Kerr v Legal Services Commission - [2025] QDC 187

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kerr v Legal Services Commission [2025] QDC 187

PARTIES: ROBERT JOHN KERR

(Appellant)

V

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S

D 4 of 2024

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2025

JUDGE:

Clarke DCJ

ORDERS:
1.   Appeal be dismissed.

2.   The orders made by the Magistrate are confirmed.

3.   The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – summary hearing – where appellant was not a registered legal practitioner – whether the appellant was convicted of engaging in legal practice when not entitled to, and representing he was entitled to do so – whether a discretionary, legal or factual error has been demonstrated – whether the penalty imposed was excessive

LEGISLATION:
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 148A, 222, 223, 225, 226

Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld), Schedule 2

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), ss 5(1), 6(1), 22, 24, 25, 432

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 19

CASES:
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172

Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520

Legal Services Commissioner v Raghoobar [2023] QSC 41

Legal Services Commissioner v Walter [2011] QSC 132

Mbuzi v Torcetti [2008] QCA 231

McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612

R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550

Raghoobar v Legal Services Commissioner [2023] QCA 191

Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679

Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84

APPEARANCES:

R Kerr (self-represented)

RC Taylor instructed by Legal Services Commission for the Respondent

Mr Kerr appeals against his conviction by a Magistrate sitting at Gladstone on 6 November 2024 for two offences brought under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (LPA). The appeal is against his convictions for engaging as a legal practitioner or holding himself out to be one, while not registered or entitled to do so.
Although not precisely stipulated in the notice of appeal or documents subsequently filed, the self-represented appellant also confirmed in oral argument that the appeal is against the sentence imposed. It is said to be excessive. The penalty was a global fine of $4000.00 which was referred to the State Penalty Enforcement Registry. Convictions were recorded.
The first charge was brought under s 24(1) of the LPA that the appellant engaged in legal practice in Queensland, when he was not an Australian legal practitioner, on divers dates between 22 November 2022 and 12 July 2023 (first complaint). Charge two alleged that between those dates he represented that he was entitled to engage in legal practice, when not entitled to, contrary to s 25 (1) of the Act (second complaint).
Those offence provisions are contained with Chapter 2, Part 2.2…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kerr v Legal Services Commission 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QDC 187
Decision Date: 26 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kerr v Legal Services Commission involved an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, Kerr, was not a registered legal practitioner and was convicted of engaging in legal practice without entitlement and falsely representing that they were entitled to do so. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Kerr sought to overturn the conviction and sentence on the basis that the Magistrate had made a discretionary, legal or factual error, and that the penalty imposed was excessive.

The court considered whether the appeal was validly brought, and whether the appellant had demonstrated a discretionary, legal or factual error. The court also examined whether the penalty imposed by the Magistrate was excessive. The court noted that the appellant had not demonstrated any error on the part of the Magistrate, and that the penalty imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence committed.

The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders made by the Magistrate. The court held that the appeal was not well-founded, and that there was no error in the Magistrate’s decision. The court also found that the penalty imposed was appropriate and not excessive. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal requirements and the consequences of engaging in legal practice without entitlement. The court's confirmation of the Magistrate's orders reinforces the penalties for such offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal be dismissed.

2. The orders made by the Magistrate are confirmed.

3. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

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.