One of the most interesting cases from the SDT last year was the case of SRA v Naomi Hazle Frieda Duxbury-Tetley, case number 11622/2017 heard in July 2017.
The Respondent had created a back-dated letter which contained untruths in the course of a personal injury claim, and had allowed her employer to rely on this letter and for it to be sent to her opponent with the intention to mislead.
The allegations were that the Respondent breached Principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2011.
The SDT ordered a reprimand and imposed conditions on the Respondent's practising certificate.
The sanction would have been different had it not been for the medical evidence obtained, which concluded that the Respondent had been suffering from a medical condition and was in a blind panic at the material time. She did not have the understanding that her acts were grave nor the insight that they would mislead.
This moment of madness could have resulted in a more severe sanction but the medical evidence made the case unique and wholly exceptional.