Jones v Legal Practitioners' Admissions Board

[2016] QCA 164

[2016] QCA 164

COURT OF APPEAL

HOLMES CJ
MORRISON JA
PETER LYONS J

Appeal No 11944 of 2015

CALEB EVAN JONES  Appellant

v

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS' ADMISSIONS BOARD                 Respondent

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 20 JUNE 2016

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The appeal is dismissed.  The matter is adjourned to the August sittings.  Any further material is to be provided to the Board by 16 July.  But I will make some remarks, Mr Sofronoff, if you want to take a seat.

This matter, it seems, will be reconsidered by the Board.  There is no doubt that the Board correctly identified the lack of candour in relation to the army offences as a serious suitability matter.  The later acknowledgement by the appellant and applicant for admission of the true reason for non-disclosure of those matters supports the Board’s position, but it also does suggest some recognition on his part of his obligations and the importance of the need for candour.  Considerable time has elapsed since his application for admission was made.  That may have had a role in his greater realisation of his obligations and the seriousness of his failure of candour.  It also makes it critical that the Board be given material which will bring it up to date as to what has occurred since the last of the material was filed and his current circumstances.

There is no doubt that it would be appropriate that any evidence of or proposals for counselling and mentoring should be provided.  In making these remarks, the Court doesn’t purport to suggest what the Board’s approach should be to the application or the outcome of its considerations, but is merely identifying some matters which may be relevant in those considerations, and the Court’s, ultimately.