Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Hislop

The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (the applicant) sought to have the name of Michael Arthur Hislop (the respondent) removed from the roll of Australian lawyers following his conviction for aggravated robbery. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent was a fit and proper person to continue to be admitted to the legal profession, and consequently, whether his name should be removed from the roll. A related issue concerned whether it was necessary to make a formal declaration of unfitness, given the circumstances of the conviction. The Court also considered the question of costs, specifically whether facilitating the respondent's rehabilitation could be a sound basis for declining to make an order for the applicant's costs.

The Court determined that the respondent's conviction for aggravated robbery, a serious violent offence, demonstrated that he was not a fit and proper person to practise law. While acknowledging the importance of rehabilitation, the Court found that the gravity of the offence was such that removal from the roll was the only appropriate course of action. The Court held that a formal declaration of unfitness was not strictly necessary where the order for removal from the roll itself conveyed that unfitness. Regarding costs, the Court concluded that the respondent should bear the applicant's costs, as there was no compelling reason to depart from the usual order in disciplinary proceedings of this nature.

The Court ordered that the name Michael Arthur Hislop be removed from the roll of Australian lawyers and that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application.