Past disciplinary findings

Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister, failed to observe his duty to the court in the administration of justice (CD1) by knowingly and dishonestly misleading or attempting
to mislead the court (rC3.1), and/or making submissions, representations and/or statements which he knew to be untrue or misleading (rC6.1), and/or calling a witness
to give evidence or put affidavits or witness statements to the court which he knew, or was instructed, were untrue or misleading (rC6.2), in that, between 6 June 2017 and 6 June 2018, during the course of immigration proceedings relating to Person A and/or Person B and associated judicial review proceedings, Mr. Sufian:

a) Assisted with and/or relied upon a Zambrano application dated 16 November 2017 which stated that Person A was the primary carer of Child A, and/or Child A was dependent on Person A for care. Child A is Mr Sufian’s son. Mr Sufian knew that Person A was not the primary carer of Child A, and/ or that Child A was not dependent on Person A for care.

b) In grounds filed in support of applications for bail for Person A and Person B on or about 30 November 2017, stated: “The Applicant [Person A] made an application to the Home Office for leave to remain as a Primary Carer of a British child [Child A] under the case law of Rui Zambrano which is received by the Home Office. The Applicant has parental responsibility of the British Child alongside with the parents. The Applicant is mentally and emotionally closely attached with the British child. The child is dependent on him and does not eat without his assistance.” Child A is Mr Sufian’s son. Mr Sufian knew that Person A was not the primary carer of Child A, and/or knew that the relationship between Person A and or Child A was not one where Child A was dependent on Person A and/or did not eat without his assistance.

c) On 7 December 2017, filed a judicial review claim on behalf of person A and Person B and, in the accompanying Statement of Facts and Grounds, stated:
“…due to the Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights elements of C1’s claim (Rui Zambrano case law), C2’s asylum claim is not suitable for the DAC process…

d) In support of Person A and Person B’s judicial review claim, filed letters dated 23 and 28 November 2017 in which he stated: “The Applicant [Person A] made an application to the Home Office for leave to remain as a Primary Carer of a British child [Child A] under the case law of Rui Zambrano which is received by the Home Office. The Applicant has parental responsibility of the British Child alongside with the parents. The Applicant is
mentally and emotionally closely attached with the British child. The child is dependent on him and does not eat without his assistance.” Child A is Mr Sufian’s son. Mr Sufian knew that Person A was not the primary
carer of Child A, and/or knew that the relationship between Person A and or Child A was not one where Child A was dependent on Person A and/or did not
eat without his assistance.

e) On 1 February 2018, represented Person B at her asylum appeal before the First-Tier Tribunal. Mr Sufian informed the Tribunal that he had had nothing to
do with the Zambrano application and that his wife must have supplied Person A with a copy of Child A’s passport (which was included in support of the
Zambrano application), knowing that those statements were untrue and/or Misleading.

f) In Person A’s asylum appeal heard on 7 June 2017, Mr Sufian advanced a case that Person A was an atheist. Person A gave evidence to the effect that his
wife, Person B was Muslim and was trying to persuade him to retain his faith. In Person B’s asylum appeal heard on 1 February 2018, Mr Sufian advanced a
case that Person B was an atheist. Mr Sufian knew that at least one of these accounts was untrue or misleading.

In relation to one or more of the facts a) to f) set out in charge 1 above Mr. Md Abu Sufian failed to act with honesty (CD3), and/or acted in a way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his honesty (rC8), by knowingly misleading or attempting to mislead the court (rC9.1), and/or encouraging a witness to give evidence which was misleading or untruthful (rC9.3).

In relation to one or more of the facts a) to f) facts set out in charge 1 above, Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister, behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence the public placed in him or in the profession by knowingly and dishonestly misleading or attempting to mislead the court.

Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister, failed to observe his duty to the court in the administration of justice (CD1), and/or failed to ensure that his ability to act with independence was not compromised (rC3.5) in that, between 6 June 2017 and 6 June 2018, he represented Person A and Person B in immigration proceedings and associated judicial review proceedings in which Mr Sufian had a personal interest in the outcome namely, Person A and Person B being allowed to remain in the country,
and as such was not able to act with independence.

Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister, failed to maintain his independence in that, between 6 June 2017 and 6 June 2018, he represented Person A and Person B in immigration proceedings and associated judicial review proceedings in which Mr Sufian had a personal interest in the outcome namely, Person A and Person B being allowed to remain in the country, and as such was not able to act with independence.

Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister, failed to act with integrity and/or behaved in a way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity in that, between 6 June 2017 and 6 June 2018, he represented Person A and Person B in immigration proceedings and associated judicial review proceedings in which Mr Sufian had a personal interest in the outcome namely, Person A and Person B being allowed to remain in the country, and as such was not able to act with independence.

Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister, failed to observe his duty to the court in the administration of justice (CD1) and/or failed to take reasonable steps to avoid wasting the court’s time (rC3.3) in that, between 6 June 2017 and 6 June 2018, in the context of immigration proceedings and associated judicial review proceedings relating to Person A and/or Person B Mr Sufian,

a) Assisted with and/or relied upon a Zambrano application which he knew or ought to have known was not reasonably arguable,

In relation to the facts set out in a) in charge 10 above, Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister, failed to act with integrity.

In relation to the facts set out in a) in charge 10 above, Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister, drafted documents containing a contention/s which he did not consider to be properly arguable.

In relation to the facts set out in a) set out in charge 10 above, Mr. Md Abu Sufian, a barrister behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence the public placed in him or in the profession.