Solicitor sentenced to three years for Attempting to Pervert the Court of...

Solicitor sentenced to three years for Attempting to Pervert the Court of Justice

2
SHARE

Defence solicitor Basharat Ditta was imprisoned for three years on Friday 1st November, having been found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Disgraced: Basharat Ditta, 42, was jailed for three years at Liverpool Crown Court after tipping off a drug dealer about a major police investigation

Ditta was found to have passed on sensitive police intelligence to his client Neil Scarborough, who was facing a conspiracy charge relating to drug smuggling.  Ditta passed on sensitive information about Scarborough’s co-conspirators in an attempt to divert attention away from Scarborough.  Hair analysis showed Ditta to be a user of cocaine and Scarborough was said to be his supplier.  Supt Lee Halstead said the 44-year-old’s cocaine addiction had left him “hopelessly compromised”.

Scarborough later pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to supply heroin, cocaine and cannabis, and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison.  Thirty-five other men were also jailed.

Prosecutor Anne Whyte QC said:

“[Ditta] thwarted the police’s investigation as much as possible to enable them to continue in their criminal activities.  Mr Ditta was not honouring his profession, but dishonouring it.”

Ditta denied any wrong-doing was convicted of the charge after trial.

In sentencing Ditta, HHJ Holroyde sitting at Liverpool Crown Court stated:

“The role of the criminal solicitor is a demanding one. Those who carry out such work understandably wish to maintain a good relationship with their clients, many of whom can be demanding and at times unreasonable.

“In a highly competitive field with increasing financial pressure solicitors in this field of practice understandably wish, if they properly can, to avoid conducting cases in a way which might cause their clients to take their business elsewhere.”

2 COMMENTS

  1. “Ditta was found to have passed on sensitive police intelligence to his client Neil Scarborough, who was facing a conspiracy charge relating to drug smuggling. Ditta passed on sensitive information about Scarborough’s co-conspirators in an attempt to divert attention away from Scarborough.”

    Why did the police give “sensitive police intelligence” potentially useful to a suspect, to that suspect’s lawyer in the first place? What did the police expect the lawyer would do with that intelligence, given that he was under a duty to act in his client’s best interests? How come the communication between client and lawyer wasn’t privileged?

    If I was being prosecuted, and my lawyer was given some information helpful to my defence, by police, but asked not to tell me about it, thus hindering myself, and complied with the request, I’d want to make a complaint against that lawyer, saying he was in cahoots with the police, and had stitched me up, by withholding information that helped my defence. I would consider betraying me, his client, to be a perversion of the court of justice, not disappointing the police.

    A man on trial for a crime is entitled to ALL the evidence that the other side has (the police) that helps his defence, whether it is “sensitive” or not. Defence lawyers who resolve conflicts of interest between the police and themselves, by advancing their clients’ interests, aren’t perverting the course of justice. It’s lawyers who are working for both sides, and keeping secrets from their clients, who are perverting the course of justice.

    Is this wrong?

  2. I think they set her up becouse she is a girl and she said yes for that i would not accept that chrage thats it becouse it is against that law she actually cooporated in the crime to put herself in jail it is called sad
    omasochism mental issue , nothing more, becouse sharing conspiracy theory is legal but gathering evidence against police is not becouse they are conspiring she supposed to go to united nations or army nothing more , i called usa becouse they are breaking british law they cannot read with understanding and doing opposite to what they supposed to do .

LEAVE A REPLY