In January 2023, the Daily Mail decided to conduct an undercover investigation of immigration solicitors’ firms using covert recording equipment. The plan was that one of three undercover operatives visiting Kingswright Solicitors Limited should pose as a recently arrived irregular migrant with no legitimate asylum basis and request what could be done to regularise his immigration status. Operatives were instructed not to lead, not to suggest asylum, and to confirm there was no lawful claim if asked. Following a telephone call to arrange an appointment, the three undercover operatives attended the Firm on 27 June 2023 for a preliminary meeting with the Respondent.

The meeting on 27 June 2023 was covertly recorded on a Lawmate PV500 Neo device. Following the publication of news articles arising from the visit in July 2023, copies of the recordings were provided to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for its investigation into the matter. As the conversation contained both English and Punjabi, the SRA obtained a transcription and translation for the purposes of its investigation.

After the matter had been referred to the Tribunal, the Applicant served an Amended Rule 12 Statement pleading two allegations: first, that the Respondent had suggested that a false asylum narrative should be provided; and secondly, that the operative posing as the client should enter a marriage despite the absence of a genuine relationship. The Respondent served an Answer disputing both allegations, followed by a further Supplementary Statement.

The meeting was recorded on two covert Videos. For passages spoken in Punjabi, the Tribunal had the benefit of an Agreed Transcript Comparator which set side by side the Atlas (Applicant) and Mansoor (Respondent) English renderings of what was spoken in Punjabi. The Tribunal treated the Videos as the primary record, using the comparator only as a navigational aid across disputed passages and approaching translated wording with caution, given the multi stage rendering (Punjabi speech to Urdu transcript to English translation) and the difficulty in clearly hearing parts of the recording.

In determining the allegations, the Tribunal noted that the pleaded wording required proof that the Respondent suggested that the conduct should, as opposed to could, occur—an important threshold running through both allegations. The Tribunal accepted that some responses were ill judged (e.g., failure to clarify or correct the operative’s introduction of a Khalistan membership narrative) but treated the translated wording at key points with caution and emphasised the Respondent’s repeated caveats that asylum for Indian nationals was weak and “not in his hands.” The Panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent suggested a false narrative should be advanced. In respect of the second allegation, the Tribunal found the Respondent “overly helpful” in cultural discussion and potential introductions, but found the exchanges occurred after leading prompts and had not crossed the pleaded threshold of suggesting marriage despite the absence of a genuine relationship. The Tribunal was also not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the second Allegation was proved.

In reaching those conclusions, the Tribunal had regard to the undercover set up and meeting context, whether asylum was mentioned in advance, the client/prospective client status, the weight to be attached to the recordings and translations, character evidence, and motive (or its absence).

Given that both of the allegations were found not proved, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to consider the breaches of the Principles and the Code alleged.

The Tribunal further refused the Respondent’s application for costs, finding no sufficient reason to depart from the established position that no order was made against the Applicant who acted in good faith in the exercise of its regulatory functions.