Police station: Officers reported representative to the SRA
A police station representative who made offensive comments about a transgender detainee and about immigrants has been made subject to regulatory controls.
Martin Mannish can only work for a law firm in future with the permission of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
A notice published by the regulator yesterday said that Mr Mannish – who did not work for a specific law firm – operated as an accredited police station representative for 15 years and was investigated over reports from police officers who were concerned about his conduct between 2021 and 2023.
It followed a warning that the SRA had already issued to Mr Mannish in 2020 over offensive comments he had made in the presence of detainees and police officers.
The later investigation established that, on one occasion, he “described to a police officer a detainee that he had previously represented and who identified as transgender as a ‘he, she, him, her, it, thing’”.
Another time, he made “critical comments to a police officer about immigrants and referred to them as ‘boat people’”.
On a third occasion, Mr Mannish told a police officer during a meeting for interview preparation that he “does not do trans or Black Lives Matter”.
Finally, he “repeatedly swore in front of a detainee and a police officer about a situation involving another person he was representing at a different police station”.
Mr Mannish agreed that this all meant it was “undesirable for him to be involved in legal practice without the SRA’s prior permission”.
This was because, in his role, “he would need to demonstrate he was inclusive and could meet the needs of vulnerable people in police detention”.
Further, he was working in the name of solicitors “and in so doing, he was expected to act with high ethical standards and in a way that upholds the public’s trust and confidence in solicitors and legal services”. The comments he had made showed he disregarded these interests.
The fact that he had previously been warned about such conduct showed there was “a risk that he will continue to behave in this way if he is involved in legal practice without the SRA’s prior consent”.
