DEAN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2016] WASCA 63
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASCA 63 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:147/2015 | 19 NOVEMBER 2015 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA | 18/04/16 | |
| 38 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal on all proposed grounds refused Appeals dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JAMES DEAN MARK JEFFREY SIMONSEN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Unqualified person engaging in legal practice Aiding an unqualified person to engage in legal practice Convictions, sentences and costs orders recorded in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia Application for leave to appeal against decisions of a single judge of the Supreme Court |
Legislation: | Australian Constitution, s 117 Banking Act 1959 (Cth), s 5, s 9 Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 18 Criminal Code, s 7 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 20, s 67, s 78 Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 3, s 79C, s 89, s 90, s 91, s 92 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 67 Legal Practitioners (Official Prosecutions) (Accused's Costs) Determination 2012 Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 11, s 12, s 534, s 592, s 593 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36 |
Case References: | Attorney General v Quill Wills (1990) 3 WAR 500 Barristers' Board v Palm Management Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 101 Dean v Legal Practice Board [2013] WASC 155 Dean v Legal Practice Board [2015] WASC 260 Legal Practice Board v Adams [2001] WASC 78 Legal Practice Board v Said [2002] WASC 35 Legal Practice Board v Taylor [2005] WASC 242 Lewkowski v Lilley [2000] WASCA 14 Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288 Smart v Albuquerque [2011] WASCA 231 West v Suzuka [1964] WAR 112 Wilson v Dobra (1955) 57 WALR 95 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : DEAN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2016] WASCA 63 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
- MARK JEFFREY SIMONSEN
Appellants
AND
LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MARTINO J
Citation : DEAN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2015] WASC 260
File No : SJA 1026 of 2014
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Unqualified person engaging in legal practice - Aiding an unqualified person to engage in legal practice - Convictions, sentences and costs orders recorded in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia - Application for leave to appeal against decisions of a single judge of the Supreme Court
Legislation:
Australian Constitution, s 117
Banking Act 1959 (Cth), s 5, s 9
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 18
Criminal Code, s 7
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 20, s 67, s 78
Evidence Act 1906
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dean v Legal Practice Board and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2016] WASCA 63
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the Supreme Court involved an appeal by Dean against the Legal Practice Board, which was dismissed by a single judge. Dean sought leave to appeal against the decision, which had resulted in a conviction, sentence and costs order in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The Legal Practice Board had charged Dean with engaging in the practice of law without being qualified to do so, and with aiding another unqualified person to engage in legal practice. The Board also sought to have Dean's name removed from the roll of legal practitioners. Dean argued that the charges against him were not proven and that the penalties imposed were excessive.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Dean had engaged in the practice of law without being qualified, whether he had aided another unqualified person to do so, and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate. The court was required to consider the evidence presented in the Magistrates Court, as well as the arguments put forward by both parties. The court also had to determine whether the single judge had erred in his interpretation of the law or in his application of the facts to the law.
In considering the appeal, the court found that the evidence in the Magistrates Court was sufficient to support the findings of fact and that the single judge had not erred in his interpretation of the law. The court held that Dean had engaged in the practice of law without being qualified and had aided another unqualified person to do so. The court also found that the penalties imposed were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no basis for allowing it. The court also refused leave to appeal, finding that none of the proposed grounds for appeal had merit.
The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal on all proposed grounds was refused and that the appeals were dismissed. The penalties imposed in the Magistrates Court remained in place, and Dean's name was removed from the roll of legal practitioners.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Dean had engaged in the practice of law without being qualified, whether he had aided another unqualified person to do so, and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate. The court was required to consider the evidence presented in the Magistrates Court, as well as the arguments put forward by both parties. The court also had to determine whether the single judge had erred in his interpretation of the law or in his application of the facts to the law.
In considering the appeal, the court found that the evidence in the Magistrates Court was sufficient to support the findings of fact and that the single judge had not erred in his interpretation of the law. The court held that Dean had engaged in the practice of law without being qualified and had aided another unqualified person to do so. The court also found that the penalties imposed were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no basis for allowing it. The court also refused leave to appeal, finding that none of the proposed grounds for appeal had merit.
The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal on all proposed grounds was refused and that the appeals were dismissed. The penalties imposed in the Magistrates Court remained in place, and Dean's name was removed from the roll of legal practitioners.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal on all proposed grounds refused
Appeals dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.