Tribunal found allegations over deleted case records and handling of asylum refusal letter were not proved
An immigration solicitor accused of attempting to mislead colleagues over the handling of an asylum case has been cleared by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after a three-day hearing.
The case involved Riffat Hussain, who worked at the University of Liverpool Law Clinic when the events in question took place. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) alleged that Hussain sought to mislead her employer about when she became aware of a Home Office refusal letter and what action she took after receiving it.
According to tribunal findings, the Home Office rejected the client’s asylum application in a decision letter dated 15 June 2023. Later that month, Hussain created two entries on the clinic’s case management system. One referred to ensuring the refusal letter was sent to the client, while the second was a blank template letter.
Hussain told the tribunal that the entries were preparatory steps intended to arrange a future appointment with the client rather than evidence that the refusal decision had already been sent. She later deleted the tasks after unsuccessfully attempting to contact the client in September 2023.
The SRA alleged that during a conversation with colleague Judith Carter on 19 September 2023, Hussain gave the impression that she did not know the Home Office refusal letter had been received in June. Carter’s evidence was that Hussain denied prior knowledge of the decision, potentially suggesting administrative failings within the law clinic. Hussain disputed that account.
By that stage, the deadline for appealing the asylum refusal had passed, raising the possibility of a negligence claim against the clinic. The matter was escalated internally and the University of Liverpool opened a formal investigation. Hussain resigned before a disciplinary meeting took place.
After hearing oral evidence, the SDT concluded that the allegations had not been proved to the required standard. The tribunal said it was not satisfied that Hussain deleted the case management entries in an attempt to mislead her employer. It noted that if concealment had been her intention, she could have taken more direct steps, including deleting the Home Office decision itself from the system, which she did not do.
The tribunal also identified inconsistencies and limitations in witness recollections surrounding the discussions that took place at the time. While describing Carter as a straightforward witness attempting to assist the tribunal, it said the evidence did not conclusively establish that Hussain used the exact words alleged by the regulator.
The SDT dismissed all allegations against Hussain and made no order for costs. Separate interim practising conditions imposed by the SRA in May 2025 remain recorded on the regulator’s website.