In the matter of an application by Bryce Patrick Luck - [2022] NTSC 47

CITATION:In the matter of an application by Bryce Patrick Luck [2022] NTSC 47
PARTIES:IN THE MATTER OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2006

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

LUCK, Bryce Patrick

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:2021-01406-SC
DELIVERED:  29 June 2022
HEARING DATE:  1 April 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  BARR J
CATCHWORDS:

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) – Application for admission to practise – Admission Board referred the question of the applicant’s fitness to the Court for decision – Suitability matters – Past understatement of income to Centrelink – Application for Youth Allowance – Misleading information in application for rental assistance – Applicant’s disclosures of adverse suitability matters appropriate and timely – Applicant a fit and proper person.
Legal Profession Act 2006, s (11)(1)(a), s 25(1), s 25(2), s 25(2)(b), s 29, s 30(1), s 32(3).
In the matter of an application by Thomas John Saunders [2011] NTSC 63, Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales v Meagher (1909) 9 CLR 655, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:D McConnel SC, D Alderman
Law Society:  F Kepert
Solicitors:
Applicant:William Forster Chambers
Law Society:  Law Society Northern Territory
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Bar2205
Number of pages:  12

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
In the matter of an application by Bryce Patrick Luck [2022] NTSC 47

(2021-01406-SC)
IN THE MATTER OF

THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2006

AND:

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

BRYCE PATRICK LUCK

CORAM: BARR J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 29 June 2022)

The applicant has applied to the Supreme Court for admission to the legal profession.[1] His application was considered by the Admission Board which referred the question of the applicant’s fitness to this Court for decision.[2] The Court has the same powers as the Board and the decision of the Court is taken to be a decision of the Board for the purposes of the Legal Profession Act.[3]
The Admission Board was satisfied that the applicant met the eligibility requirements for admission,[4] which are essentially educational requirements. There is no issue in this proceeding as to the applicant’s eligibility.
The Admission Board’s concern was in relation to the applicant’s ‘suitability’, specifically whether the applicant is “currently of good fame and character”.[5] The Board was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that he was a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession. On this referral, the Court must be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession.[6] In deciding that question, the Court must consider each of the ‘suitability matters’ in relation to the applicant, to the extent that they are relevant, and any other matter which the Court considers relevant.[7] As Riley CJ explained in Saunders,[8] the Court’s role is to ensure, as far as possible, the protection of the public from persons who are not suitable for admission.
The Law Society did not oppose the application for admission, but made detailed representations pursuant to s 25(2) Legal Profession Act. The applicant did not give oral evidence in chief to supplement his affidavit evidence, and was not required for cross examination.
Applicant’s background and personal circumstances
The applicant was born in April 1990, and so is now 32 years old. He was born and raised in Darwin, the youngest of 10 children. He represented the Northern Territory in hockey and was awarded a Northern Territory Institute of Sports scholarship. His hockey career came to an end after he injured his back in a motor vehicle accident. He could no longer continue to do physical work and as a result decided to study law. He commenced his studies at Charles Darwin University in mid-2012. He worked part-time as a storeman in a retail business, the NT Oriental Emporium, before starting as a rounds clerk at Clayton Utz. He later took on the role of junior secretary to the managing partner. He then took up employment with the Solicitor for the Northern Territory in July 2017. In February 2018, he commenced in the position of executive assistant to the Solicitor-General. After completing his law studies in November 2020, he worked as a graduate clerk with the Solicitor for the Northern Territory. He married in 2016 and he and his wife have two children.
Two senior lawyers working in the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, Ben Wild and Stewart Richard Bryson, have certified in writing that the applicant is of good fame and character and a fit and proper person to be admitted as a lawyer to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Both state that they are aware that the applicant has declared “the existence of a Centrelink debt that has since been repaid in full”. A National Police Certificate confirms that there are no disclosable court outcomes or outstanding matters recorded in respect of the applicant within the records of police jurisdictions in Australia.
Application for admission and supporting affidavits
The applicant’s formal application for admission to the legal profession was made by originating motion filed 16 June 2021.
In his first affidavit,[9] the applicant disclosed that he had had a debt with Centrelink for overpayment of Youth Allowance in the sum of $596.50. That overpayment was in respect of a period between 3 March 2014 and 6 June 2014. The first notice from Centrelink informed the applicant that the correct amount of his earnings had not been taken into account, resulting in an overpayment.[10] The applicant had understated income. The understatement had been detected by a comparison of the records of the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink carried out by the Department. The applicant made arrangements to repay the debt by instalments of $80 per fortnight.[11]
The applicant’s explanation for the circumstances which led to the overpayment were deposed to by him as follows:[12]
29. I remember, at the time that I was receiving payments from Centrelink, the declaration of income was done through the ‘Centrelink App’, however, while I do not recall exactly why I declared a lesser amount to that which I was paid, I do know that this was one of the periods when I was struggling financially. Over the period that I was receiving money from Centrelink, I was living alone, working part-time and studying full-time.
30. I was living at my parent’s house in Stuart Park, and while I was not paying rent there, I was doing the work for my father’s business while he was interstate with medical issues. While not formalised with my parents, I understood this to be as a form of rent paying. His business had one contract for grounds maintenance at the Casuarina Senior College. The mowing was every two weeks and would take between 14 hours and 26 hours depending on the season. On top of the hours worked, I would also pay for the fuel, oil and grease of the mower.
31. I believe that the combination of study, with the financial struggles of needing to work to live as well as to maintain my father’s business were what contributed to my decision to not declare the correct amount of income.
32. My PAYG statement, which details my income received from Centrelink over the relevant period shows the taxable income received was $3,152 … Upon reflection, I do not believe that the low income from my part-time job along with the low amount of assistance from Centrelink was sufficient to pay for my living needs as well as the maintenance of the business and although not a reasonable excuse for receiving undeserved money, I believe that this is the reason for acting as I did.
It can be seen from the content of the paragraphs extracted above that the applicant appears to have accepted that he made a decision not to declare the full amount of his income to Centrelink, which he explained by reference to his financial difficulties at the relevant time.
After considering his first affidavit, the Admission Board directed the applicant to obtain relevant documents from Centrelink for the period 3 March to 20 June 2014, the period during which his income had been under reported. The applicant subsequently obtained documents from Centrelink and made a second affidavit on 11 August 2021, to which he annexed the documents received in response to his FOI request, and provided further evidence in relation to the overpayment.
In his second affidavit, the applicant accepted that it appeared from the Centrelink documents that he had made two false statements in his application for Youth Allowance on 3 March 2014.[13] The first false statement was as to the amount of his earnings, and the second false statement was that he had been paying rent for the period.
With respect to the declaration of wages, the applicant’s answer was recorded as “$570.49 per fortnight”. He does not recall why he provided that amount for his fortnightly earnings, and deposed, “I suggest the sum I used was reckless use of [a] previous pay slip”.[14]
From the table set out in par 44 of the second affidavit, it would appear that the applicant admits that he understated income on six occasions, in amounts ranging from $16.48 to $120.26, a total of $408.99. The applicant stated that he did not know why the net income amounts set out in the Centrelink documents were recorded differently to the sums on the payslips received by him and the amounts received into his bank account.[15]
In relation to the suggestion of dishonesty, the applicant deposed as follows:
56. I submit the differences between the sum I declared and the sum I received as wages on three occasions were so small that it indicates I was not at the time attempting to gain increased payments of the allowance but that I was rather reckless as to the amounts I declared.
…
58. I obviously did the wrong thing.
The applicant thus provided an arguably different explanation to that given by him in his first affidavit, referred to in [10] above. He deposed that, when he swore his first affidavit, he did not know the true reason for understating his income in May 2014 and that he failed to give the matter proper consideration. He continued, “I also made the mistake of suggesting that I had acted dishonestly which, while it was hard for me to make that suggestion, that reason appeared to be the only conclusion”. He went on to state, “It is apparent to me that I was not dishonest but rather reckless with respect to my reporting obligations … I incorrectly assumed I must have been dishonest when seeking the allowance”.[16]
The second false statement made by the applicant in his Centrelink application submitted on 3 March 2014 was that he was paying $100 per week rent “to a private landlord or real estate [agent]”, which obligation had commenced on 1 January 2014.[17] The applicant provided the following explanation for that false statement:
I note that in the application, on page 96 FOI bundle, I stated that I paid rent of $100. I recall that at about this time I paid my parents rent of $100 per week but was not paying rent at the time of the application as I was looking after my father’s business in lieu of paying the rent. Hence my statement in the prior affidavit in which I stated I was not paying rent.[18]
At the time of making his second affidavit, the applicant appeared to have achieved insight in relation to making false statements:[19]
67. … shame and embarrassment are part of what I have felt during this process.
68. I now understand the importance of giving attention to detail in relation to such matters as the amounts recorded as my declarations as well as giving a higher level of respect to my obligations to report matters accurately as a lawyer.
69. The admissions process has shown me that being dishonest or reckless are two of the worst things a lawyer can do. It has taught me that being honest as well as being meticulous when presenting facts are two of the most important things required of a lawyer. I cannot make statements based on possibilities rather than facts. It has shown me I have to give a high level of importance to my moral obligations as a lawyer and I will attempt to do so.
The applicant subsequent made a third affidavit in response to further matters raised by the Admission Board.[20] The issues he sought to explain in that affidavit were (1) his change of position, from an apparent admission that he intentionally understated income to Centrelink (his first affidavit) to that he had been reckless in his declaration (his second affidavit); and (2) ‘confusing’ statements in relation to his rental agreement or arrangement with his parents. As to the former, he explained that it was not his intention to change position to minimise his wrongdoing. He said that he fully accepted that his conduct in 2014 may have been dishonest and conceded that the court is entitled to take into account that possibility and make its assessment of his current fitness on the basis that his early conduct was dishonest.[21]
In relation to rental assistance, the applicant said that, in about 2012, he had a conversation with his father and reached an agreement that he would pay $100 per week for rent. However, rather than regularly paying $100 per week, he would pay the rent by paying bills or in cash. The reference to “in cash” does not make sense, in that payment by cash is not an alternative to paying $100 per week. The applicant also alleged (par 59) that on 6 January 2014, he paid $300 to Power and Water. On 23 May 2014, he paid $768 to Bunnings. It is unclear what that money was paid for. He said that he paid $400 for Power and Water on 16 October 2014, but that was outside the period during which he received rental assistance. The applicant concedes that his bank records show that during the period 3 March to 6 June 2014 he “did pay a bill” (that is, one bill only).
On 26 October 2021, the applicant spoke to a Centrelink officer about rent assistance. After he described the rental arrangements with his father he was told that, if he had not actually paid $100 in rent each week, he was not considered by Centrelink to have been paying rent. He then decided that he had probably not been entitled to rental assistance in 2014 and repaid all of the money received, an amount of $374.24.
The applicant disclosed the false statement in relation to rental after he considered the further documents obtained by him from Centrelink. I accept that he had probably forgotten that he had claimed and received rental assistance in the first half of 2014, such that it was not disclosed to the Court in his first affidavit.
The applicant was not prosecuted by the Commonwealth in relation to any of the disclosures or non-disclosures involving payment of Youth Allowance or rental assistance by Centrelink.
Notwithstanding the conduct of the applicant vis-à-vis Centrelink, I am able to make a finding that he is currently of good fame and character and a fit and proper person to be admitted. I consider that the applicant has sufficiently disclosed and acknowledged his moral culpability. Indeed, at the time of his initial disclosure, he assumed that he had been dishonest and only deviated from that position when he obtained further Centrelink documents. Those documents then led to some confusion, causing the applicant to reconsider his earlier deposed state of mind at the time of the understatement of income to Centrelink. The applicant has not suggested anything other than that he has done something wrong; indeed recklessness in the circumstances described would still amount to dishonesty, as he concedes.
It is important to bear in mind that the conduct which bears adversely on the applicant’s fitness happened eight years ago, and that the applicant’s circumstances are very different today. I refer to [5] and [6] above. I also note the recent character references provided by Trevor Moses and Craig Smyth. Mr Moses previously practised in the chambers of the Solicitor-General, and relied on the applicant to carry out administrative tasks for him. He found the applicant to be honest and trustworthy. Mr Smyth is a lawyer of almost 19 years standing and is currently the Executive Director, Legal Services and Director Litigation, in the office of the Solicitor for the Northern Territory. He has known the applicant in a professional capacity since approximately July 2017. After the applicant commenced work as an administrative assistant, he became Mr Smyth’s executive assistant. The applicant was required to prepare various reports including financial reports; to maintain government records, and to assist in drafting of legal and government documents including Ministerial and Cabinet submissions. Mr Smyth considers that any finding that the applicant engaged in fraud or dishonesty or in any subsequent lack of candour with the Court “would not be consistent with [Mr Smyth’s] experience of him”. Mr Smyth writes of the applicant in these terms:
Bryce may quite well have been careless or reckless in his dealings with Centrelink in the past. In respect to the circumstances leading up to the debt, I am confident that his subsequent study of the law, experience in working in a law practice, and the intervening years have impressed upon him the absolute importance of such dealings. He was not careless or reckless in dealings with me or my office.
The applicant has positively satisfied me as to his “worthiness and reliability for the future”.[22] I am satisfied that this Court may rely on his frankness and candour and credit him as worthy of public confidence. In summary, I am satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a lawyer under the Act.
--------------------

[1] Legal Profession Act 2006, s 25(1).

[2]Legal Profession Act 2006, s 32(1). The reference to the “Admission Board” is to the Legal Practitioners Admission Board of the Northern Territory established under s 650 of the Act.

[3] Legal Profession Act 2006, s 32(3).

[4]Legal Profession Act 2006, s 29.

[5] Legal Profession Act 2006, s 11(1)(a).

[6] Legal Profession Act 2006, s 25(2)(b).

[7] Legal Profession Act 2006, s 30(1).

[8] In the matter of an application by Thomas John Saunders [2011] NTSC 63 at [5].

[9] Affidavit made 16 June 2021.

[10] Affidavit made 16 June 2021, annexure ‘J’, Notice dated 27 November 2018.

[11] Affidavit made 16 June 2021, annexure ‘K’.

[12]Affidavit made 16 June 2021, pars 29 to 32.

[13] Affidavit made 11 August 2021, par 13.

[14]Ibid, pars 15, 17.

[15] Ibid, par 45.

[16]Affidavit made 11 August 2021, pars 63, 64 and 65.

[17]Affidavit made 11 August 2021, annexure A, page 106 (FOI bundle page 96 of 215).

[18] This was a reference to the applicant’s first affidavit, par 30, where he said that he was living at his parents’ house in Stuart Park, not paying rent, but doing work for his father's business while he was interstate with medical issues.

[19]Affidavit made 11 August 2021, paragraphs 67 – 69.

[20] Affidavit made 24 January 2022.

[21] Affidavit made 24 January 2022, par 18.

[22]Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales v Meagher (1909) 9 CLR 655 at 681 per Isaacs J (in an application for re-admission).