Dubai: Gray was partner in US firm’s office
A Bar disciplinary tribunal has ordered that a dual-qualified barrister, who misled the High Court as a solicitor, should be disbarred.
The tribunal said the High Court was “seriously misled” by Peter Matthew James Gray, with the result that its judgment in criminal proceedings was unsafe and the defendant “greatly affected” because his assets became subject to a freezing order.
Mr Gray was struck off in 2021 [1] by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for misleading the High Court. At the time of his misconduct, he was a partner in the Dubai office of US firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Mr Justice Linden rejected his appeal [2] in March 2022.
The Bar disciplinary tribunal said there had been “no unfairness in the approach of the SDT or any other form of procedural unfairness”, whether by the SDT or by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) in their prosecution of the charges.
“The evidence looked at in its entirety, forces us to draw the inference that the respondent acted in a sustained and dishonest manner as found by the SDT and as alleged by the BSB.
“We reject any suggestion that this was mere recklessness. The charges are all proved against the respondent and in respect of each of them we are sure that he acted dishonestly.”
The tribunal said it had anticipated that Mr Gray, an unregistered (non-practising) barrister, would be both present and represented by leading counsel and the hearing was set down for seven days.
However, last December, Mr Gray said he would not appear and had withdrawn his instructions from counsel.
He emphasised that he had “at no time acted dishonestly” and the “strain of the proceedings accentuated by the delay”, was “such that he cannot face the prospect of giving evidence and being cross-examined”. He argued that the SDT decision was inaccurate and should not be relied on.
Mr Gray led the team acting for the Republic of Djibouti and two bodies under its control in litigation against Abdourahman Mohamed Boreh, who had held a senior position at those bodies and was accused of misappropriating at least $77m.
In 2010, Mr Boreh was convicted in his absence in Djibouti of terrorism and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on the grounds that he had instigated a grenade attack on a supermarket in 2009.
Two intercepted telephone calls said to have taken place a day later were vital pieces of evidence.
However, in 2013 – as part of work being done to request Mr Boreh’s extradition from the UAE – a Gibson Dunn associate realised that the call transcripts were wrongly dated and logs showed they calls had actually taken place a day earlier, significantly undermining the conviction.
Despite being aware of this and having discussed it in meetings, Mr Gray did not mention the discrepancy in his affidavit for a freezing injunction and an associated propriety injunction against Mr Boreh, which Flaux J granted three weeks later.
The Bar tribunal said Mr Gray was “adamant that whatever mistakes he may have made, he at no time has acted dishonestly. He continues to assert with great emphasis that he never intended to mislead anyone”.
But it rejected his complaint that leading counsel in the case had been absolved on the same set of facts.
“We agree with the view expressed by Flaux J that whatever leading counsel may or may not have known, understood, said or approved this ‘did not absolve (the respondent) of his personal responsibility not to mislead the court or to allow it to be misled’.
“We mention in passing that the BSB have investigated counsel and dismissed any complaint.”
It also dismissed his argument that the strike-off was based on his role as instructing solicitor and was irrelevant when considering his position as a member of the Bar.
“In our view, the context of the alleged dishonesty (whether as solicitor, counsel or in some completely different context) does not really matter. The issue is whether there has been dishonesty.”
The SDT had been entitled to reject the arguments Mr Gray made “and gave sufficient explanations for their determination that he had acted dishonestly”.
It found all the allegations against him proved. These included that Mr Gray had acted dishonestly by swearing an affidavit which was misleading and that he allowed submissions to be made to the court by leading counsel which he knew were misleading.
He was also found to have acted dishonestly by sending misleading correspondence to the other side’s solicitors.
The Bar tribunal commented: “We are of course focusing (necessarily) on one piece of litigation that occurred a long time ago.
“There is no suggestion that the respondent has ever been involved in any previous wrong-doing and he deserves credit for that history of good conduct…
“There are many highly respected lawyers and others who have spoken of the respondent’s integrity. He is known as a conscientious hard worker and has an excellent reputation in all respects.”
However, for “this degree of sustained and deliberate dishonesty, the only possible sanction is disbarment”.
Mr Gray was also ordered to pay costs of £24,600.