Comparison with the outcome in a single earlier disciplinary case is of no value in reviewing a Tribunal's protective order, as a single case establishes no range or pattern and cannot be assumed to be 'correct'. Lack of dishonesty does not necessarily point to a less stringent order; the more pertinent consideration is the practitioner's attitude to the wrongdoing and the risk of repetition. The passage of time without renewed misconduct does not, without more, establish reformation of character.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 145 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 145 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.