Attorney-General v Kehoe

[2000] QCA 222

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

A-G v Kehoe [2000] QCA 222

PARTIES:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL & MINISTER FOR JUSTICE
(appellant)
v
MYLES ANTHONY KEHOE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7011 of 1999
Solicitors’ Complaints Tribunal Charge No 14

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Solicitors’ Complaints Tribunal

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 April 2000

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Thomas JA, Ambrose J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – MISCONDUCT, UNFITNESS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY ORDERS – IN GENERAL

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – MISCONDUCT, UNFITNESS AND DISCIPLINE – GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY ORDERS – OTHER ACTS AND OMISSIONS

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – MISCONDUCT, UNFITNESS AND DISCIPLINE – OTHER MATTERS – solicitor guilty of unprofessional conduct where failed to adequately supervise secretary in acting for lenders under  mortgage scheme – no dishonesty on part of practitioner shown – fine of $7,500 and order for costs imposed by Solicitors' Complaints Tribunal – appeal by Attorney-General – whether penalty manifestly inadequate – failure by Tribunal to give reasons – nature of duty to give reasons – disciplinary system under Queensland Law Society Act discussed – whether suspension required

Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld) s 3B(1), s 6L, s 6 V(1), s 6Z

Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [1990] 1 Qd R 498, considered
Commonwealth v Pharmacy Guild of Australia (1989) 91 ALR 65, considered

COUNSEL:

P Keane QC with G Cooper for the appellant
JA Griffin QC with GM Egan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the appellant
McCullough Robertson for the respondent

1. de JERSEY CJ:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Thomas JA.  I agree that the appeal should be dismissed, with costs to be assessed, for the reasons expressed by His Honour.  I wish to add only this.

1. The analysis provided by Thomas JA establishes that there was sufficient, good reason for the approach taken by the Solicitors Complaints Tribunal.  Had the Tribunal expressed a condensed form of that justification, as the reasons for its decision, this appeal would most likely have been avoided.

1. With a tribunal like this, the purpose of expressing, preferably publishing, sufficient reasons for such a decision, is not confined in the usual way to satisfying the parties that the issues have been addressed and properly informing a court to which an appeal may subsequently be brought.  It is, in addition and importantly, to satisfy the public that the Tribunal is properly discharging its role.

1. This Tribunal generally conducts its proceedings in public.  Because of the public significance of its determinations, which relate to those to be held out as fit to practise as solicitors, it is important that interested members of the public have the opportunity to come to know of the Tribunal’s justification for any decision it may make,…