The SRA has made questionable use of its time and rebuked a 65-year-old solicitor for breaking confidentiality rules in 1978 to catch a murderer.

As a 22-year-old criminal lawyer, Steve Chittenden represented 16-year-old Roy Brookes during his trial for the brutal slaying of Lynn Siddons, who was stabbed to death by a canal in Barrow-on-Trent in 1978. Over the course of several conversations with his client during the trial, Chittenden realised that the teenager's step-father, Michael Brookes, was the real killer. 

Chittenden was bound by client confidentiality not to reveal the information provided by Roy Brookes, who was acquitted. But after the case he handed over his records to Siddons' family without Roy Brookes' knowledge or consent. They revealed that Michael Brookes had bullied Roy Brookes and forced him into taking part in the killing, which the elder man carried out. Chittenden said, "Among the information I handed over was evidence the boy told me and a psychiatrist of how he was scared of his stepfather, who would cut out pictures of women from the magazines and stab them with a knife".

The evidence led to the conviction of Michael Brookes 18 years after the killing, but also to civil proceedings against Roy Brookes. However Chittenden's role was kept secret until he decided to unburden himself by confessing to his local paper when he retired in January 2016. Chittenden told the Derby Telegraph, "It has taken more than 30 years but I feel I have finally got it off my chest. It feels cathartic". He said, "A complaint to the Law Society could have been made by any interested party if they had known what had happened".

  (L-R) Michael Brookes, Chittenden, the SRA. 

One reader decided that is exactly what needed to happen and referred Chittenden to the SRA. Chittenden admitted he had committed "extremely serious breaches" of his duty of confidentiality to his client, which, said the SRA, "constituted conduct that is completely unacceptable on the part of a solicitor". It said that if he was still practising he would probably be struck off. In mitigation Chittenden was able to offer something considerably stronger than the usual excuses about being 'under a lot of pressure', and submitted instead that he was motivated "not for personal gain but in the greater interests of justice" and had caught a murderer. However, he accepted a public rebuke and that he must never practise as a solicitor again. 

Speaking afterwards to the Derby Telegraph, Chittenden said the SRA was "absolutely right". He said, "I am sure there will be people who will read this and say to themselves 'the law is the law and he needs to be punished for breaching that confidentiality'. I agree with them, I do". But, he said, "I had the knowledge and the chance to stop it happening to some other poor girl. What I did was not professional and could have lost me my career, but I'm proud of doing what I did".
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 14 July 17 10:42

I take my hat off to him. He's a decent person who only made one mistake that I can see - and that was in January 2016.

Anonymous 14 July 17 10:55

Genuine question - doesn't the duty to protect the public override his duty of confidence? In the medical profession, R v Egdell is precedent for disclosures of confidential patient information in situations in which the patient is a danger to the public.

Anonymous 15 July 17 22:59

Sounds to me like the SRA verdict was right.

At the same time, I respect this man. I hope that, if I were in his position, I would have the courage to do what he did. Though I accept I'd have to be struck off for it.

Anonymous 16 July 17 14:57

Chittenden risked his career in order to save lives: undoubtedly his actions prevented another murder.

Anonymous 18 July 17 16:04

Q1: SRA time well spent? Public interest in prosecuting a retired person who is no longer practising? How much did this all cost?
Q2: Who read the article and thought "I better complain to the SRA". I'm guessing another local solicitor who didn't like Mr Chittenden while he was practising?

Roll On Friday 19 July 17 15:08

What Anon @ 09:55 said. As an officer of the court, his first duty is to the Court and the furtherance the interests of justice. Acting in the public interest to prevent the commission of a serious crime (which it seems he did) must surely override his duty of confidentiality to a client.

Anonymous 20 July 17 08:10

@ anon 16:15 "A lawyer doing the right thing? Wonders will never cease! Well done that man!"

Indeed. And of course, for that, he must be punished.