.
He later said that the conduct of Ms Forey and the solicitors had been improper, unreasonable and negligent, and said Ms Forey should have reported herself to the Bar Council and the solicitors self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Ritchie J said the parties later reached agreement on the substantive judicial review and the claimant had been accommodated, was no longer street homeless and an agreed order had been filed.
Looking at overall costs, the judge said the council's failure to make a timely response to the judicial review was an important factor but “it does not, it seems to me, outweigh the appalling professional misbehaviour of the claimant's solicitors and the barristers in relation to the fake citations and the way, when those were raised, that they tried to finesse them into being 'minor citation errors’”.
Ritchie J reduced the £1,500 of counsel's fees for documentation to £500 and disallowed half the fee for the hearing to £1,000. He disallowed £5,000 of the solicitors’ fees.
Mr Justice Linden, the Hamid judge, later referred the cases to the President of the King's Bench Division.
Dame Victoria said: "As Mr Justice Linden observed in his order, these cases raise very serious issues.
"One such issue is whether the conduct of any of the individuals or organisations set out in paragraph 1 does or may amount to an interference with the due administration of justice in High Court proceedings.
"That being so, the court is obliged by CPR 81.6(1) of its own initiative to consider whether to proceed against any of them in contempt proceedings."
A copy of the President’s Order is to be sent by the Court to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board.
A spokesperson for Haringey Law Centre said it will be filing written submissions and evidence setting out its position in full in advance of the hearing on Friday.
Haringey Law Centre said it has instructed solicitors (Emily Carter and Sahil Kher at Kingsley Napley LLP) along with Richard Leiper KC and Andrew Edge from 11KBW, who are assisting the law centre on a pro bono basis.
Adam Carey
