Petition of Andrew Smith KC for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 53 (21 April 2026)

Executive summary

The petition challenged a Faculty of Advocates disciplinary outcome: Andrew Smith KC sought judicial review of the Disciplinary Tribunal’s 18 July 2025 decision, which had largely upheld Complaints Committee findings of professional misconduct and the severe written censure imposed on him. The opinion set out the background, the complaint history, and the issues for determination, including jurisdiction, alleged irrationality, Article 6 delay, and the competency of the remedies sought.

Key points

• Petitioner: Andrew Smith KC; respondent: Faculty of Advocates, reviewing a disciplinary process arising from complaints by Steven Elliott.
• The underlying complaints concerned alleged conflict of interest and alleged improper direct contact with a trustee in bankruptcy; the Complaints Committee upheld complaints 5 and 10 and imposed a severe written censure.
• The Disciplinary Tribunal upheld the appeal only on complaint 14 and otherwise left the merits and sanction unaltered.
• The court identified four live issues: the tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal, alleged irrationality in failing to allow the appeal, Article 6 delay, and whether certain remedies were competent.
• No sanctions/export-control issue is addressed in the source text; the relevance is disciplinary and procedural rather than trade-control based.

Why it matters

The case is relevant to sanctions/intelligence audiences mainly as a procedural signal: it shows how a professional-regulation body’s disciplinary decisions can be tested through judicial review, including on delay and appellate scope. It has no direct sanctions or export-control content, but it illustrates litigation risk around institutional decision-making and procedural fairness.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the decision shows that disciplinary findings and sanctions can be challenged on jurisdictional and Article 6 grounds, so record-keeping, evidential transparency, and clear articulation of appellate powers matter. Entities facing quasi-regulatory enforcement should expect the court to scrutinize whether the appeal body actually addressed the merits, exercised the right discretion, and imposed a competent remedy.