AG -v- Sinel and Chiddicks [2015] JRC 049B (27 February 2015)

AG -v- Sinel and Chiddicks [2015] JRC 049B (27 February 2015)

The respondents deliberately misled the Court of Appeal by failing to disclose the existence and effect of the protective writ, which was material to the timing of the judgment. Their duty to the court was paramount and their omission constituted professional misconduct.

Citation
[2015] JRC 049B
Parties
Complainant: Lord Jones, Dame Heather Steel JA, Mr James McNeill QC, JA; First Respondent: Advocate Philip Cowan Sinel; Second Respondent: Advocate Steven Michael James Chiddicks; Prosecutor: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
27 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Referral / Final Judgment
Outcome
complaint upheld; professional misconduct found
Legal Topics
Duty to Court, Misleading the Court, Advocate's Conduct, Conflict of Duties
Professional Discipline Legal Ethics Duty to Court Misleading the Court Advocate's Conduct Conflict of Duties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lord Jones, Dame Heather Steel JA, Mr James McNeill QC, JA

Complainant

Advocate Philip Cowan Sinel

First Respondent

Advocate Steven Michael James Chiddicks

Second Respondent

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Referral / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondents mislead the Court of Appeal by omission or commission regarding the protective writ?
  2. 2 Was the misleading deliberate or reckless?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sanction for misleading the court?

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents deliberately misled the Court of Appeal by failing to disclose the existence and effect of the protective writ, which was material to the timing of the judgment. Their duty to the court was paramount and their omission constituted professional misconduct.

Court Disposition

complaint upheld; professional misconduct found

Orders

  • First respondent suspended from practice for 4 months
  • Second respondent suspended from practice for 2 months