Solicitor cleared over advice to wrongly convicted client

Underground: Assault alleged

A solicitor has been cleared by a disciplinary tribunal over an accusation that a failure to do his job properly led to a client being wrongly convicted of assault.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said the evidence did not show that Rhys Mardon had advised his client to plead guilty.

It also criticised the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for failing to obtain a full copy of the file from EBR Attridge in north London. This was “most unsatisfactory”, it said.

Mr Mardon, who was admitted in 2006, was an assistant at EBR Attridge in 2010 when he represented Simon Williamson in 2010.

Mr Williamson was charged with assaulting another man on the London Underground and, on advice from the solicitor, pleaded guilty. He sentenced to a 12-week curfew and £500 fine.

Neither he nor Mr Mardon had viewed CCTV footage, even though Mr Williamson repeatedly asked Mr Mardon if he had done so in the four months between arrest and conviction – he could not recall what had happened on the night in question.

Mr Williamson later did and believed the CCTV showed he did not commit the assault. He failed to have his case re-opened and a judicial review was rejected as well, but eventually the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred it back to the court, advising that there was a “real possibility” it would not uphold the conviction.

In November 2015, Southwark Crown Court conceded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction and allowed Mr Williamson’s appeal against conviction and sentence.

He then complained to the SRA over Mr Mardon’s failure to review the CCTV footage, saying he would have pleaded not guilty had he known what it showed.

He said that, though he was given a choice, Mr Mardon had “highly recommended” pleading guilty.

Mr Mardon told the tribunal that he had obtained a disc from the prosecution that he could not play on any device, which he said Mr Williamson knew. He asked for another disc in a different format but did not receive it before the trial.

Mr Mardon insisted that he gave the client the right advice – noting that the High Court judge who viewed the CCTV footage in 2012 found it ambiguous – and that he had outlined all the options to Mr Williamson. It was a matter for the client to choose which option to pursue.

The SDT found both men to be credible witnesses, noting that the evidence showed Mr Williamson keen to conclude the proceedings without waiting for the CCTV footage.

Given the absence of the full file, “the tribunal could not say with any given certainty that Mr Williamson’s evidence could be preferred over the evidence given by [Mr Mardon].

“From the evidence that was available to the tribunal, it could not conclude that [Mr Mardon] had at any time advised Mr Williamson to plead guilty.

“In fact, it appeared quite to the contrary, and that [Mr Mardon] had given full and comprehensive advice to Mr Williamson about his situation and Mr Williamson had made his own decisions on how to plead.”

As a result, the tribunal found the allegations not proved.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.


16 October 2019

The new SRA accounts rules – a checklist for compliant software

There are a number of changes to the accounts rules from 25 November, which law firm managers and compliance officers will need to take into account in order for their firms not to be in breach.

Read More

Loading animation