It must be fairly common for those convicted of crimes to reckon that their solicitors were to blame for the unfortunate conviction. In those circumstances the idea of taking action in negligence against the solicitor might be attractive. The recent case of Day v Womble Dickinson should persuade them otherwise.
In this case the claimant alleged that his solicitors had been negligent and that they had breached their contract with him. He claimed that the negligence had led to his conviction of a crime or that it had led to the imposition of an inappropriately heavy sentence. The High Court was having none of this and the claim was struck out as an abuse of process. The judge was clear that the conviction and sentence was as a result of the claimant’s criminal conduct. He was equally clear that it would be against public policy to allow compensation for a sentence imposed as a result of the commission of a criminal act. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge. The action was an abuse of process as it constituted an attack on the court conviction and sentence.
So what’s a criminal to do if they feel that their solicitor is responsible for their conviction? The only recourse is via the appeal process. If an appeal against conviction is successful then an action in negligence might lie against the original solicitor.
We thought this case was interesting and could be useful to you in respect of a number of different coursework essays. Limits to professional negligence? Abuse of process? Ex turpi causa? It’s a versatile case!