In the Matter Of Lisa Jane Barrett

[2021] SASCFC 37

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Full Court)

IN THE MATTER OF LISA JANE BARRETT

[2021] SASCFC 37

Judgment of The Full Court  (ex tempore)

(The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice Blue and the Honourable Justice Bleby)

3 September 2021

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - LAWYERS - QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION - FIT AND PROPER PERSONS

The applicant seeks admission as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Australia pursuant to s 15(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA). There were concerns about her conduct in her previous career as a midwife. That conduct was the subject of a coronial inquiry, proceedings before the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal and criminal proceedings in this Court.

The applicant has not been convicted of any criminal offence and, although the Health Practitioners Tribunal made adverse findings against the applicant, there was no suggestion of dishonesty.  After taking into account the applicant’s explanations and answers, her character references and psychological evidence, the Board of Examiners unanimously determined that the applicant was a fit and proper person to be admitted.

Held (by the Court), admitting the applicant:

1. The applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a practitioner of this Court.

Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) s 15; Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council Rules 2018 (SA); Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), referred to.

Barrett v Coroner’s Court of South Australia (2010) 108 SASR 568; Barrett v The Coroner’s Court of South Australia [2011] HCATrans 165; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Barrett [2014] SAHPT 1; R v Barrett (No 3) [2019] SASC 93; In Re Vadasz [1988] SASC 1044; Re Harrison [2002] SASC 335; Claire Amy Morel [2015] SASCFC 20, considered.

IN THE MATTER OF LISA JANE BARRETT

[2021] SASCFC 37

Full Court – Application for Admission:  Livesey P, Blue and Bleby JJ

THE COURT (ex tempore):

Introduction

1. Lisa Jane Barrett, the applicant, seeks admission as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of South Australia. An order is sought from this Court pursuant to s 15(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) (Legal Practitioners Act).

2. There is no issue about whether the applicant satisfied all of the educational requirements of the Legal Practitioners Act, the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) (Uniform Civil Rules) and the Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council Rules 2018 (SA) (LPEAC Rules).

The admission application

1. The issue was whether the applicant is a “fit and proper person” to be admitted as a practitioner pursuant to s 15(1)(a) of the Legal Practitioners Act. The application was referred to the Board of Examiners for a report in accordance with s 15(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA).

2. Initially, the Board of Examiners was not satisfied that the applicant was a “fit and proper” person because, based on the material then available, it considered that a number of serious errors of judgment had been made in her previous career as a midwife.  There was a concern that the applicant may have placed her own wishes and beliefs over the safety of the women and children whom she sought to assist, despite recommendations made by the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner.  She also intervened in an inquest in 2011 in a manner which was initially regarded as inappropriate.

3. In addition, the applicant did not attend a proceeding in the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal which was, likewise, initially regarded as inappropriate.  Although the applicant was charged with two counts of manslaughter following home birth deaths, she was acquitted.

Reconsideration of the application

1. Following its initial decision, the Board considered further evidence and explanations from the applicant and reassessed the matter.  The Board took into account a number of decisions. 

2. The Board found that the applicant had acknowledged that her previous conduct was unsatisfactory and it accepted that she had learned a great deal about the issues in which she had been involved as a result of her work experience and legal studies. 

3. The Board emphasised that the applicant has not been convicted of any criminal offence and, though there had been adverse findings made by the Health Practitioners Tribunal, there was no suggestion of dishonesty.  The applicant is no longer involved in birthing.  She explained the challenge made to the jurisdiction of the Coroner in a way which the Board accepted.  This challenge was made so as to assist the birth mother and to minimise her stress rather than avoid adverse findings against the applicant.  The applicant’s failure to attend Tribunal hearings was, likewise, explained in a manner which the Board found satisfactory.  Again, this was due to ignorance rather than any desire to avoid or minimise responsibility.

4. It is appropriate to emphasise that, in response to questioning from the Board, the applicant was regarded as open and frank.  She intends to pursue the law as a means of helping people.  She recognises a solicitor’s legal and other obligations and, in the view of the Board, she will display integrity, be honest and comply with the laws that apply to her.  There were persuasive, positive character references which attest to her integrity, forthright manner and desire to assist those who are vulnerable in society and work towards social justice.  The applicant does not intend to practice in medical or health law.  She recognises her obligations under the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules.  The Board noted that, on admission, the applicant would be required to undergo supervision for a period of two years, as must all newly admitted practitioners.

5. The Board concluded that, taking into account the applicant’s explanations and answers, her character references and psychological evidence, it unanimously determined that she was a fit and proper person to be admitted.

Conclusion

1. This Court has had an opportunity to review the matter and to carefully consider the Board’s reports, particularly the most recent report dated 23 July 2021. 

2. In the opinion of the Court, the applicant is a fit and proper person.  She will be admitted as a legal practitioner of this Court.