To the Lawyers Complaints Service,

To the Lawyers Complaints Service,

Re: Simon Peter Stott – Notification of Professional Concern Regarding Disclosure and File Handover

I write to place on record a matter of professional concern arising from the conduct of the above criminal proceeding.

This correspondence is not presently intended as a formal complaint under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. Rather, it is provided so that the matters outlined below are formally recorded pending the completion of the underlying court proceedings and any further review of the relevant court file.

The concern relates to the apparent absence of any documented and verifiable handover of the litigation file following the cessation of Mr Jono Ross’ retainer, together with the absence of any objective record demonstrating that Mr Simon Stott received complete disclosure of the prosecution case.

To date, no documentation has been identified establishing:

the full prosecution disclosure received by former counsel;

the dates upon which disclosure was received;

the material provided to Mr Stott;

any disclosure that remained outstanding;

any schedule or index identifying the disclosure held;

any documented handover of the litigation file;

any record identifying unresolved applications, outstanding disclosure requests, or pending procedural issues; or

any comprehensive advice recording the procedural status of the proceeding at the time the retainer concluded.

As work has continued on the defence, further material has come to light indicating that significant procedural matters, court decisions, and aspects of the prosecution case were not known to Mr Stott or to those subsequently assisting him. Whether this resulted from incomplete disclosure, an incomplete handover, or some other cause remains unclear. That uncertainty itself is a matter of concern.

The practical consequence has been substantial prejudice to the efficient preparation of the defence. Considerable time has been required to reconstruct the procedural history, obtain court material, identify missing documents, revisit earlier issues, and prepare further memoranda addressing matters that may have been resolved at a significantly earlier stage had a complete and documented transfer of the file occurred.

This correspondence is not intended to invite the Lawyers Complaints Service to make findings of professional misconduct at this stage. Nor is it asserted that any omission was deliberate. Rather, the concern is that there appears to be no objective process by which a client, replacement counsel, or the Court can readily determine:

what disclosure was held;

what disclosure had been provided to the client;

what remained outstanding;

what applications remained unresolved;

what advice had been given; and

whether the client’s interests had been adequately protected during the transition between legal representatives.

In the writer’s respectful submission, this matter raises an issue extending beyond the present proceeding.

The administration of justice is assisted when criminal files are capable of being transferred in a manner that is transparent, complete, and independently verifiable. A structured file handover identifying disclosure received, disclosure outstanding, pending applications, significant procedural events, and documents transferred would materially reduce the risk of prejudice to defendants and unnecessary duplication of work by replacement counsel.

The absence of such a process has, in the present matter, contributed to uncertainty regarding the procedural history of the prosecution and has required substantial additional work to establish the status of matters that ought ordinarily to have been capable of immediate verification.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that this correspondence be retained as a formal notification of concern on the records of the Lawyers Complaints Service.

Following completion of the criminal proceedings, and following further review of the court record and disclosure history, it may be appropriate to provide additional information or to determine whether a formal complaint should be pursued.

In the meantime, I would appreciate written acknowledgement that this correspondence has been received and placed on the appropriate record.

Yours faithfully,

Tracy Lynch

For and on behalf of Simon Peter Stott