Court of Appeal throws out muddle-headed Law Society plea to suppress identity of “permanently” unfit solicitor … Offending solicitor’s name already online … Open justice … Public must not think lawyers get favourable treatment, even though they do … Janek Drevikovsky reports
In 2012, Karimjee was phone-tapped telling members of his Islamic Dawoodi Bohra community, including the fathers of the two alleged FGM victims, that they should lie during police interviews.
In 2017, he pleaded guilty to acting with an intention to pervert the course of justice and was sentenced to two years of intensive correction. Two Dawoodi Bohra community members were initially found guilty of FGM, but are now awaiting a retrial after winning their High Court appeal.
At the start of 2021, the Law Society hauled Karimjee before the Bureau de Spank – and immediately applied for an order to suppress his name, along with any information about the alleged FGM victims.
Karimjee had to be anonymised, the Law Society said, to protect the victims’ identities and for consistency with a 2014 order in the original District Court proceedings against the solicitor.
But despite repeated attempts and an extension of time, the Law Society failed to find the District Court order, which was apparently made by Martin Sides DCJ. And Karimjee’s own solicitor, John Sutton, said his client had no interest in pressing for a suppression.
A dumfounded Court of Appeal made short shrift of the Law Society’s application. Appeal judges Anthony Meagher, Anthony Payne and Lucy McCallum noted that Karimjee’s name and records of his misdeeds were already online in public Supreme Court judgments (here, here, here, here and here).
Moreover, open justice was particularly important when spanking lawyers, the bench said:
“To do less may lead to a view, even if misguided, that the system operates in favour of members of the legal profession in a way it does not with other litigants.”
It’s a point the disciplinary apparatus would do well to remember, as it faces a deluge of recent anonymity-requests from naughty lawyers, many of which are granted with no opposition and minimal scrutiny.
The three judges refused to suppress Karimjee’s name, though they did suppress the identities of the alleged FGM victims and their families. They also found the solicitor “permanently” unfit and improper for the legal caper and struck him from the roll.
It’s becoming a rare event to see a lawyer’s real name at the top of a spanking judgment. Our reports on the rise in suppression:
A barrister who told a female clerk to “suck my dick”
Three suppressed cases, including one solicitor who stole money from retirees
Mr XX and firm ZZZ Pty Ltd trading as ZZ
Mr [Redacted] of firm [redacted] who did [redacted]